Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science ((BSPS,volume 184))

Abstract

Consider pairs of electrons produced in the singlet state and allowed to separate to a very great distance. We know from the work of Bell that no theory can predict violations of Bell’s inequality for spin measurements on those pairs if it satisfied two conditions. The first (condition a) is that the theory ascribe either a single initial state or a convex sum of states to the ensemble of pairs such that the initial states are statistically independent of the spin measurements later carried out on the electrons. The second (condition b) is most easily understood if expressed differently for deterministic and for stochastic theories. For a deterministic theory we require (condition b′) that the theory determine the results of each measurement solely on the basis of the initial state and the details of the measurement carried out on that particle. For a stochastic theory we demand (condition b*) that the theory assign probabilities for measurement results based solely on the initial state and the measurement carried out on a single electron, which probabilities are unchanged when one conditionalizes on the measurements and results obtained on the other particle in the pair. (Conditions b′ and b* are really the same condition, expressed in the one case appropriately to a deterministic theory, in the other for an indeterministic one. A theory which violates b′ also violates b* since conditionalizing on information about the measurement carried out on the second electron can render the result of the first measurement certain.) Einstein et al. (1935) had already pointed out the impossibility of a non-deterministic theory which obeys a and b* to recover the predictions of quantum theory, and so argued in favor of a deterministic theory. Bell showed that no deterministic theory obeying a and b′ could recover all of the predictions of quantum mechanics. The later work of Greenberger et al. (1989) showed that the reference to ensembles is otiose: there can be individual triples of particles such that no initial state of type a can recover all of the predictions of quantum mechanics if the theory is of type b′ or b*.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Note

  1. See also Lockwood (1989) and Squires (1990b) for similar views.

    Google Scholar 

  2. The story about lab reports on the many-minds view is really more complicated than this: the ink on pages of journals ends up in a superposition of different states which report different results: a particular “result”, though, is experienced in the mind(s) of each reader.

    Google Scholar 

  3. But see the question raised by Squires, discussed below.

    Google Scholar 

  4. An additional flaw in this argument is that it does not provide an instance of the Outcome Counterfactual even for the dollar bill case, since to get different outcomes there one must have a different initial state (i.e., the halves have to have been put in different envelopes).

    Google Scholar 

  5. For a proposal to derive a foliation from a four-vector field on the space-time, see Dürr et al. (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  6. For comparison, see how the value of the synchronization parameter in the two-time Bohmian mechanics of Berndt, Dürr, Goldstein and Zanghì (1996) effects the particle trajectories (see especially their Figure 4). The setting of the synchronization parameter corresponds to the foliation of space-time we are considering.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1996 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Maudlin, T. (1996). Space-Time in the Quantum World. In: Cushing, J.T., Fine, A., Goldstein, S. (eds) Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol 184. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8715-0_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8715-0_20

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4698-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-015-8715-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics