Abstract
Bell’s theorem has fascinated physicists and philosophers since his 1964 paper, which was written in response to the 1935 paper of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen. Bell’s theorem and its many extensions have led to the claim that quantum mechanics and by inference nature herself are nonlocal in the sense that a measurement on a system by an observer at one location has an immediate effect on a distant entangled system (one with which the original system has previously interacted). Einstein was repulsed by such “spooky action at a distance” and was led to question whether quantum mechanics could provide a complete description of physical reality. In this paper I argue that quantum mechanics does not require spooky action at a distance of any kind and yet it is entirely reasonable to question the assumption that quantum mechanics can provide a complete description of physical reality. The magic of entangled quantum states has little to do with entanglement and everything to do with superposition, a property of all quantum systems and a foundational tenet of quantum mechanics.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
David Bohm, building on de Broglie’s notion of a pilot wave, had already created a nonlocal hidden variable theory [7] that reproduced all the predictions of non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Because of its nonlocality, it does not violate Bell’s inequality.
However, because these correlations can only be interpreted in terms of a quantum mechanical statistical distribution of many such observations, no usable information can be transmitted from A to B in this way thereby preserving consistency with special relativity.
Rather than embracing either nonlocality or solipsism, Mermin’s [4] more balanced position is simply that the experimental verification of the violation of Bell’s inequality provides direct evidence that excludes Einstein’s particular concept of an “independent existence of the physical reality.”
As just mentioned, Bell and Wiseman argue that even if quantum mechanics is incomplete, the quantum mechanical violation of Bell’s inequality implies that it either violates the principles of relativity or objective reality does not exist.
Mermin [19] provided a simpler version of this construction.
Noncontextuality is the assumption that a hidden variable theory must assign to an observable a value that is independent of the complete disposition of the relevant measuring apparatus.
The standard Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is counterfactually indefinite because one cannot make definite statements about the hypothetical results of measurements of quantities corresponding to non-commuting operators.
Wigner [22] made essentially the same point.
Bell’s 1964 paper has been cited more than 6000 times in the last 10 years compared to only a handful of citations of Furry’s 1936 paper in that time period.
Also, these experiments proved to be seminal in the emerging field of quantum information and quantum computing.
References
Boughn, S.: “A modest view of Bell’s theorem”, arXiv:1604.08529
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., Rosen, N.: Can quantum–mechanical description of reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777–780 (1935)
Bell, J.: On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox. Physics 1, 195–200 (1964)
Mermin, D.: “Is the moon there when nobody looks? Reality and the Quantum theory”, Phys. Today, April 1985, 38–47
Stapp, H.: Bell’s theorem and world process. Il Nuovo Cimento B 29, 270–276 (1975)
Freedman, S., Clauser, J.: Experimental test of local hidden-variable theories. Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 938–941 (1972)
Bohm, D.: “A suggested interpretation of the Quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden’ variables” (parts I and II). Phys. Rev. 85, 166–193 (1952)
Bell, J.: “The theory of local beables”, presented at the sixth GIFT seminar, June 1975, appears in speakable and unspeakable in Quantum mechanics, pp. 52–62. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (2004)
Wiseman, H.: From Einstein’s theorem to Bell’s theorem: a history of quantum nonlocality. Contemp. Phys. 47(2), 79–88 (2006)
Goldstein, S., Norsen, T., Tausk, D., Zanghi, N.: Bell’s theorem. Scholarpedia 6(10), 8378 (2011)
Shimony, A.: “Bell’s theorem”, Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2013/entries/bell-theorem/ (2013)
Einstein, A.: “Autobiographical notes”, in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Schilpp, P. (ed.) Library of the Living Philosophers, Evanston, (1949)
Bell, J.: Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality. J. Phys. Colloq. C2(42), 41–61 (1981)
Albert, D.: Quantum Mechanics and Experience. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1992)
Maudlin, T.: Quantum non-locality & relativity: metaphysical intimations of modern physics (Wiley-Blackwell). Sussex 173, 221 (2011)
Howard, D.: Revisiting the Einstein–Bohr dialogue. Iyyun: Jerus. Philos. Q. 56, 57–90 (2007)
Bohm, D., Aharonov, Y.: Discussion of experimental proof for the Paradox of Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky. Phys. Rev. 108, 1070–1076 (1957)
Bell, J.: On the problem of hidden variables in Quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447–452 (1966)
Mermin, D.: Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell. Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 803–815 (1993)
Furry, W.: in On the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Physics Department, Xavier University, (1962)
Dyson, F.: “Thought experiments—In Honor of John Wheeler”, Contribution to Wheeler Symosium, Princeton, 2002, reprinted in Bird and Frogs by Dyson, F. pp. 304–321. World Scientific, Singapore (2015)
Wigner, E.: in On the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Physics Department, Xavier University, (1962)
Dyson, F.: Private communication, (2016)
Stapp, H.: The Copenhagen interpretation. Am. J. Phys. 40, 1098–1116 (1972)
Einstein, A.: Physics and reality. J. Frankl. Inst. 221, 349–382 (1936)
Ballentine, L.: The statistical interpretation of Quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 42, 358–381 (1970)
Furry, W.: Note on the Quantum–mechanical theory of measurement. Phys. Rev. 49, 393–399 (1936)
Furry, W.: Remarks on measurements in Quantum theory. Phys. Rev. 49, 476 (1936)
Van Frasseen, B.: The Charybdis of realism: epistemological implications of Bell’s inequality. Synthese 52, 25–38 (1982)
Fine, A.: “Do Correlations Need To Be Explained?”, in Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflections on Bell’s Theorem, Cushing, J., McMullin, E. (eds.), pp. 175–194. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, (1989)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This is an expanded version of a talk given at the 2016 Princeton-TAMU Symposium on Quantum Noise Effects in Thermodynamics, Biology and Information [1].
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Boughn, S. Making Sense of Bell’s Theorem and Quantum Nonlocality. Found Phys 47, 640–657 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-017-0083-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-017-0083-6