Advertisement

Foundations of Physics

, Volume 44, Issue 3, pp 296–304 | Cite as

On Leggett Theories: A Reply

  • Federico LaudisaEmail author
Article

Abstract

In his 2013 Foundations of Physics paper Mathias Egg claims to show that my critical arguments toward the foundational significance of Leggett’s non-local theories are misguided. The main motivation is that my argument would connect too strongly the Leggett original motivation for introducing this new class of theories with the foundational significance of these theories per se. Egg basically aims to show that, although it can be conceded that the Leggett original motivation relies on a mistaken view of the original Bell theorem, the investigation on the Leggett theories does have a foundational meaning that can be disassociated from the view that Leggett himself has of of them. As a reply to Egg, I would like to argue here that, even if we assume to disentangle the Leggett view from the fate of the Leggett theories, there is still room to dispute the foundational significance of the Leggett ‘non-local realistic’ research program.

Keywords

Leggett inequality Non-Local Realism Bell Inequality   CHSH Inequality 

References

  1. 1.
    Bell, J.S.: Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality. J. Phys. 42, 41–61 (1981) (reprinted in Bell 2004, pp. 139–158).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bell, J.S.: Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, 2nd edn. Cambridge University, Cambridge (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Branciard, C.: Not all entangled states violate Leggett’s crypto-nonlocality. Phys. Rev. A 88, 042113 (2013)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Branciard, C., Brunner, N., Gisin, N., Lamas-Linares, A., Ling, A., Kurtsiefer, C., Scarani, V.: Testing quantum correlations versus single-particle properties within Leggett’s model and beyond. Nature Phys. 4, 681–685 (2008)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clauser, J.F., Horne, M.A., Shimony, A., Holt, R.A.: Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories. Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880–884 (1969)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Egg, M.: The foundational significance of Leggett’s non-local hidden-variable theories. Found. Phys. 43, 872–880 (2013)ADSCrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ghirardi, G., Grassi, R.: Outcome predictions and property attribution: the EPR argument reconsidered. Stud. Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys. 25, 397–424 (1994)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goldstein, S., Norsen, T., Tausk, D., Zanghì, N.: Bell’s theorem. Scholarpedia 6(10), 8378 (2011)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gröblacher, S., Paterek, T., Kaltenbaek, R., Brukner, C., Žukowski, M., Aspelmeyer, M., Zeilinger, A.: An experimental test of non-local realism. Nature Phys. 446, 871–875 (2007)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Laudisa, F.: Non-local realistic theories and the scope of the Bell theorem. Found. Phys. 38, 1110–1132 (2008)ADSCrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Laudisa, F.: Against the No-go philosophy of quantum mechanics. Eur. J. Phil. Sci. 4(1), 1–17 (2014)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leggett, A.: Nonlocal hidden-variable theories and quantum mechanics: an incompatibility theorem. Found. Phys. 33, 1469–1493 (2003)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Navascués, M.: The physics of crypto-nonlocality. Phys. Rev. A 89(2), 022114 (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Norsen, T.: Against ‘realism’. Found. Phys. 37, 311–340 (2007)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stapp, H.P.: Quantum mechanics, local causality, and process philosophy. Process Stud. 7, 173–182 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations