Abstract

This paper is a new step towards understanding why “quantum nonlocality” is a misleading concept. Metaphorically speaking, “quantum nonlocality” is Janus faced. One face is an apparent nonlocality of the Lüders projection and another face is Bell nonlocality (a wrong conclusion that the violation of Bell type inequalities implies the existence of mysterious instantaneous influences between distant physical systems). According to the Lüders projection postulate, a quantum measurement performed on one of the two distant entangled physical systems modifies their compound quantum state instantaneously. Therefore, if the quantum state is considered to be an attribute of the individual physical system and if one assumes that experimental outcomes are produced in a perfectly random way, one quickly arrives at the contradiction. It is a primary source of speculations about a spooky action at a distance. Bell nonlocality as defined above was explained and rejected by several authors; thus, we concentrate in this paper on the apparent nonlocality of the Lüders projection. As already pointed out by Einstein, the quantum paradoxes disappear if one adopts the purely statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics (QM). In the statistical interpretation of QM, if probabilities are considered to be objective properties of random experiments we show that the Lüders projection corresponds to the passage from joint probabilities describing all set of data to some marginal conditional probabilities describing some particular subsets of data. If one adopts a subjective interpretation of probabilities, such as QBism, then the Lüders projection corresponds to standard Bayesian updating of the probabilities. The latter represents degrees of beliefs of local agents about outcomes of individual measurements which are placed or which will be placed at distant locations. In both approaches, probability-transformation does not happen in the physical space, but only in the information space. Thus, all speculations about spooky interactions or spooky predictions at a distance are simply misleading. Coming back to Bell nonlocality, we recall that in a recent paper we demonstrated, using exclusively the quantum formalism, that CHSH inequalities may be violated for some quantum states only because of the incompatibility of quantum observables and Bohr’s complementarity. Finally, we explain that our criticism of quantum nonlocality is in the spirit of Hertz-Boltzmann methodology of scientific theories.

Highlights

  • In the last few decades too many futile technical terms in the context of correlation measurements have been created which are not well defined

  • In [8], Lüders formalized in the form of a postulate, the operation of the quantum state-transformation resulting from measurement with the concrete output, as a projection on the corresponding subspace of the state space

  • If one accepts the individual interpretation, according to the Lüders projection postulate, a measurement performed on a system S1 may change, instantaneously, a physical state of S2 in a distant location

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In the last few decades too many futile technical terms in the context of correlation measurements have been created which are not well defined. I got the first signal that quantum nonlocality is Janus faced (see Figure 1) from the talk of Aspect at one of the Växjö conferences (see his papers [4,5]) He started his talk not from the Bell inequality [6,7] and its violation (as could be expected), but with the projection postulate in Lüders’ form [8] and its nonlocal consequences. This paper was stimulated by the recent works of Plotnitsky [34,35] who analyzed quantum nonlocality in the framework of the original EPR presentation and the debate between Einstein and. “projection nonlocality” came in all its brilliance

Alain Aspect
Lüders Nonlocality
Lüders’ Quantum State-Transformation Resulting from Observations
Individual Interpretation
In the Laboratory
Aspect versus EPR Presentations
Classical Probability
The Hertz-Boltzmann Viewpoint on Creation of Scientific Theories
Probability Conditioning
10. Concluding Remarks
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.