John Stewart Bell’s famous theorem is widely regarded as one of the most important developments in the foundations of physics. Yet even as we approach the 50th anniversary of Bell’s discovery, its meaning and implications remain controversial. Many workers assert that Bell’s theorem refutes the possibility suggested by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) of supplementing ordinary quantum theory with “hidden” variables that might restore determinism and/or some notion of an observer-independent reality. But Bell himself interpreted the theorem very differently—as establishing an “essential conflict” between the well-tested empirical predictions of quantum theory and relativistic local causality. Our goal is to make Bell’s own views more widely known and to explain Bell’s little-known formulation of the concept of relativistic local causality on which his theorem rests. We also show precisely how Bell’s formulation of local causality can be used to derive an empirically testable Bell-type inequality and to recapitulate the EPR argument.
REFERENCES
1.
Max
Born
, The Born-Einstein Letters
, translated by Irene
Born
(Walker and Company
, New York
, 1971
).2.
Mary B.
Hesse
, Forces and Fields: The Concept of Action at a Distance in the History of Physics
(Dover
, Mineola, NY
, 2005
).3.
Ernan
McMullin
, “The Explanation of Distant Action: Historical Notes
,” in Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory
, edited by James T.
Cushing
and E.
McMullin
(University of Notre Dame Press
, Notre Dame
, 1989
).4.
Isaac
Newton
, February 25, 1693 letter to Richard Bentley. See, for example, Andrew Janiak, “Newton’s philosophy
,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
, edited by Edward N.
Zalta
, <plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2009/entries/newton-philosophy/>.5.
I.
Bernard Cohen
, “A guide to Newton’s Principia
,” in Isaac Newton, The Principia
, translated by I. B.
Cohen
and Anne
Whitman
(University of California Press
, Berkeley
, 1999
). See especially pp. 60
–64
and
–277
.6.
Albert
Einstein
, Relativity: The Special and the General Theory
(Penguin Classics
, New York
, 2006
), p. 47
.7.
John S.
Bell
, “La nouvelle cuisine
,” in Between Science and Technology
, edited by A.
Sarlemijn
and P.
Kroes
(Elsevier Science
, Amsterdam
, 1990
); reprinted in Ref. 8, pp. 232
–248
.8.
John S.
Bell
, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics
, 2nd ed. (Cambridge U.P.
, Cambridge
, 2004
).9.
Albert
Einstein
, Boris
Podolsky
, and Nathan
Rosen
, “Can quantum-mechanical description of reality be considered complete?
,” Phys. Rev.
47
, 777
–780
(1935
).10.
Travis
Norsen
, “Einstein’s boxes
,” Am. J. Phys.
73
(2
), 164
–176
(2005
).11.
The terminology of “hidden variables” is unfortunate because, at least in the one existing example of a serious hidden variables theory (the de Broglie-Bohm “pilot wave” theory, which adds to the standard quantum mechanical wave function definite particle positions obeying a deterministic evolution law), the “hidden variables” are not hidden. In Ref. 18, Bell remarked that “it would be appropriate to refer to the ×s as ‘exposed variables’ and to ψ as a ‘hidden variable.’ It is ironic that the traditional terminology is the reverse of this.” Similarly in Ref. 12, he writes “Although [in Bohmian mechanics] Ψ is a real field it does not show up immediately in the result of a single ‘measurement,’ but only in the statistics of many such results. It is the de Broglie-Bohm variable X that shows up immediately each time. That X rather than Ψ is historically called a ‘hidden’ variable is a piece of historical silliness.”12 It is also relevant that the wave function ψ is “hidden” in the sense of being not accessible via experiment, even in orthodox quantum theory, which is the primary example of a non-hidden-variable theory. See
Roderich
Tumulka
, “Understanding Bohmian mechanics: A dialogue
,” Am. J. Phys.
72
(9
), 1220
–1226
(2004
).12.
John S.
