Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2020
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.14223 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866917703841742848 |
|---|---|
| author | Hall, Michael J. W. |
| author_facet | Hall, Michael J. W. |
| contents | A 1964 paper by John Bell gave the first demonstration that quantum mechanics is incompatible with local hidden variables. There is an ongoing and vigorous debate on whether he relied on an assumption of determinism, or instead, as he later claimed, derived determinism from assumptions of locality and perfect correlation. This paper aims to bring clarity to the debate via simple examples and rigorous results. It is shown that the weak form of locality used in Bell's 1964 paper (parameter independence) is insufficient for such a derivation, whereas an independent form called outcome independence is sufficient even when weak locality does not hold. It further follows that outcome independence, by itself, implies that standard quantum mechanics is incomplete. It is also shown that an appeal by Bell to the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky argument to support his claim fails, via examples that expose logical gaps in this argument. However, replacing the reality criterion underpinning the argument by a stronger criterion enables a rigorous derivation of both weak locality and determinism, as required for Bell's 1964 paper. Consequences for quantum interpretations, locality, and classical common causes are briefly discussed, with reference to an example of local classical indeterminism. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2009_14223 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2020 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Does locality plus perfect correlation imply determinism? Hall, Michael J. W. Quantum Physics History and Philosophy of Physics A 1964 paper by John Bell gave the first demonstration that quantum mechanics is incompatible with local hidden variables. There is an ongoing and vigorous debate on whether he relied on an assumption of determinism, or instead, as he later claimed, derived determinism from assumptions of locality and perfect correlation. This paper aims to bring clarity to the debate via simple examples and rigorous results. It is shown that the weak form of locality used in Bell's 1964 paper (parameter independence) is insufficient for such a derivation, whereas an independent form called outcome independence is sufficient even when weak locality does not hold. It further follows that outcome independence, by itself, implies that standard quantum mechanics is incomplete. It is also shown that an appeal by Bell to the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky argument to support his claim fails, via examples that expose logical gaps in this argument. However, replacing the reality criterion underpinning the argument by a stronger criterion enables a rigorous derivation of both weak locality and determinism, as required for Bell's 1964 paper. Consequences for quantum interpretations, locality, and classical common causes are briefly discussed, with reference to an example of local classical indeterminism. |
| title | Does locality plus perfect correlation imply determinism? |
| topic | Quantum Physics History and Philosophy of Physics |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.14223 |