Abstract
Does time have a non-trivial local structure? This question is new to physics, but central to the rest of this exposition. We explain how the notion of a structured time may be formulated. If time in reality is structured then physics cannot be based on differential equations alone, but needs to be founded on a new logic. The relation of such a new logic to quantum logic is postponed till Chapter VIB, while questions about the global structure of time are postponed till Chapter VII.
The previous chapter concluded by recommending the hypothesis of a tilt in the arrow of time. This hypothesis has two consequences: a structured time and non-locality. We outline the first consequence and indicate how most recognized new features about time in q.m. fit into the perspective of a (microphysically) structured time, whereas hidden variable theories deny the existence of this structure by supposing that ‘reality’ cannot but be definite. The rest of this chapter examines the physical acceptability of non-locality in the context of Bell’s inequalities.
We develop the background and state the inequalities. We point out the difficulty with inefficient detectors and try to correct the popular misconception that the inequalities have been conclusively violated in experiments. Without rejecting q.m., and without accepting hidden variables, we argue that the intuitive notion of locality is fuzzy and unreliable, while difficulties in the mathematical formulation of the notion of locality make ‘non-locality’ merely a disreputable tag. Finally, we point out that nothing in classical physics justifies the polemic of spookiness applied to non-locality — for several centuries, locality has remained a desirable metaphysical requirement, rarely satisfied by physical theory.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
N. Rescher and A. Urquhart, Temporal Logic ( Wien: Springer, 1971 ).
W. H. Newton-Smith, The Structure of Time, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1974.
Rescher, Ref. 1, tries to relate the U-calculus to the measurement of time by beginning with a set T of ‘instants’ and a metric (or pseudo-metric) on it. This induces a U-relation that is irreflexive, asymmetric, and transitive, provided one can fmd two ‘instants’ to, ti, such that Utoti. Such a U-relation, obtained by globalizing the past and future at one instant of time, turns out to be counter-intuitive and also counter-physical when the local (physical) earlier-later relationships are not globally consistent.
For instance, in the one-dimensional case of two like charges without radiation damping or any other external forces, people have attempted to prove the uniqueness of solutions provided the charges stay separated by a distance which is ‘a large multiple of the radius of the universe’. We recall that the higher-dimensional case is qualitatively different. See, e.g., R. D. Driver, Phys. Rev., 19, 1098–1107 (1979).
The paradigm is an observable with non-degenerate discrete (preferably finite) spectrum. The difficulty is that von Neumann’s collapse postulate does not trivially generalise to the continuous spectrum case, as he had thought.
Strictly, the terminology of spin detection or spin-meters may be preferable.
EPR and other papers on measurement theory are reproduced in J.A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek (eds), Quantum Theory and Measurement (Princeton: Univ. Press, 1983). The original reference is: A. Einstein, B Podolsky, N. Rosen, Phys. Rev., 47, 777 (1935).
D. Bohm, Quantum Theory, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1951.
S. Kochen and E. Specker, J. Math. Mech., 17, 59 (1967). Reprinted along with other relevant papers, such as Gleason’s in C. A. Hooker (ed) The Logico-Algebraic Approach to Quantum Mechanics, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1983.
J. M. Jauch and C. Piron, Helv. Phys. Acta 36, 827 (1963).
G.W. Mackey, Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Benjamin, New York, 1963.
A. M. Gleason [1956] reproduced in Hooker, Ref. 9.
A detailed account of these no-hidden-variable theorems and the resulting constraints on hidden variable theories may be found in F. J. Belinfante, A Survey of Hidden Variable Theories,Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1973. See also Bell’s 1966 paper, Ref. 15 or 16 below.
D. Bohm, ‘Quantum theory in terms of “hidden” variables I,’ Phys. Rev., 85, 166–179 (1952); ‘A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of “hidden” variables II,’ Phys. Rev., 85, 180–93 (1952).
J. S. Bell, Rev. Mod. Phys., 38, 458–62 (1966). This paper was prepared prior to the more famous paper in Physics, 1, 195 (1964).
J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge: Univ. Press 1987) pp 45–46. The book contains a collection of all the papers of Bell on the philosophy of quantum mechanics.
e.g. J. F. Clauser and A. Shimony, Rep. Prog. Phys., 41, 1881 (1978); A. Aspect, P. Grangier and G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Lett., 47, 460 1981); 49, 91 (1982); A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger Phys. Rev. Lett., 49, 1804 (1982). W. Perrie et al, Phys. Rev. Lett., 54, 1790 (1985).
