Maudlin has claimed that no local theory can reproduce the predictions of standard quantum mechanics that violate Bell’s inequality for Bohm’s version (two spin-half particles in a singlet state) of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen problem. It is argued that, on the contrary, standard quantum mechanics itself is a counterexample to Maudlin’s claim, because it is local in the appropriate sense (measurements at one place do not influence what occurs elsewhere there) when formulated using consistent principles in place of the inconsistent appeals to “measurement” found in current textbooks. This argument sheds light on the claim of Blaylock that counterfactual definiteness is an essential ingredient in derivations of Bell’s inequality.
REFERENCES
1.
The terms “framework” and “consistent family” are used both for the sample space and the corresponding event algebra it generates. If the distinction is important one can refer to a “consistent sample space of histories.”
2.
We think of as corresponding to internal states, say spin states, of a particle, and that its center of mass motion toward a detector is taken care of by using a unitary time development operator T(t′, t) with two arguments, rather than supposing it depends only on the time difference t′-t.
3.
Strictly speaking, Eq. (36) should be applied only in cases in which the bars are absent in the final a states in the dynamics in Eqs. (31) and (32). However, if we are only using the collapsed wave function to calculate properties of particle b this makes no difference.
4.
Naturally, one has to use a different piece of apparatus to measure different components of the spin angular momentum.
5.
G.
Blaylock
, “The EPR paradox, Bell’s inequality, and the question of locality
,” Am. J. Phys.
78
, 111
–120
(2010
).6.
T.
Maudlin
, “What Bell proved: A reply to Blaylock
,” Am. J. Phys.
78
, 121
–125
(2010
).7.
H. P.
Stapp
, “Nonlocal character of quantum theory
,” Am. J. Phys.
65
, 300
–304
(1997
).8.
B.
d’Espagnat
, On Physics and Philosophy
(Princeton U. P.
, Princeton, NJ
, 2006
).9.
R. B.
Griffiths
, “Quantum locality
,” Found. Phys.
41
, 705
–733
(2011
).10.
N. D.
Mermin
, “What’s wrong with this pillow?
,” Phys. Today
42
(4
), 9
(1989
).11.
E. P.
Wigner
, “The problem of measurement
,” Am. J. Phys.
31
, 6
–15
(1963
).12.
P.
Mittelstaedt
, The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics and the Measurement Process
(Cambridge U. P.
, Cambridge, UK
, 1998
).13.
P.
Busch
and A.
Shimony
, “Insolubility of the quantum measurement problem for unsharp observables
,” Stud. Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys.
27
, 397
–404
(1996
).14.
J. S.
Bell
, “Against measurement,” in Sixty-Two Years of Uncertainty
, edited by A. I.
Miller
(Plenum Press
, New York
, 1990
), pp. 17
–31
.15.
R. B.
Griffiths
, “Consistent histories and the interpretation of quantum mechanics
,” J. Stat. Phys.
36
, 219
–272
(1984
).16.
M.
Gell-Mann
and J. B.
Hartle
, “Quantum mechanics in the light of quantum cosmology
,” in Complexity, Entropy and the Physics of Information
, edited by W. H.
Zurek
(Addison-Wesley
, Redwood City, CA
, 1990
), pp. 425
–458
.17.
18.
R. B.
Griffiths
, “Consistent resolution of some relativistic quantum paradoxes
,” Phys. Rev. A
66
, 062101
–1
(2002
).19.
P. C.
Hohenberg
, “An introduction to consistent quantum theory
,” Rev. Mod. Phys.
82
, 2835
–2844
(2010
).20.
21.
A.
Einstein
, B.
Podolsky
, and N.
Rosen
, “Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?
,” Phys. Rev.
47
, 777
–780
(1935
).22.
R. B.
Griffiths
, “Correlations in separated quantum systems: A consistent history analysis of the EPR problem
,” Am. J. Phys.
55
, 11
–17
(1987
).23.
J.
von Neumann
, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics
(Princeton U.P.
, Princeton, NJ
, 1955
). Translation of Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik
(Springer-Verlag
, Berlin
, 1932
).24.
G.
Birkhoff
and J.
von Neumann
, “The logic of quantum mechanics
,” Ann. Math.
37
, 823
–843
(1936
).25.
F.
Laloë
, “Do we really understand quantum mechanics? Strange correlations, paradoxes, and theorems
,” Am. J. Phys.
69
, 655
–701
(2001
).26.
H.
Everett
III, “‘Relative state’ formulation of quantum mechanics
,” Rev. Mod. Phys.
29
, 454
–462
(1957
).27.
The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics
, edited by B. S.
DeWitt
and N.
Graham
(Princeton U. P.
, Princeton, NJ
, 1973
).28.
J. A.
Barrett
, The Quantum Mechanics of Minds and Worlds
(Oxford U. P.
, Oxford
, 1999
).29.
L.
Vaidman
, “The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics
,” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
, edited by E. N.
Zalta
, <plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds>.30.
J. A.
Barrett
, “Everett’s relative-state formulation of quantum mechanics
,” in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
, edited by E. N.
Zalta
, 〈plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-everett〉.31.
M.
Born
, “Zur Quantenmechanik der Stoßvorgänge” (“The quantum mechanics of scattering”)
, Z. Phys.
37
, 863
–867
(1926
).© 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.