Skip to main content

Constraints on Determinism: Bell Versus Conway–Kochen

Abstract

Bell’s Theorem from Physics 36:1–28 (1964) and the (Strong) Free Will Theorem of Conway and Kochen from Notices AMS 56:226–232 (2009) both exclude deterministic hidden variable theories (or, in modern parlance, ‘ontological models’) that are compatible with some small fragment of quantum mechanics, admit ‘free’ settings of the archetypal Alice and Bob experiment, and satisfy a locality condition akin to parameter independence. We clarify the relationship between these theorems by giving reformulations of both that exactly pinpoint their resemblance and their differences. Our reformulation imposes determinism in what we see as the only consistent way, in which the ‘ontological state’ initially determines both the settings and the outcome of the experiment. The usual status of the settings as ‘free’ parameters is subsequently recovered from independence assumptions on the pertinent (random) variables. Our reformulation also clarifies the role of the settings in Bell’s later generalization of his theorem to stochastic hidden variable theories.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. Analogous earlier results were obtained, in chronological order, by Heywood and Redhead [20], Stairs [34], Brown and Svetlichny [7], and Clifton [11] (of which only [20] was cited by Conway and Kochen).

  2. Bell [3] even attributes it to Einstein. See [37] for a detailed analysis of the way this condition is actually used by Bell in [3, 5], and of the way it has been (mis)perceived by others. In particular, one should distinguish it from the locality condition usually named after Bell [6]. The latter, also called local causality, is a conjunction of two (probabilistic) notions that are now generally called Parameter Independence (pi) and Outcome Independence (oi); see [8, 22, 23, 27, 31, 33]. The latter is automatically satisfied in the type of deterministic theories studied in [3, 13, 14], upon which the former reduces to the condition stated in the main text above, but now conditioned on certain values of the hidden variables. Note that our definition of the term pi will be different from the literature so far, though in the same spirit.

  3. The only significant exception we could find is the small and otherwise interesting book by Hemmick and Shakur [17], whose scathing treatment of the Free Will Theorem is somewhat undermined by their claim (p. 90) that the assumption of determinism follows from the other assumptions in the Strong Free Will Theorem (notably pi and perfect correlation). This seems questionable [37]: either Bell’s (later) locality condition (i.e., pi plus oi) in conjunction with perfect correlation implies determinism, or pi plus determinism implies oi (and hence Bell Locality). Perhaps our view (which is certainly shared by Conway and Kochen!) that the assumptions of the Strong Free Will Theorem have been chosen quite carefully is clearer from our reformulation below than from even their second paper [14] (not to speak of their first [13]). Indeed, if valid, the objection of Hemmick and Shakur could just as well be raised against Bell’s Theorem [3], where it would be equally misguided if both results are construed as attempts to put constraints on determinism in the first place. Our treatment of parameter settings will also be different from [17].

  4. This even led them to their curious way of paraphrasing their theorem as showing that ‘If we humans have free will, then elementary particles already have their own small share of this valuable commodity’.

  5. See also [6, 10] and most recently [26] for the interpretation of hidden variables as ontological states.

  6. See also Colbeck and Renner [12] for at least the first step of this strategy in the context of stochastic hidden variable theories. Using settings as labels, on the other hand, is defended in e.g. [8, 10, 32].

  7. Equivalently, \(\alpha \) and \(\beta \) could stand for the corresponding unit vectors \(\vec {a}\) and \(\vec {b}\), defined up to a sign.

  8. Here \(P_E(F\ne G|A=\alpha ,B=\beta )\equiv P_E(F=0,G=1|A=\alpha ,B=\beta )+P_E(F=1,G=0|A=\alpha ,B=\beta )\). The complete statistics are: \(P_E(F=1,G=1|A=\alpha ,B=\beta )=P_E(F=0,G=0|A=\alpha ,B=\beta )={\frac{1}{2}} \cos ^2(\alpha -\beta )\) and \(P_E(F=0,G=1|A=\alpha ,B=\beta )=P_E(F=1,G=0|A=\alpha ,B=\beta )={\frac{1}{2}} \sin ^2(\alpha -\beta )\).

  9. This formulation incorporates the assumption that \(P\) is independent of \(A,B,F,G\), and vice versa.

  10. Here \(P(F=\lambda ,G=\mu |A=\alpha ,B=\beta )\equiv P(F=\lambda ,G=\mu ,A=\alpha ,B=\beta )/P(A=\alpha ,B=\beta )\) and \(P(F=\lambda ,G=\mu ,A=\alpha ,B=\beta )\equiv P(\{x\in X\mid F(x)=\lambda ,G(x)=\mu ,A(x)=\alpha ,B(x)=\beta \})\), etc.

