Stop making sense of Bell’s theorem and nonlocality?

Original Paper in Philosophy of Physics

Abstract

In a recent paper on Foundations of Physics, Stephen Boughn reinforces a view that is more shared in the area of the foundations of quantum mechanics than it would deserve, a view according to which quantum mechanics does not require nonlocality of any kind and the common interpretation of Bell theorem as a nonlocality result is based on a misunderstanding. In the present paper I argue that this view is based on an incorrect reading of the presuppositions of the EPR argument and the Bell theorem and, as a consequence, is unfounded.

Keywords

Bell’s theorem Non-locality Classicality Counterfactuality 

References

  1. Bell, J.S. (1964). On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. Physics, 1, 195–200 (reprinted in Bell 2004, 14–21).Google Scholar
  2. Bell, J. S. (2004). Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boughn, S. (2017). Making sense of Bell’s theorem and quantum nonlocality. Foundations of Physics, 47, 640–657.Google Scholar
  4. C-F-QM (1962) Conference on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Physics Department, Xavier University.Google Scholar
  5. Einstein, A. (1935). AE 22-047, Albert Einstein Archive at the Jewish National and University Library, Jerusalem.Google Scholar
  6. Gachechiladze, M., Budroni, C., & Gühne, O. (2016). Extreme violation of local realism in quantum hypergraph states. Physical Review Letters, 116, 070401.Google Scholar
  7. Ghirardi, G. C., & Grassi, R. (1994). Outcome predictions and property attribution: the EPR argument reconsidered. Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 25, 397–423.Google Scholar
  8. Ghirardi, G. C., Rimini, A., & Weber, T. (1980). A general argument against superluminal transmission through the quantum mechanical measurement process. Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 27, 293–298.Google Scholar
  9. Ghirardi, G. C., Grassi, R., Butterfield, J., & Fleming, G. N. (1993). Parameter dependence and outcome dependence in dynamical models for state vector reduction. Foundations of Physics, 23, 341–364.Google Scholar
  10. Goldstein, S. (2017) Bohmian Mechanics”, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, E. N. Zalta (ed.),<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/qm-bohm/>.
  11. Griffiths, R. B. (2011). EPR, Bell and quantum locality. American Journal of Physics, 79, 954–965.Google Scholar
  12. Howard, D. (1985). Einstein on locality and separability. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 16, 171–201.Google Scholar
  13. Howard, D. (2007). Revisiting the Einstein–Bohr dialogue. Iyyun: Jerusalem Philosophical Quarterly, 56, 57–90.Google Scholar
  14. Jarrett, J. (1984). On the physical significance of the locality conditions in the Bell arguments. Nous, 18, 569–589.Google Scholar
  15. Laudisa, F. (2008). Non-local realistic theories and the scope of the Bell theorem. Foundations of Physics, 38, 1110–1132.Google Scholar
  16. Laudisa F. (2012). The uninvited guest: ‘local realism’ and the Bell theorem. In H. De Regt, S. Hartmann, & S. Okasha (eds.), EPSA Philosophy of Science: Amsterdam 2009, Springer, Berlin, pp. 137–149.Google Scholar
  17. Laudisa F., Rovelli C. (2013) Relational Quantum Mechanics”, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2013 Edition), E.N. Zalta (ed.), <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2013/entries/qm-relational/>.
  18. Maudlin T. (1994). 20113, Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity. The Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester.Google Scholar
  19. Maudlin, T. (2011). How Bell reasoned: a reply to Griffiths. American Journal of Physics, 79, 966–970.Google Scholar
  20. Maudlin, T. (2014). What Bell did. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 47, 424010.Google Scholar
  21. Norsen, T. (2007). Against ‘realism’. Foundations of Physics, 37, 311–340.Google Scholar
  22. Pawloski, M., & Brukner, C. (2009). Monogamy of Bell’s inequality violations in nonsignaling theories. Physical Review Letters, 102, 0030403.Google Scholar
  23. Peres, A. (1978). Unperformed measurements have no result. American Journal of Physics, 46, 745–747.Google Scholar
  24. Peres, A., & Terno, D. (2004). Quantum information and relativity theory. Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 93–123.Google Scholar
  25. Redhead, M. (1987). Incompleteness, Nonlocality and Realism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  26. Shimony, A. (1984) Controllable and uncontrollable non-locality, In Kamefuchi, S. et al. (eds.) Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in Light of the New Technology, The Physical Society of Japan, Tokyo (reprinted in A. Shimony, Search for a Naturalistic Worldview, vol. II, pp. 130–139, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1993).Google Scholar
  27. Smerlak, M., & Rovelli, C. (2007). Relational EPR. Foundations of Physics, 37, 427–445.Google Scholar
  28. Stapp, H.P. (1975). Bell’s theorem and world process. Nuovo Cimento, 29B, 270–276.Google Scholar
  29. Werner, R. (2014). Comment on ‘What Bell did’. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 47, 424011.Google Scholar
  30. Whitaker, A. (2016). Richard Feynman and Bell’s theorem. American Journal of Physics, 84, 493–494.Google Scholar
  31. Zukovski, M., & Brukner, C. (2014). Quantum nonlocality – it ain’t necessarily so…. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 47, 424009.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Human SciencesUniversity of Milan-BicoccaMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations