Non-separability does not relieve the problem of Bell's theorem

From MaRDI portal
Publication:368076

DOI10.1007/S10701-013-9730-8zbMATH Open1273.81037arXiv1302.7188OpenAlexW3104014111MaRDI QIDQ368076FDOQ368076


Authors: Joe Henson Edit this on Wikidata


Publication date: 18 September 2013

Published in: Foundations of Physics (Search for Journal in Brave)

Abstract: This paper addresses arguments that "separability" is an assumption of Bell's theorem, and that abandoning this assumption in our interpretation of quantum mechanics (a position sometimes referred to as "holism") will allow us to restore a satisfying locality principle. Separability here means that all events associated to the union of some set of disjoint regions are combinations of events associated to each region taken separately. In this article, it is shown that: (a) localised events can be consistently defined without implying separability; (b) the definition of Bell's locality condition does not rely on separability in any way; (c) the proof of Bell's theorem does not use separability as an assumption. If, inspired by considerations of non-separability, the assumptions of Bell's theorem are weakened, what remains no longer embodies the locality principle. Teller's argument for "relational holism" and Howard's arguments concerning separability are criticised in the light of these results. Howard's claim that Einstein grounded his arguments on the incompleteness of QM with a separability assumption is also challenged. Instead, Einstein is better interpreted as referring merely to the existence of localised events. Finally, it is argued that Bell rejected the idea that separability is an assumption of his theorem.


Full work available at URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.7188




Recommendations




Cites Work


Cited In (13)





This page was built for publication: Non-separability does not relieve the problem of Bell's theorem

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q368076)