  11. On the usual definition, this also implies that the pairs \((A,B)\), \((A,Z)\), and \((B,Z)\) are independent.

  12. This is true even if \(F=F(A,B,Z)\) and \(G=G(A,B,Z)\) rather than \(F=F(A,Z)\) and \(G=G(B,Z)\).

  13. What is being measured here by say Alice with setting \(\mathbf {a}\) is the triple \((\langle \vec {a}_1,\vec {J}\rangle ^2,\langle \vec {a}_2,\vec {J}\rangle ^2,\langle \vec {a}_3,\vec {J}\rangle ^2)\), where \(\vec {J}\) is the angular momentum operator for spin one. Each operator \(\langle \vec {a}_i,\vec {J}\rangle \) has spectrum \(\{-1, 0,1\}\), so each square \(\langle \vec {a}_i,\vec {J}\rangle ^2\) can be 0 or 1. Since \(\vec {J}^2=2\), one has \(\langle \vec {a}_1,\vec {J}\rangle ^2+\langle \vec {a}_2,\vec {J}\rangle ^2+\langle \vec {a}_3,\vec {J}\rangle ^2=2\), which gives (3.1).

  14. The complete (theoretical) statistics are: \(P_{QM}(F_i=1,G_j=1|A=\mathbf {a},B=\mathbf {b}) ={\frac{1}{3}}(1+\langle \vec {a}_i,\vec {b}_j\rangle ^2)\),

    \(P_{QM}(F_i=0,G_j=0|A=\mathbf {a},B=\mathbf {b})= {\frac{1}{3}}\langle \vec {a}_i,\vec {b}_j\rangle ^2\), \(P_{QM}(F_i=1,G_j=0|A=\mathbf {a},B=\mathbf {b})= {\frac{1}{3}}(1-\langle \vec {a}_i,\vec {b}_j\rangle ^2)\), and \(P_{QM}(F_i=0,G_j=1|A=\mathbf {a},B=\mathbf {b})= {\frac{1}{3}}(1-\langle \vec {a}_i,\vec {b}_j\rangle ^2)\). See footnote 8 for notation like \(P(F_i\ne G_j|\cdot )\).

  15. See Definition 4.1 below for Determinism, and Definition 2.1 for the others, mutatis mutandis.

  16. Here \(P_{QM}(F_i=G_j|A_i=B_j)\) denotes \(P_{QM}(F_i=0,G_j=0|A_i=B_j)+P_{QM}(F_i=1,G_j=1|A_i=B_j)\), where the setting \(A_i=B_j\) stands for \((A=\mathbf {a},B=\mathbf {b})\) subject to \(\vec {a}_i=\pm \vec {b}_j\). It follows from (3.3) or the previous footnote that \(P_{QM}(F_i=G_j|A_i=B_j)={\frac{1}{3}}(1+2\cos ^2 \theta _{\vec {a}_i,\vec {b}_j})\), which for \(\vec {a}_i=\pm \vec {b}_j\) equals unity.

  17. To keep matters simple, we will not be bothered with the notational difference between frames \([\vec {a}_1,\vec {a}_2,\vec {a}_3]\) and orthonormal bases \((\vec {a}_1,\vec {a}_2,\vec {a}_3)\), and similarly for \(\mathbf {b}\), until the end of the proof.

References

  1. Appleby, D.M.: The Bell–Kochen–Specker theorem. Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys. 36, 1–28 (2005)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Barrett, J., Kent, A.: Non-contextuality, finite precision measurement and the Kochen–Specker theorem. Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys. 35, 151–176 (2004)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Bell, J.S.: On the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen Paradox. Physics 1, 195–200 (1964)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bell, J.S.: On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447–452 (1966)

    ADS  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Bell, J.S.: The theory of local beables, CERN-TH.2035 (1975), Epistemological Letters 9 (1976). Dialectica 39, 85–96 (1985)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  6. Bell, J.S.: La nouvelle cuisine. In: Sarlemijn, A., Kroes, P. (eds.) Between Science and Technology, pp. 97–115. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1990)

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Brown, H., Svetlichny, G.: Nonlocality and Gleason’s lemma. Part I. Deterministic theories. Found. Phys. 20, 1379–1387 (1990)