Bell
, “On the impossible pilot wave
,” Found. Phys.
12
, 989
–99
(1982
); reprinted in Ref. 8, pp. 159–168.13.
John S.
Bell
, “Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality
,” J. Physique, Colloque C2, suppl. au numero 3, Tome
42
, C2
41
–61
(1981
); reprinted in Ref. 8, pp. 139–158.14.
John S.
Bell
, “On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox
,” Physics
1
, 195
–200
(1964
); reprinted in Ref. 8, pp. 14–21.15.
John S.
Bell
, “Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics
,” introductory remarks at Naples-Amalfi meeting, May 7, 1984
; reprinted in Ref. 8, pp. 169
–172
.16.
Alain
Aspect
, J.
Dalibard
, and G.
Roger
, “Experimental test of Bell’s inequalities using time-varying analyzers
,” Phys. Rev. Lett.
49
, 1804
–1807
(1982
).17.
Gregor
Weihs
, T.
Jennewein
, C.
Simon
, H.
Weinfurter
, and A.
Zeilinger
, “Violation of Bell’s inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions
,” Phys. Rev. Lett.
81
, 5039
–5043
(1998
).18.
John S.
Bell
, “Quantum mechanics for cosmologists
,” in Quantum Gravity 2
, edited by C.
Isham
, R.
Penrose
, and D.
Sciama
(Clarendon Press
, Oxford
, 1981
); reprinted in Ref. 8, pp. 117
–138
.19.
The Ghost in the Atom
, interview with J. S. Bell, edited by P. C. W.
Davies
and J. R.
Brown
(Cambridge U.P.
, Cambridge
, 1986
), Chap. 3.20.
See
J. S.
Bell
, “How to teach special relativity
,” Progress in Scientific Culture
1
(1976
); reprinted in Ref. 8, pp. 67
–80
.21.
Huw
Price
, Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point
(Oxford U.P.
, Oxford
, 1997
).22.
John S.
Bell
, “Are there quantum jumps?
,” in Schrödinger: Centenary celebration of a Polymath
, edited by C. W.
Kilmister
(Cambridge U.P.
, Cambridge
, 1987
); reprinted in Ref. 8, pp. 201
–212
.23.
Roderich
Tumulka
, “A relativistic version of the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber model
,” J. Stat. Phys.
125
, 821
–840
(2006
). See also Tim Maudlin, “Non-local correlations in quantum theory: how the trick might be done,” in Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity, edited by W. L. Craig and Q. Smith (Routledge, New York, 2008).24.
Abner
Shimony
, “Bell’s theorem
,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
, edited by Edward N.
Zalta
, <plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2009/entries/bell-theorem/>.25.
Eugene P.
Wigner
, “Unterpretation of quantum mechanics
,” in Quantum Theory and Measurement
, edited by J. A.
Wheeler
and W. H.
Zurek
(Princeton U.P.
, Princeton
, 1983
).26.
N.
David Mermin
, “Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell
,” Rev. Mod. Phys.
65
(3
), 803
–815
(1993
).27.
Jon
Jarrett
, “Bell’s theorem: A guide to the implications
,” in Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory
, edited by J. T.
Cushing
and E.
McMullin
(University of Notre Dame Press
, Notre Dame
, 1989
).28.
Anton
Zeilinger
, “The message of the quantum
,” Nature
438
, 743
(2005
).29.
George
Greenstein
and A.
Zajonc
, The Quantum Challenge
, 2nd ed. (Jones and Bartlett
, Sudbury, MA
, 2005
).30.
David J.
Griffiths
, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics
(Prentice Hall
, Upper Saddle River, NJ
, 1995
).31.
John S.
Townsend
, A Modern Approach to Quantum Mechanics
(McGraw-Hill
, New York
, 1992
).32.
33.
