Abstract
A large number of physicists now admit that quantum mechanics is a non-local theory. The EPR argument and the many experiments (including recent “loop-hole free” tests) showing the violation of Bell’s inequalities seem to have confirmed convincingly that quantum mechanics cannot be local. Nevertheless, this conclusion can only be drawn inside a standard realist framework assuming an ontic interpretation of the wave function and viewing the collapse of the wave function as a real change of the physical state of the system. We show that this standpoint is not mandatory and that if the collapse is not considered an actual physical change it is possible to recover locality.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See for example [27] for a typical exposition of this quest.
Actually, things are more complex than that. There is a subtlety due to the decoherence mechanism and the choice of the preferred basis that we forget here. See [24] for a detailed account of this point.
Actually the hanging-on mechanism is a little bit more complex if both decoherence and the relativity of states (see below) are taken into account, but this has no impact on what we want to say here. See [24] for a more detailed presentation.
See [24] for a more detailed comparison between Convivial Solipsism and the relational interpretation and QBism and for a description of the issues that, from my point of view, these two latter interpretations face.
Of course, we do not pretend being able to explain how awareness happens. This is probably one of the most difficult problems of the contemporary science. Neuroscientists are hardly beginning to understand some mechanisms showing how consciousness works and how different it is from what our own consciousness itself thinks it is working.
See [25] for a more detailed discussion of this point.
Actually, experiments showing the violation of Bell’s inequalities in such a situation have been carried on.
References
Bell, J.S.: On the Einstein–Podolski–Rosen Paradox. Physics 1, 195 (1964)
Spekkens, R.W. Phys. Rev. A. 2007, 75, 032110. arXiv:quant-ph/0401052 (2005)
Harrigan, N.; Spekkens, R.W. Found. Phys. 2010, 40, 125. arXiv:0706.2661(2007)
Pusey, M.F., Barrett, J., Rudolph, T.: On the reality of the quantum state. Nat. Phys. 8(6), 476–479 (2012)
Colbeck, R., Renner, R.: Is a system’s wave function in one-to-one correspondence with its elements of reality? Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 150402 (2012)
Lewis, P.G., Jennings, D., Barrett, J., Rudolph, T.: Distinct quantum states can be compatible with a single state of reality. Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 50404 (2012)
Aspect, A., Grangier, P., Roger, G.: Experimental realization of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm Gedankenexperiment: a new violation of Bell’s Inequalities. Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 91–94 (1982)
Aspect, A., Dalibard, J., Roger, G.: Experimental test of Bell’s Inequalities using time-varying analyzers. Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804–1807 (1982)
Christensen, B.G., McCusker, K.T., Altepeter, J.B., Calkins, B., Gerrits, T., Lita, A.E., Miller, A., Shalm, L.K., Zhang, Y., Nam, S.W., Brunner, N.: Detection-loophole-free test of quantum nonlocality, and applications. Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 130406 (2013)
Hensen, B., Bernien, H., Dréau, A.E., Reiserer, A., Kalb, N., Blok, M.S., Ruitenberg, J., Vermeulen, R.F.L., Schouten, R.N., Abellán, C., Amaya, W., Pruneri, V., Mitchell, M.W., Markham, M., Twitchen, D.J., Elkouss, D., Wehner, S., Taminiau, T.H., Hanson, R.: Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres. Nature 526, 682 (2015)
Giustina, M., et al.: Significant-loophole-free test of bell’s theorem with entangled photons. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250401 (2015)
Shalm, L.K., et al.: Strong loophole-free test of local realism. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250402 (2015)
Handsteiner, J., et al.: Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 060401 (2017)
Page, D.N.: The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen Physical Reality is completely described by quantum mechanics. Phys. Lett. 91A, 57 (1982)
Bitbol, M.: An analysis of the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen correlations in terms of events. Phys. Lett. 96A, 57 (1983)
Caves, C.M., Fuchs, C.A., Schack, R.: Quantum probabilities as Bayesian probabilities. Phys. Rev. A 65, 022305 (2002)
Fuchs, C.A.: QBism, the perimeter of Quantum Bayesianism. arXiv: 1003:5209 (2010)
Fuchs, C.A., Schack, R.: Quantum-Bayesian coherence. Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1693 (2013)