G. Zukav, The Dancing Wu-Li Masters (N.Y.: Flamingo, 1981 ). The book is, otherwise, a well-written popular introduction.There have been more serious attempts at generalization to telepathy, telekinesis etc., by some physicists such as O. Costa de Beauregard.
O. Penrose and I.C. Percival, Proc. Phys. Soc., 79, 605 (1962).
Bell 1966, Ref. 15, or chapter 1 of Ref. 16.
J. Bub, The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics ( N.Y.: Benjamin, 1974 ).
E. P. Wigner, Amer. J. Phys., 33, 1005–9 (1970).
S. Freedman and E. P. Wigner, Found. Phys., 3, 457 (1973).
J. S. Bell, Ref. 16.
Some of the issues are considered, for instance, in R.K. Clifton, M.L.G. Redhead, and J. N. Butterfield, Found Phys., 21,149–183 (1991). An easier exposition maybe found in Michael Redhead, Incompleteness, Nonlocality and Realism, Clarendon, Oxford, 1987.
According to Barut (personal communication), Bell disagreed, though I do not know the nature of the disagreement. Bell had considered a very similar example to motivate his proof.
A. O. Barut and P. Meystre, Phys. Lett., 105-A, 458–62, 1984; A. O. Barut, Hadronic J. Suppl., 1, (1986).
A. Garg and D. Mermin, Phys. Rev., D35, 383 (1987).
local realism’, as defined by Garg and Mermin, Ref. 28, refers to the averaging procedure for a hidden variable theory.
e.g., A. Fine, Found. Phys., 21, 365 (1991).
e.g., E. Santos, Found. Phys., 21, 221 (1991).
G.C. Hegerfeldt, Phys. Rev., D10, 3320 (1974); G. C. Hegerfeldt and S.N.M. Ruijsenaars, Phys. Rev., D22, 377 (1980). This has been made almost a starting point for stochastic quantization by E. Prugovecki and members of his school. See also, G.C. Hegerfeldt, Phys. Rev. Lett., 72, 596 (1994).
C. K. Raju, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., 16, 3739–53 (1983).
See, e.g., R. D. Richtmeyer, Principles of Mathematical Physics, Vol. 1. Springer, Berlin (1982), or M. Taylor, Pseudo-Differential Operators, N.Y., Academic (1974).
As a leading expert, Dafermos, remarked in private conversation, the right way to define hyperbolicity is to put in more and more physics!
See, e.g., P.C.W. Davies, The Physics of Time Asymmetry, Surrey Univ. Press, London, 1974.
J. B. Hartle, in: Proceedings of the Fifth Marcel Grossman Meeting, D. Blair et al (eds), R. Ruffmi (series ed.), Wiley Eastern, Singapore, 1989, pp 107–24.
e.g., D. T. Pegg, J. Phys. A: Math., Gen., 24, 3031–40 (1991).
A.J. Leggett and A. Garg, Phys. Rev. Lett., 55, 857 (1985). A.J. Leggett, ‘Quantum mechanics at the macroscopic level.’ In: J. de Boer, E. Dal and O. Ulfbed (eds), The Lessons of Quantum Theory: Niels Bohr Centenary Symposium, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1986, pp 35–58, and in: G. Grinstein, and G. Mezenko (eds), Directions in Condensed Matter Physics: Memorial Volume in Honor of Shang-keng Ma, World Scientific, Singapore, 1986, pp 185–248.
S. Foster and A. Elby, Found. Phys., 21, 773–80 (1991).
First noted by W. Ehrenberg and R.W. Siday, Proc. Phys. Soc. (Lond.) B62, 8 (1949), and by Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, Phys. Rev., 115, 485 (1959). An exhaustive review may be found in M. Peshkin and A. Tonomura, The Aharonov-Bohm Effect, Lecture Notes in Physics No. 340, Springer, Berlin, 1989.
Article by M. Peshkin, p 4, in the book cited in Ref. 41.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1994 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Raju, C.K. (1994). Bell and Non-Locality. In: Time: Towards a Consistent Theory. Fundamental Theories of Physics, vol 65. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8376-3_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-8376-3_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4462-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-8376-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive