Making Sense of Bell's Theorem and Quantum Nonlocality

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.

arXiv comment18 pages, 1 figure

References in corpus (3)

• Hidden Variables and the Two Theorems of John Bell
• From Einstein's Theorem to Bell's Theorem: A History of Quantum Nonlocality
• A Modest View of Bell's Theorem

Cited by in corpus (25)

• Getting rid of nonlocality from quantum physics
• Quantum versus classical entanglement: eliminating the issue of quantum nonlocality
• Is the Moon there if nobody looks: Bell Inequalities and Physical Reality
• Two faced Janus of quantum nonlocality
• A Note on Bell's Theorem Logical Consistency
• Answering Mermin's Challenge with Conservation per No Preferred Reference Frame
• Understanding quantum mechanics: a review and synthesis in precise language
• Contextuality-by-Default description of Bell tests: Contextuality as the rule not as an exception
• Contextuality or nonlocality; what would John Bell choose today?
• Conditional probability framework for entanglement and its decoupling from tensor product structure
• Quantum postulate vs. quantum nonlocality: Is Devil in h?
• Why the Tsirelson Bound? Bub's Question and Fuchs' Desideratum
• Entanglement of observables: Quantum conditional probability approach
• Bell inequalities, Counterfactual Definiteness and Falsifiability
• My discussions of quantum foundations with John Stewart Bell
• On the Philosophical Foundations of Physics: An Experimentalist's Perspective
• The Completeness of Quantum Mechanics and the Determinateness and Consistency of Intersubjective Experience: Wigner's Friend and Delayed Choice
• Contextuality versus Incompatibility
• Against "Reality" in Physics
• Statistical Contextual Explanation of Quantum Paradoxes
• Stop making sense of Bell's theorem and nonlocality? A reply to Stephen Boughn
• Formalization of Bohr's contextuality within theory of open quantum systems
• Comment on "Nonlocality claims are inconsistent with Hilbert-space quantum mechanics"
• Violation of Bell Inequalities: Mapping the Conceptual Implications
• Counterfactual Reasoning, Realism and Quantum Mechanics: Much Ado About Nothing?