Fuchs, C.A., Mermin, D.N., Schack, R.: An Introduction to QBism with an Application to the Locality of Quantum Mechanics. arXiv: 1311:5253 (2013)
Everett, H.: On the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Ph.D. thesis. Princeton University, Department of Physics (1957)
Everett, H.: Relative state formulation of quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 454–462 (1957)
DeWitt, B.S., Graham, N. (eds.): The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1973)
Zwirn, H.: Decoherence and the Measurement Problem. In: proceedings of “Frontiers of Fundamental Physics 14”, PoS(FFP14) 223 (2015)
Zwirn, H.: The measurement problem: decoherence and convivial solipsism. Found. Phys. 46, 635–667 (2016)
Zwirn, H.: Delayed choice, complementarity, entanglement and measurement. Phys. Essays 30, 3 (2016)
d’Espagnat, B.: Le Réel voilé, analyse des concepts quantiques. 1994, Fayard. English Transl: Veiled Reality: An Analysis of Quantum Mechanical Concepts. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado (2003)
Goldstein, S.: Quantum theory without observers. Physics Today 51, 42–47 (1998)
Wigner E. P. Interpretation of quantum mechanics. 1976, In: Wheeler, J.A., Zurek, W. (eds.) Quantum Theory and Measurement. Princeton University Press (1983)
Wigner, E.P.: Symetries and Reflections. Indiana University Press, Bloomington (1967)
London, F., Bauer, E.: La théorie de l’observation en mécanique quantique. Hermann (1939)
Einstein, A. to Heitler, W. 1948 translated in Fine, A. Einstein’s Interpretation of Quantum Theory. In: Beller, M., Cohen, R.S., Renn, J. (eds). Einstein in Context. Cambridge University Press (1993)
Vaidman, L. Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/ (2014)
Albert, D.: Quantum Mechanics and Experience. Harvard University Press, Cambridge-London (1992)
Albert D.; Loewer B. Interpreting the Many Worlds: Interpretations. Synthese 82, 195–213 (1988)
Barrett, J.: Everett’s relative-state formulation of quantum mechanics. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-everett/ (2014)
Barrett, J.: Everett’s pure wave mechanics and the notion of worlds. Eur. J. Philos. Sci. 1, 277–302 (2011)
Everett, H.: The theory of the universal wave function. 1956. First printed in DeWitt, B.S.; Graham, N. (eds) The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp. 3–140 (1973)
Vaidman, L.: On schizophrenic experiences of the neutron or why we should believe in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory. Int. Stud. Philos. Sci. 12, 245–261 (1998)
Wallace, D.: A formal proof of the born rule from decision theoretic assumptions. In: Saunders, S., Barrett, J., Kent, A., Wallace, D. (eds.) Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory and Reality. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2010)
Kent, A.: One World versus Many: The Inadequacy of Everettian Accounts of Evolution, Probability, and Scientific Confirmation. In: Saunders, S., Barrett, J., Kent, A., Wallace, D. (eds.) Many worlds? Everett, quantum theory and reality. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2010)
Barrett, J.: The Quantum Mechanics of Minds and Worlds. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1999)
Vaidman, L.: Quantum Stud. (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40509-014-0008-4
d’Espagnat, B.: Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Benjamin, New York (1971)
Rovelli, C.: Relational quantum mechanics. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 35, 1637–1657 (1996)
Rovelli, C., Smerlak, M.: Relational EPR. Found. Phys. 37, 427–445 (2007)
Laudisa, F., Rovelli, C.: Relational quantum mechanics. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/ (2008)
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., Rosen, N.: Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777–780 (1935)
Fine, A.: The Einstein–Podolsky–rosen argument in quantum theory. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-epr/ (2013)
Bohm, D.: Quantum Theory. Prentice Hall, New York (1951)
Clauser, J.F., Horne, M.A., Shimony, A., Holt, R.A.: Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories. Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880–884 (1969)
Acknowledgements
I want to thank Chris Fuchs for many enlightening discussions about QBism and Lev Vaidman for exchanges allowing me to better understand his own presentation of Everett’s interpretation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zwirn, H. Nonlocality Versus Modified Realism. Found Phys 50, 1–26 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-019-00314-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-019-00314-7