For Bell, there was no important distinction between “locality” and “local causality.” For example, Bell first used the phrase “local causality” in print in Ref. 36. In the same paper, he refers to the inequality (which he has shown how to derive from “local causality”) as “the locality inequality” and remarks that the detailed discussion of “local causality” in Sec. 2 was “an attempt to be rather explicit and general about the notion of locality, along lines only hinted at in previous publications,” see Ref. 36. This usage is consistent with his later publications. See, for example, Ref. 8, pp. xi–xii and Ref. 7.
34.
Charles
Mann
and Robert
Crease
, “John Bell, particle physicist”
(interview), Omni
10
(8
), 84
–92
and 121 (1988
).35.
John S.
Bell
, “Beables for quantum field theory
,” CERN-TH 4035/84, August 2, 1984; reprinted in Ref. 8, pp. 173
–180
.36.
John S.
Bell
, “The theory of local beables
,” Epistemological Lett.
9
, 11
–24
(1976
); reprinted in Ref. 8, pp. 52–62.37.
John S.
Bell
, “Against ‘measurement’
,” in 62 Years of Uncertainty
, edited by A. I.
Miller
(Plenum Publishers
, New York
, 1989
); reprinted in Ref. 8, pp. 213
–231
.38.
Travis
Norsen
, “Against ‘Realism’
,” Found. Phys.
37
(3
), 311
–340
(2007
).39.
John F.
Clauser
, M. A.
Horne
, A.
Shimony
, and R. A.
Holt
, “Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories
,” Phys. Rev. Lett.
23
, 880
–884
(1969
).40.
John S.
Bell
, “Free variables and local causality
,” Epistemological Lett.
15
(1977
); reprinted in Dialectica 39 103–106 (1985) and in Ref. 8, pp. 100
–104
.41.
Jeremy
Butterfield
, “Bell’s theorem: What it takes
,” British J. Philos. Sci.
42
, 41
–83
(1992
)42.
Harvey R.
Brown
, Physical Relativity
(Oxford University Press
, Oxford
, 2005
).43.
Tim
Maudlin
, Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity
, 2nd ed. (Blackwell
, Malden, MA
, 2002
).44.
What we call “local signaling” is also sometimes called “no signaling” or “signal locality.”
45.
See, for example, Refs. 33 and 34 and
Leslie E.
Ballentine
and Jon P.
Jarrett
, “Bell’s theorem: Does quantum mechanics contradict relativity?
”Am. J. Phys.
55
(8
), 696
–701
(1987
).46.
For a more detailed version of this argument see
Travis
Norsen
, “Bell Locality and the nonlocal character of nature
,” Found. Phys. Lett.
19
, 633
–655
(2006
).47.
N.
David Mermin
, “Bringing home the atomic world: Quantum mysteries for anybody
,” Am. J. Phys.
49
, 940
–943
(1981
).48.
Abner
Shimony
, M. A.
Horne
, and J. F.
Clauser
, “Comment on ‘The theory of local beables’
,” Epistemological Lett.
9
(1976
); reprinted as “An exchange on local beables,” Dialectica 39, 97
–101
(1985).49.
About the de Broglie-Bohm theory, Bell wrote: “No one can understand this theory until he is willing to think of ψ as a real objective field rather than just a ‘probability amplitude.’ Even though it propagates not in 3-space but in 3N-space” in Ref. 18. Some proponents of the de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave theory prefer to interpret the wave function in that theory not as a beable, but rather as a law. See, for example, S. Goldstein and N. Zanghi, 1618 “Reality and the role of the wavefunction in quantum theory,” forthcoming in D. Albert and A. Ney, eds. The Wave Function: Essays in the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge, UP., 2011).
50.
Travis
Norsen
, “The theory of (exclusively) local beables
,” Found. Phys.
40
, 1858
–1884
(2010
).© 2011 American Association of Physics Teachers.
2011
American Association of Physics Teachers
AAPT members receive access to the American Journal of Physics and The Physics Teacher as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.
