Comments on “Interpretations of quantum mechanics, joint measurement of incompatible observables, and counterfactual definiteness”

Abstract

Some seeming logical deficiencies in a recent paper are described. The author responds to the arguments of the work by de Muynck, De Baere, and Martens (MDM), who argue it is widely accepted today that some sort of nonlocal effect is needed to resolve the problems raised by the works of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) and John Bell. In MBM a variety of arguments are set forth that aim to invalidate the existing purported proofs of nonlocality and to provide, moreover, a local solution to the problems uncovered by EPR and Bell. Much of the argumentation in MBM is based on the idea of introducing `nonideal` measurements, which, according to MBM, allow one to construct joint probability distributions for incompatible observables. The existence of a bona fide joint probability distribution for the incompatible observables occurring in the EPRB experiments would entail that Bell`s inequalities can be satisfied, and hence that the mathematical basis for the nonlocal effects would disappear. This relult would apparently allow one to eliminate the need for nonlocal effects by considering experiments of this new kind.