Abstract
It is argued that the validity of the predictions of quantum theory in certain spincorrelation experiments entails a violation of Einstein's locality idea that no causal influence can act outside the forward light cone. First, two preliminary arguments suggesting such a violation are reviewed. They both depend, in intermediate stages, on the idea that the results of certain unperformed experiments are physically determinate. The second argument is entangled also with the problem of the meaning of “physical reality.” A new argument having neither of these characteristics is constructed. It is based strictly on the orthodox ideas of Bohr and Heisenberg, and has no realistic elements, or other ingredients, that are alien to orthodox quantum thinking.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
I cite the proceedings of three recent major international conferences in this field:Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics, P. Lahti and P. Mittelstaedt, eds. (World Scientific, Singapore, 1985);Microphysical Realism and Quantum Formalism, A. van der Merwe, F. Selleri, and G. Tarozzi, eds. (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1988);New Techniques and Ideas in Quantum Measurement Theory, D. Greenberger, (New York Academy of Sciences, New York, 1987).
A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen,Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935), cited as EPR.
N. Bohr,Phys. Rev. 48, 696 (1935).
A. Einstein, inAlbert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, P. A. Schilpp, ed. (Tudor, New York, 1951), pp. 85 and 682.
J. S. Bell,Physics (N. Y.) 1, 195 (1964).
I have adapted the EPR arguments to the variant proposed by Bohm and Aharonov: D. Bohm and Y. Aharonov,Phys. Rev. 103, 1070 (1957).
N. Bohr,Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature (Cambridge University Press, 1934);
N. Bohr,Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1934);
N. Bohr,Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge (Wiley, New York, 1959);
N. Bohr,Essays 1958/1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge (Wiley, New York, 1963). See quotations given in H. P. Stapp,Am. J. Phys. 40, 1098 (1972).
W. Heisenberg,Physics and Philosophy (Harper and Row, New York, 1958); see comments in Appendix B of H. P. Stapp,Am. J. Phys. 40, 1098 (1972).
Ref. 4, p. 87
D. B. Schwartz, B. Sen, C. N. Archie, and J. E. Lukens,Phys. Rev. Lett. 55, 1547 (1985); S. Washburn, R. A. Webb, R. F. Voss, and S. M. Faris,Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 2712 (1985).
H. Everett, III,Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 454 (1957).
J. L. Doob,Stochastic Processes (Wiley, New York, 1953).
J. Clauser and A. Shimony,Rep. Prog. Phys. 41, 182 (1978).
J. Clauser and M. A. Horne,Phys. Rev. D 10, 526 (1974).
N. Bohr, Ref. 7a, p. 18.
N. Bohr, Ref. 7c, p. 60.
N. Bohr, Ref. 7b, p. 71.
N. Bohr, Ref. 7a, p. 75.
H. P. Stapp,Phys. Rev. D 3, 1303 (1971);Am. J. Phys. 53, 306 (1985); “Are faster-than-light influences necessary,” inQuantum Mechanics versus Local Realism: The Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen Paradox, F. Selleri, ed. (Plenum, New York, 1988); “Quantum Non-locality and the Description of Nature,” inPhilosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory, J. Cushing and E. McMullin, eds. (Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1989).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This work was supported by the Director, Office of Energy Research, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Division of High Energy Physics of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stapp, H.P. Quantum nonlocality. Found Phys 18, 427–448 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00732548
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00732548