Bell’s Theorem and the Issue of Determinism and Indeterminism

The paper considers the claim that quantum theories with a deterministic dynamics of objects in ordinary space-time, such as Bohmian mechanics, contradict the assumption that the measurement settings can be freely chosen in the EPR experiment. That assumption is one of the premises of Bell’s theorem. I first argue that only a premise to the effect that what determines the choice of the measurement settings is independent of what determines the past state of the measured system is needed for the derivation of Bell’s theorem. Determinism as such does not undermine that independence (unless there are particular initial conditions of the universe that would amount to conspiracy). Only entanglement could do so. However, generic entanglement without collapse on the level of the universal wave-function can go together with effective wave-functions for subsystems of the universe, as in Bohmian mechanics. The paper argues that such effective wave-functions are sufficient for the mentioned independence premise to hold.

[1]  J. Bell,et al.  Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Preface to the first edition , 2004 .

[2]  What Does the Free Will Theorem Actually Prove , 2009, 0905.4641.

[3]  P. Dowe Time's arrow and Archimedes' point , 1998 .

[4]  Simon Kochen,et al.  The Strong Free Will Theorem , 2008, 0807.3286.

[5]  M. P. Seevinck,et al.  Can quantum theory and special relativity peacefully coexist , 2010, 1010.3714.

[6]  N. Gisin Stochastic quantum dynamics and relativity , 1989 .

[7]  Roger Colbeck,et al.  No extension of quantum theory can have improved predictive power , 2010, Nature communications.

[8]  M. P. Seevinck,et al.  Not throwing out the baby with the bathwater: Bell's condition of local causality mathematically 'sharp and clean' , 2010, 1007.3724.

[9]  N. Gisin Propensities in a non-deterministic physics , 1991, Synthese.

[10]  C. Wuthrich Can the world be shown to be indeterministic after all , 2010 .

[11]  Travis Norsen,et al.  Bell's theorem , 2011, Scholarpedia.

[12]  T. Maudlin Quantum non-locality and relativity : metaphysical intimations of modern physics , 1996 .

[13]  Pearle,et al.  Markov processes in Hilbert space and continuous spontaneous localization of systems of identical particles. , 1990, Physical review. A, Atomic, molecular, and optical physics.

[14]  A. Zeilinger,et al.  Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics , 1989 .

[15]  R. Tumulka A Relativistic Version of the Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber Model , 2004, quant-ph/0406094.

[16]  László E. Szabó,et al.  The Principle of the Common Cause , 2013 .

[17]  T. Norsen John S. Bell’s concept of local causality , 2007, 0707.0401.

[18]  Sheldon Goldstein,et al.  Quantum physics without quantum philosophy , 1995 .

[19]  Harry G. Frankfurt,et al.  The importance of what we care about: Freedom of the will and the concept of a person , 1971 .

[20]  Mauro Dorato,et al.  GRW as an ontology of dispositions , 2010 .

[21]  G. Ghirardi,et al.  Describing the macroscopic world: Closing the circle within the dynamical reduction program , 1994 .

[22]  Huw Price,et al.  Time's Arrow and Archimedes’ Point , 1997 .

[23]  R. Tumulka THE POINT PROCESSES OF THE GRW THEORY OF WAVE FUNCTION COLLAPSE , 2007, 0711.0035.

[24]  Tim Maudlin,et al.  Quantum non-locality and relativity , 1994 .

[25]  Weber,et al.  Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems. , 1986, Physical review. D, Particles and fields.

[26]  D. Bohm A SUGGESTED INTERPRETATION OF THE QUANTUM THEORY IN TERMS OF "HIDDEN" VARIABLES. II , 1952 .

[27]  H. Price Time's arrow and Archimedes' point new directions for the physics of time , 1997 .

[28]  R. Tumulka Comment on “The Free Will Theorem” , 2006, quant-ph/0611283.

[29]  Abner Shimony,et al.  Search for a naturalistic world view: An exchange on local beables , 1985 .

[30]  Local Causality and Completeness: Bell vs. Jarrett , 2008, 0808.2178.