Skip to main content
Log in

Stochastic Einstein-locality and the Bell theorems

  • Varia
  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Standard proofs of generalized Bell theorems, aiming to restrict stochastic, local hidden-variable theories for quantum correlation phenomena, employ as a locality condition the requirement of conditional stochastic independence. The connection between this and the no-superluminary-action requirement of the special theory of relativity has been a topic of controversy. In this paper, we introduce an alternative locality condition for stochastic theories, framed in terms of the models of such a theory (§2). It is a natural generalization of a “light-cone determination” condition that is essentially equivalent to mathematical conditions that have been used to derive Bell inequalities in the deterministic case. Further, it is roughly equivalent to a condition proposed by Bell that, in one investigation, needed to be supplemented with a much stronger assumption in order to yield an inequality violated by some quantum mechanical predictions. It is shown here that this reflects a very general situation: from the proposed locality condition, even adding the strict anticorrelation condition and the auxiliary hypotheses needed to derive experimentally useful (and theoretically telling) inequalities, no Bell-type inequality is derivable. (These independence claims are the burden of §4.) A certain limitation on the scope of the proposed stochastic locality condition is exposed (§5), but it is found to be rather minor. The conclusion is thus supported that conditional stochastic independence, however reasonable on other grounds, is essentially stronger than what is required by the special theory.

Our results stand in apparent contradiction with a class of derivations purporting to obtain generalized Bell inequalities from “locality” alone. It is shown in Appendix (B) that such proofs do not achieve their goal. This fits with our conclusion that generalized Bell theorems are not straightforward generalizations of theorems restricting deterministic hidden-variable theories, and that, in fact, such generalizations do not exist. This leaves open the possibility that a satisfactory, non-deterministic account of the quantum correlation phenomena can be given within the framework of the special theory.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arnold, V. and Avez, A.: 1968, Ergodic Problems of Classical Mechanics. Benjamin, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bell, J.S.: 1964, ‘On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox’, Physics 1, 195–200.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bell, J.S.: 1966, ‘On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics’, Reviews of Modern Physics 38, 447–52.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bell, J. S.: 1976, ‘The theory of local beables’, Epistemological Letters 9, 11–23. [To be reprinted in Dialectica (1982).]

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bohm, D.: 1951, Quantum Theory, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bub, J.: 1973, ‘On the completeness of quantum mechanics’, in C. A. Hooker (ed.), Contemporary Research in the Foundations and Philosophy of Quantum Theory, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 1–65.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Clauser, J. F.: 1976, Physical Review Letters 36, 1223–26.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Clauser, J. F. and Horne, M. A.: 1974, ‘Experimental consequences of objective local theories’, Physical Review D 10, 526–535.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Clauser, J. F., Horne, M. A., Shimony, A. and Holt, R. A.: 1969, ‘Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories’, Physical Review Letters 23, 880–83.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Clauser, J. F. and Shimony, A.: 1978, ‘Bell's theorem: experimental tests and implications’, Rep. Prog. Phys. 41, 1881–1927.

    Google Scholar 

  11. D'Espagnat, B.: 1979, ‘The quantum theory and reality’, Scientific American 241, 5, 258–81.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Eberhard, P. H.: 1977, ‘Bell's theorem without hidden variables’, Il Nuovo Cimento 38B, 75–80.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fine, A.: 1981, ‘Correlations and physical locality’, in R. N. Giere and P. D. Asquith (eds.), Philosophy of Science Association Proceedings, 1980, Vol. 2, PSA, E. Lansing, Michigan. pp. 535–562.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Freedman, S. J. and Clauser, J. F.: 1972, ‘Experimental test of local hidden-variable theories’, Physical Review Letters 28, 938–41.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fry, E. S. and Thompson, R. C.: 1976, Physical Review Letters 37, 465–68.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gudder, S. P.: ‘On hidden-variable theories’, Journal of Mathematical Physics 11, 431–36.

  17. Healey, R.: 1979, ‘Quantum realism: naiveté is no excuse’, Synthese 42, 121–44.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hellman, G.: ‘Einstein and Bell: Strengthening the case for microphysical randomness’, Synthese (this issue).

  19. Kochen, S. and Specker, E. P.: 1967, ‘The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics’, Journal of Mathematics and Mechanics 17, 59–87.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Lebowitz, J. L. and Penrose, O.: 1973, ‘Modern ergodic theory’, Physics Today 26, 2, 23–29.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Nordin, I.: 1979, ‘Determinism and locality in quantum mechanics’, Synthese 42, 71–90.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Shimony, A.: 1978, ‘Reply to Bell’, Epistemological Letters 18, 1–3. [To be reprinted in Dialectica (1982).]

    Google Scholar 

  23. Shimony, A., Horne, M. and Clauser, J. F.: 1976, ‘Comment on “The theory of local beables”’, Epistemological Letters 13, 1–8. [To be reprinted in Dialectica (1982).]

    Google Scholar 

  24. Skyrms, B.: 1980, Causal Necessity, Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Stapp, H. P.: 1971, ‘S-matrix interpretation of quantum theory’, Physical Review D, 3, 1303–20.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Stein, H.: 1972, ‘On the conceptual structure of quantum mechanics’, in R. Colodny, ed., Paradigms and Paradoxes, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Suppes, and Zanotti, M.: 1976, ‘On the determinism of hidden variable theories with strict correlation and conditional statistical independence of observables’, in P. Suppes (ed.), Logic and Probability in Quantum Mechanics, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 445–55.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Suppes, P. and Zanotti, M., ‘When are probabilistic explanations possible’, Synthese (forthcoming).

  29. Thomason, R. and Gupta, A.: 1980, ‘A theory of conditionals in the context of branching time’, The Philosophical Review 89, 65–90.

    Google Scholar 

  30. van Fraassen, B. C.: 1982, ‘The charybdis of realism’, Synthese 52, 25–38.

    Google Scholar 

  31. van Fraassen, B. C., ‘The end of the Stalnaker Conditional?’ (unpublished MS).

  32. van Fraassen, B. C.: 1979, ‘Foundations of probability: a model frequency interpretation’, in G. Toraldo di Francia (ed.), Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi”, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 344–94.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Wigner, E. P.: 1970, ‘On hidden variables and quantum mechanical probabilities’, American Journal of Physics 38, 1005–9.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hellman, G. Stochastic Einstein-locality and the Bell theorems. Synthese 53, 461–503 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00486162

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00486162

Keywords

Navigation