    ADS  Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Bub, J.: Interpreting the Quantum World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. Bub, J.: Is von Neumann’s ‘no hidden variables’ proof silly?, deep beauty: mathematical innovation and the search for underlying intelligibility in the quantum World. In: Halvorson, H. (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)

  10. Butterfield, J.: Bell’s theorem: what it takes. Br. J. Philos. Sci. 43, 41–83 (1992)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  11. Clifton, R.: Getting contextual and nonlocal elements-of-reality the easy way. Am. J. Phys. 61, 443–447 (1993)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Colbeck, R., Renner, R.: No extension of quantum theory can have improved predictive power. Nat. Commun. 2, 411 (2011)

    ADS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Conway, J., Kochen, S.: The free will theorem. Found. Phys. 36, 1441–1473 (2006)

    ADS  Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Conway, J., Kochen, S.: The strong free will theorem. Notices AMS 56, 226–232 (2009)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Gill R.D.: Statistics, causality and Bell’s theorem, Stat. Sci. (to appear). arxiv.org/pdf/1207.5103

  16. Goldstein, S., Tausk, D.V., Tumulka, R., Zanghi, N.: What does the free will theorem actually prove? Notices AMS 57, 1451–1453 (2010)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  17. Hemmick, D.L., Shakur, A.M.: Bell’s Theorem and Quantum Realism: Reassessment in the Light of the Schrödinger Paradox. Springer, New York (2012)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  18. Hermens, R.: The problem of contextuality and the impossibility of experimental metaphysics thereof. Stud. Hist. Philos. Mod. Phys. 42, 214–225 (2011)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Hermens, R.: Conway-Kochen and the finite precision loophole, arxiv.org/pdf/1404.2114

  20. Heywood, P., Redhead, M.: Nonlocality and the Kochen–Specker paradox. Found. Phys. 13, 481–499 (1983)

    ADS  Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  21. ’t Hooft, G: The free-will postulate in quantum mechanics, arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0701097

  22. Jaeger, G.: Quantum Objects: Non-Local Correlation, Causality and Objective Indefiniteness in the Quantum World. Springer, New York (2014)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Jarrett, J.P.: On the physical significance of the locality conditions in the Bell arguments. Noûs 18, 569–589 (1984)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Kallenberg, O.: Foundations of Modern Probability, 2nd edn. Springer, New York (2002)

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  25. Kochen, S., Specker, E.: The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. J. Math. Mech. 17, 59–87 (1967)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Leifer, M.: Is the quantum state real? A review of \(\psi \)-ontology theorems. http://mattleifer.info/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/quanta-pbr.pdf. Accessed 1 Feb 2014

  27. Maudlin, T.: Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden (2011)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. Norsen, T.: Local causality and completeness: Bell vs Jarrett. Found. Phys. 39, 273–294 (2009)

    ADS  Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  29. Peres, A.: Quantum Theory: Concepts and Methods. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1995)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Pitowsky, I.: Quantum Probability—Quantum Logic. Springer, Berlin (1989)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Seevinck, M.P.: Parts and Wholes: An Inquiry into Quantum and Classical Correlations PhD Thesis, Utrecht University (2008). http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4583/. Accessed 1 Feb 2014

  32. Seevinck, M.P., Uffink, J.: Not throwing out the baby with the bathwater: Bell’s condition of local causality mathematically ‘sharp and clean’. Explan. Predict. Confirm. 2, 425–450 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Shimony, A.: Events and processes in the quantum world. In: Penrose, R., Isham, C. (eds.) Quantum Concepts in Space and Time, pp. 182–203. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Stairs, A.: Quantum logic, realism, and value definiteness. Philos. Sci. 50, 578–602 (1983)

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  35. von Neumann, J.: Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Springer, Berlin (1932)

  36. Werner, R.F., Wolf, M.M.: Bell inequalities and entanglement, arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0107093

  37. Wiseman, H.M.: The two Bell’s theorems of John Bell, arxiv.org/pdf/1402.0351

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors are indebted to Jeff Bub, Jeremy Butterfield, Dennis Dieks, Richard Gill, Hans Maassen, and Matt Leifer for various comments on this work (including predecessors).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Klaas Landsman.

Additional information

Dedicated to Professor Hans Maassen, on the occasion of his inaugural lecture (15-01-2014).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cator, E., Landsman, K. Constraints on Determinism: Bell Versus Conway–Kochen. Found Phys 44, 781–791 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-014-9815-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-014-9815-z

Keywords

  • Free will theorem
  • Bell’s theorem
  • Hidden variable theories
  • Determinism