Action and Passion at a Distance

An Essay in Honor of Professor Abner Shimony
  • Sandu Popescu
  • Daniel Rohrlich
Part of the Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science book series (BSPS, volume 194)

Introductory Abstract

Quantum mechanics permits nonlocality — both nonlocal correlations and nonlocal equations of motion — while respecting relativistic causality. Is quantum mechanics the unique theory that reconciles nonlocality and causality? We consider two models, going beyond quantum mechanics, of nonlocality — “superquantum” correlations and nonlocal “jamming” of correlations — and derive new results for the jamming model. In one space dimension, jamming allows reversal of the sequence of cause and effect; in higher dimensions, however, effect never precedes cause.


Relativistic Causality Unique Theory Quantum Correlation Light Cone Binary Condition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    J.S. Bell, Physics 1, 195 (1964).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    The term relativistic causality denotes the constraint that information cannot be transferred at speeds exceeding the speed of light. This constraint is also called no signalling.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    G.C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini and T. Weber, Lett. Nuovo Cim. 27, 263 (1980).MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Shimony, in Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in Light of the New Technology, S. Kamefuchi et al., eds. (Tokyo, Physical Society of Japan, 1983), p. 225.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Shimony, in Quantum Concepts in Space and Time, R. Penrose and C. Isham, eds. ( Oxford, Claredon Press, 1986 ), p. 182.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Y. Aharonov, H. Pendleton, and A. Petersen, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 2, 213 (1969), 3, 443 (1970); Y. Aharonov, in Proc. Int. Symp. Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, ( Tokyo, Physical Society of Japan, 1983 ), p. 10.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Y. Aharonov, unpublished lecture notes.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, Phys. Rev. 115, 485 (1959), reprinted in Fractional Statistics and Anyon Superconductivity, F. Wilczek, ed. ( Singapore, World-Scientific, 1990 ).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    It is true that the electron interacts locally with a vector potential. However, the vector potential is not a physical quantity; all physical quantities are gauge invariant.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Popescu and D. Rohrlich, Found. Phys. 24, 379 (1994).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    J. Grunhaus, S. Popescu and D. Rohrlich, Tel Aviv University preprint TAUP-2263–95 (1995), to appear in Phys. Rev. A.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. Rohrlich and S. Popescu, to appear in the Proceedings of 60 Years of E.P.R. (Workshop on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, in honor of Nathan Rosen) (Tel Aviv, Technion, 1995 ).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Shimony, private communication.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J.F. Clauser, M.A. Home, A. Shimony and R.A. Holt, Phys. Rev. Len. 23, 880 (1969).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    B.S. Tsirelson (Cirel’son), Lett. Math. Phys. 4, 93 (1980), L.J. Landau, Phys. Lett. A 120, 52 (1987).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    For the maximal violation of the CHSH inequality consistent with relativity see also L. ‘Chaffin and B. Tsirelson, in Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics ‘85, P. Lahti et al., eds. (Singapore, World-Scientific, 1985), p. 441; P. Rastall, Found. Phys. 15, 963 (1985); S. Summers and R. Werner, J. Math. Phys. 28, 2440 (1987); G. Krenn and K. Svozil, preprint (1994) quant-ph/9503010.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Aspect, J. Dalibard and G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804 (1982).MathSciNetADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. Bohm, Wholeness and the Implicate Order (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980); D. Bohm and B. Hiley, Found. Phys. 5, 93 (1975), J.-P. Vigier, Astr. Nachr. 303, 55 (1982); N. Cufaro-Petroni and J.-P. Vigier, Phys. Len. A. 81, 12 (1981); P. Droz-Vincent, Phys. Rev. D 19, 702 (1979); A. Garuccio, V. A. Rapisarda and J.-P. Vigier, Lett. Nuovo Cim. 32, 451 (1981).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    See e.g. D. Bohm, The Special Theory of Relativity ( New York, W.A. Benjamin Inc., 1965 ), pp. 156–158.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    We thank Y. Aharonov for a discussion on this point.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    They need not be incompatible. An event in one Lorentz frame often is another event in another frame. For example, absorption of a virtual photon in one Lorentz frame corresponds to emission of a virtual photon in another. In jamming, Jim might not only send instructions, but also receive information, in both cases unconsciously. (Jim is conscious only of whether or not he jams.) Suppose that the time reverse of “sending instructions” corresponds to “receiving information”. Then each observer interprets the sequence of events correctly for his Lorentz frame.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Y. Aharonov and D. Albert, Phys. Rev. D 24, 359 (1981).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandu Popescu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Daniel Rohrlich
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Dept. of PhysicsBoston University [S.P.]USA
  2. 2.School of Physics and AstronomyTel-Aviv University [D.R.]Israel

Personalised recommendations