Advertisement

Foundations of Physics

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 585–601 | Cite as

Local Realism and Conditional Probability

  • Allen Stairs
  • Jeffrey BubEmail author
Article

Emilio Santos has argued (Santos, Studies in History and Philosophy of Physics http: //arxiv-org/abs/quant-ph/0410193) that to date, no experiment has provided a loophole-free refutation of Bell’s inequalities. He believes that this provides strong evidence for the principle of local realism, and argues that we should reject this principle only if we have extremely strong evidence. However, recent work by Malley and Fine (Non-commuting observables and local realism, http: //arxiv-org/abs/quant-ph/0505016) appears to suggest that experiments refuting Bell’s inequalities could at most confirm that quantum mechanical quantities do not commute. They also suggest that experiments performed on a single system could refute local realism. In this paper, we develop a connection between the work of Malley and Fine and an argument by Bub from some years ago [Bub, The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Chapter VI(Reidel, Dodrecht,1974)]. We also argue that the appearance of conflict between Santos on the one hand and Malley and Fine on the other is a result of differences in the way they understand local realism.

Keywords

Bell’s inequality local realism hidden variables nonlocality Kochen–Specker theorem quantum conditional probability 

PACS

03.65.Ta. 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Beltrametti E.G. and Cassinelli G. (1981). The Logic of Quantum Mechanics. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bub J. (1974). The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Chapter VI. Reidel, DodrechtGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    P. Busch, “Quantum States and Generalized Observables: A Simple Proof of Gleason’s Theorem,” http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9909073.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Einstein, “Quantenmechanik und Wirklichkeit,” Dialectica 2, 320–324 (1948). Quoted and translated in D. Howard, “Holism, separability and the metaphysical implications of the Bell experiments,” in Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory, J. T. Cushing and E. McMullin, eds. (University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, 1989), p. 233Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fine A. (1982). “Correlations and physical locality”. In: Asquith P., Giere R (eds). PSA 1980 vol 2. Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, MI, pp. 535–562Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fine A. (1982). “Hidden variables, joint probability and the Bell inequalities”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 48:291–295CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fine A. (1982). “Antinomies of entanglement; the puzzling case of the tangled statistics”. J. Philos. 79:733-747CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gleason A.M. (1957). “Measures on the closed subspaces of Hilbert space”. J. Math. Mech. 6: 885–893zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kochen S. and Specker E.P. (1967). “The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics”. J. Math. Mech. 17:59–87zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Malley J.D. (1998). “Quantum conditional probability and hidden-variables models”. Phys. Rev A 58:812CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Malley J.D. (2004). “All quantum observables in a hidden-variables model must commute simultaneously”. Phys. Rev. A 69:022118CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. D. Malley, “All quantum observables in a hidden-variables model must commute simultaneously,” http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0402126.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. D. Malley and A. Fine, “Noncommuting observables and local realism,” http://arxiv. org/abs/quant-ph/0505016.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    E. Santos, “Bell’s theorem and the experiments: increasing support to local realism?,” fothcoming in Studies in History and Philosophy of Physics; available at http://arxiv.org/ abs/quant-ph/0410193 (references here are to this version).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wigner E.P. (1970). Am. J. Phys 38:1005–1009CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations