Can we close the Bohr-Einstein quantum debate?

DOI10.1098/RSTA.2016.0392zbMATH Open1404.81018arXiv1603.00266OpenAlexW3100697390WikidataQ47663474 ScholiaQ47663474MaRDI QIDQ4560693FDOQ4560693

Authors: M. Kupczynski 

Publication date: 12 December 2018

Published in: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences (Search for Journal in Brave)

Abstract: Recent experiments allowed concluding that Bell-type inequalities are indeed violated thus it is important to understand what it means and how can we explain the existence of strong correlations between outcomes of distant measurements. Do we have to announce that: Einstein was wrong, Nature is nonlocal and nonlocal correlations are produced due to the quantum magic and emerge, somehow, from outside space time? Fortunately such conclusions are unfounded because if supplementary parameters describing measuring instruments are correctly incorporated in a theoretical model then Bell-type inequalities may not be proven .We construct a simple probabilistic model explaining these correlations in a locally causal way. In our model measurement outcomes are neither predetermined nor produced in irreducibly random way. We explain in detail why, contrary to the general belief; an introduction of setting dependent parameters does not restrict experimenters' freedom of choice. Since the violation of Bell-type inequalities does not allow concluding that Nature is nonlocal and that quantum theory is complete thus the Bohr-Einstein quantum debate may not be closed. The continuation of this debate is not only important for a better understanding of Nature but also for various practical applications of quantum phenomena.

Full work available at URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.00266

Recommendations

• Bell's theorem and the problem of decidability between the views of Einstein and Bohr
• Bell locality and the nonlocal character of nature
• Einstein Was Right!
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 4072005
• Bell's inequalities and EPR-B experiments: are they disjoint?

zbMATH Keywords

EPR paradox and physical realityexperimental protocols and contextualityfree will and measurement setting independencequantum non-locality demystifiedtesting completeness of quantum mechanicsviolation of Bell inequalities

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

General and philosophical questions in quantum theory (81P05)

Cites Work

• Violation of Bell's Inequality under Strict Einstein Locality Conditions
• Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories
• Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?
• Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?
• Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics. With an introduction by Alain Aspect
• Ubiquitous Quantum Structure
• Title not available (Why is that?)
• CHSH inequality: quantum probabilities as classical conditional probabilities
• Contextual approach to quantum formalism
• Title not available (Why is that?)
• Bell's theorem: critique of proofs with and without inequalities
• Title not available (Why is that?)
• Understanding quantum measurement from the solution of dynamical models
• Is the contextuality loophole fatal for the derivation of Bell inequalities?
• Title not available (Why is that?)
• Violation of local realism with freedom of choice
• Quantum chance. Nonlocality, teleportation and other quantum marvels. Translated from the French by Stephen Lyle
• Title not available (Why is that?)
• Why should we interpret quantum mechanics?
• Nonlocality as well as rejection of realism are only sufficient (but non-necessary!) conditions for violation of Bell's inequality
• Born's rule as signature of a superclassical current algebra
• Operational approach to entanglement and how to certify it
• Quantum non-locality -- it ain't necessarily so\dots
• Title not available (Why is that?)
• Title not available (Why is that?)
• Bell inequalities, experimental protocols and contextuality
• Why I am not a QBist
• Violation of Bell's inequality and non-Kolmogorovness
• Where Bell went wrong
• Title not available (Why is that?)
• A sub-ensemble theory of ideal quantum measurement processes
• Title not available (Why is that?)
• The contextuality loophole is fatal for the derivation of Bell inequalities: Reply to a comment by I. Schmelzer

Cited In (8)

• Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm experiments: a discrete data driven approach
• On the spin projection operator and the probabilistic meaning of the bipartite correlation function
• Can a Bohmian be a Rovellian for all practical purposes?
• A quantum similarity discussion about Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox in Gaussian enfolded spaces
• Title not available (Why is that?)
• Can foreign exchange rates violate Bell inequalities?
• The present situation in quantum theory and its merging with general relativity
• Can elementary quantum mechanics explain the Aharonov–Bohm effect?

This page was built for publication: Can we close the Bohr-Einstein quantum debate?

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q4560693)