Foundations of Physics

, Volume 47, Issue 5, pp 640–657 | Cite as

Making Sense of Bell’s Theorem and Quantum Nonlocality

  • Stephen BoughnEmail author


Bell’s theorem has fascinated physicists and philosophers since his 1964 paper, which was written in response to the 1935 paper of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen. Bell’s theorem and its many extensions have led to the claim that quantum mechanics and by inference nature herself are nonlocal in the sense that a measurement on a system by an observer at one location has an immediate effect on a distant entangled system (one with which the original system has previously interacted). Einstein was repulsed by such “spooky action at a distance” and was led to question whether quantum mechanics could provide a complete description of physical reality. In this paper I argue that quantum mechanics does not require spooky action at a distance of any kind and yet it is entirely reasonable to question the assumption that quantum mechanics can provide a complete description of physical reality. The magic of entangled quantum states has little to do with entanglement and everything to do with superposition, a property of all quantum systems and a foundational tenet of quantum mechanics.


Quantum nonlocality Bell’s theorem Foundations of quantum mechanics Measurement problem 


  1. 1.
    Boughn, S.: “A modest view of Bell’s theorem”, arXiv:1604.08529
  2. 2.
    Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., Rosen, N.: Can quantum–mechanical description of reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777–780 (1935)ADSCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bell, J.: On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox. Physics 1, 195–200 (1964)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mermin, D.: “Is the moon there when nobody looks? Reality and the Quantum theory”, Phys. Today, April 1985, 38–47Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Stapp, H.: Bell’s theorem and world process. Il Nuovo Cimento B 29, 270–276 (1975)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Freedman, S., Clauser, J.: Experimental test of local hidden-variable theories. Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 938–941 (1972)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bohm, D.: “A suggested interpretation of the Quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden’ variables” (parts I and II). Phys. Rev. 85, 166–193 (1952)ADSCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bell, J.: “The theory of local beables”, presented at the sixth GIFT seminar, June 1975, appears in speakable and unspeakable in Quantum mechanics, pp. 52–62. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge (2004)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wiseman, H.: From Einstein’s theorem to Bell’s theorem: a history of quantum nonlocality. Contemp. Phys. 47(2), 79–88 (2006)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goldstein, S., Norsen, T., Tausk, D., Zanghi, N.: Bell’s theorem. Scholarpedia 6(10), 8378 (2011)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shimony, A.: “Bell’s theorem”, Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, (2013)
  12. 12.
    Einstein, A.: “Autobiographical notes”, in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, Schilpp, P. (ed.) Library of the Living Philosophers, Evanston, (1949)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bell, J.: Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality. J. Phys. Colloq. C2(42), 41–61 (1981)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Albert, D.: Quantum Mechanics and Experience. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maudlin, T.: Quantum non-locality & relativity: metaphysical intimations of modern physics (Wiley-Blackwell). Sussex 173, 221 (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Howard, D.: Revisiting the Einstein–Bohr dialogue. Iyyun: Jerus. Philos. Q. 56, 57–90 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bohm, D., Aharonov, Y.: Discussion of experimental proof for the Paradox of Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky. Phys. Rev. 108, 1070–1076 (1957)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bell, J.: On the problem of hidden variables in Quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447–452 (1966)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mermin, D.: Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell. Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 803–815 (1993)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Furry, W.: in On the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Physics Department, Xavier University, (1962)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dyson, F.: “Thought experiments—In Honor of John Wheeler”, Contribution to Wheeler Symosium, Princeton, 2002, reprinted in Bird and Frogs by Dyson, F. pp. 304–321. World Scientific, Singapore (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wigner, E.: in On the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Physics Department, Xavier University, (1962)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dyson, F.: Private communication, (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stapp, H.: The Copenhagen interpretation. Am. J. Phys. 40, 1098–1116 (1972)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Einstein, A.: Physics and reality. J. Frankl. Inst. 221, 349–382 (1936)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ballentine, L.: The statistical interpretation of Quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 42, 358–381 (1970)ADSCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Furry, W.: Note on the Quantum–mechanical theory of measurement. Phys. Rev. 49, 393–399 (1936)ADSCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Furry, W.: Remarks on measurements in Quantum theory. Phys. Rev. 49, 476 (1936)ADSCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Van Frasseen, B.: The Charybdis of realism: epistemological implications of Bell’s inequality. Synthese 52, 25–38 (1982)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fine, A.: “Do Correlations Need To Be Explained?”, in Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflections on Bell’s Theorem, Cushing, J., McMullin, E. (eds.), pp. 175–194. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame, (1989)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Princeton UniversityPrincetonUSA
  2. 2.Haverford CollegeHaverfordUSA

Personalised recommendations