Abstract
I sketch a pragmatist interpretation of quantum theory and show how to use it to explain EPR-Bell correlations consistently with relativity. Quantum theory is not a locally causal theory, not because it violates Bell’s local causality condition, but because that condition is simply inapplicable to it. Any agent can use quantum theory to show why EPR-Bell correlations are to be expected. For space-like separated measurements of vertical/horizontal polarization of each photon from a pair in Bell state Φ+, an agent’s explanation of why the distant measurement outcome matches his own appeals neither to a preferred frame nor to any direct connection or influence between these events. Here, as elsewhere, quantum theory helps one explain an initially puzzling phenomenon not by locating it in a causal net but by showing why its occurrence is just what one should have expected in the circumstances.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
A more complete outline of this interpretation may be found in (Healey 2012).
- 2.
The delayed-choice entanglement-swapping experiment described in Sect. 4.5 of (Healey 2012) provides one illuminating example of this.
- 3.
At t 2, Bob cannot apply the Born Rule to Φ+ since R has been absorbed in his detector. But he can find a different use for the expression ‘P a,b (A|B,λ)’. The conditional probability rule gives P a,b (A|B, λ) = P a,b (A & B|λ)/P a,b (B|λ). Suppose we interpret these probabilities as Bob’s best credences at t 2. At t 2, Bob is sure that his outcome is B, that his setting is b, and that Alice’s is a. So P a,b (B|λ) = 1, P a,b (A & B|λ) = P a,b (A|λ). Hence P a,b (A|B, λ) = P a,b (A|λ) is Bob’s best credence at t 2.
- 4.
It is also a consequence of Woodward’s (2003) more sophisticated interventionist account of causation that the counterfactual connections between Bob’s and Alice’s results should not be understood causally. Space does not permit me to demonstrate this here.
References
Bell, J. S. (1975). The theory of local beables. TH-2053-CERN, 28 July 2004, in Bell, pp 52–62.
Bell, J. S. (1990). La nouvelle cuisine. In A. Sarlemijn & P. Kroes (Eds.), Between science and technology (pp. 97–115). Amsterdam: North-Holland. In Bell (2004), 232–48.
Bell, J. S. (2004). Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics (revised edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Butterfield, J. (1992). David Lewis meets John Bell. Philosophy of Science, 59, 26–43.
Healey, R. (2012). Quantum theory: A pragmatist approach. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 63, 729–771.
Lewis, D. K. (1973). Causation. Journal of Philosophy, 70, 556–567.
Norsen, T. (2011). J.S. Bell’s concept of local causality. http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.0401v3.pdf
Seevinck, M. P., & Uffink, J. (2011). Not throwing out the baby with the bathwater: Bell’s condition of local causality mathematically ‘sharp and clean’. In D. Dieks et al. (Eds.), Explanation, prediction and confirmation (pp. 425–450). Berlin: Springer.
Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Acknowledgments
This publication was made possible through the support of a grant from the John Templeton Foundation. The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the John Templeton Foundation. I thank Prof. A. Zeilinger and Prof. M. Aspelmeyer, my hosts at the Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the Austrian Academy of Sciences under the Templeton Research Fellows Program “Philosophers-Physicists Cooperation Project on the Nature of Quantum Reality”, and the other scientists in the Institute for many enlightening discussions. I acknowledge the support of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics under their sabbatical program during my visit in Fall 2009: research at the Perimeter Institute is supported by the Government of Canada through Industry Canada and by the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Research and Innovation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this paper
Cite this paper
Healey, R. (2013). How to Use Quantum Theory Locally to Explain EPR-Bell Correlations. In: Karakostas, V., Dieks, D. (eds) EPSA11 Perspectives and Foundational Problems in Philosophy of Science. The European Philosophy of Science Association Proceedings, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01306-0_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01306-0_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-01305-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-01306-0
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawPhilosophy and Religion (R0)