Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T14:18:21.595Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bell's Theorem, Nonseparability, and Spacetime Individuation in Quantum Mechanics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Darrin W. Belousek
Darrin W. Belousek*
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame
*
†Department of Philosophy, 336 O'Shaughnessy Hall, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556; e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We first examine Howard's analysis of the Bell factorizability condition in terms of ‘separability’ and ‘locality’ and then consider his claims that the violations of Bell's inequality by the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics should be interpreted in terms of ‘nonseparability’ rather than ‘nonlocality’ and that ‘nonseparability’ implies the failure of spacetime as a principle of individuation for quantum-mechanical systems. We will argue that his argument for the first claim is less than compelling and that any argument for the second claim will be interpretation-dependent and, hence, not generally valid.

Type
Foundations of Quantum Mechanics
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 66 , Issue S3: Supplement. Proceedings of the 1998 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers Sep., 1999 , 1999 , pp. S28 - S46
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

Financial support provided by the John J. Reilly Center for Science, Technology and Values and the Zahm Research Travel Fund, University of Notre Dame. Some of this research was conducted while a Visiting Scholar in the History and Philosophy of Science Department, Cambridge University, during the Lent term 1997. This paper is a revised version of a chapter from my dissertation, “Ontological Commitments and Theory Appraisal in the Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics” (Notre Dame, 1998). My thanks to Jim Cushing and Don Howard for many stimulating conversations on these topics.

References

Cushing, James T. (1991), “Quantum Theory and Explanatory Discourse: Endgame for Understanding?”, Philosophy of Science 58: 337–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cushing, James T. (1994), “Locality/Separability: Is This Necessarily a Useful Distinction?”, PSA 1: 107–116.Google Scholar
Cushing, James T. (1996), “What Measurement Problem?”, in Clifton, Rob (ed.), Perspectives on Quantum Reality: Non-Relativistic, Relativistic, and Field-Theoretic. Dordrecht: Kluwer, 167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dieks, Denis (1989), “Quantum Mechanics Without the Projection Postulate and its Realistic Interpretation”, Foundations of Physics 19: 1397–1423.10.1007/BF00732760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, Albert (1919), “What is the Theory of Relativity?”, in Einstein 1954, 227–232.Google Scholar
Einstein, Albert. (1933), “On the Method of Theoretical Physics”, in Einstein 1954, 270–276.Google Scholar
Einstein, Albert. (1936), “Physik und Realität”, The Journal of the Franklin Institute 221: 313–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, Albert. (1948), “Quanten Mechanik und Wirklichkeit”, Dialectica 2: 320–324.10.1111/j.1746-8361.1948.tb00704.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, Albert. (1949), “Autobiographical Notes”, in Schilpp, Paul Arthur (ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. Lasalle, IL: Open Court, 2–94.Google Scholar
Einstein, Albert. (1954), Ideas and Opinions. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
Fine, Arthur (1986), The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism and the Quantum Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Howard, Don (1985), “Einstein on Locality and Separability”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 16: 171–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, Don. (1989), “Holism, Separability, and the Metaphysical Implications of the Bell Experiments”, in Cushing, James T. and McMullin, Ernan (eds.), Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflections on Bell's Theorem. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 224–253.Google Scholar
Howard, Don. (1992), “Locality, Separability, and the Physical Implications of the Bell Experiments”, in Merwe, Alwyn van der et al. (eds.), Bell's Theorem and the Foundations of Modern Physics. Singapore: World Scientific, 306–314.Google Scholar
Jarrett, Jon P. (1984), “On the Physical Significance of the Locality Conditions in the Bell Arguments”, Noûs 18: 569–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kochen, Simon (1985), “A New Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics”, in Lahti, P. and Mittelstaedt, P. (eds.), Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics. Singapore: World Scientific, 151–169.Google Scholar
Laudisa, Federico (1995), “Einstein, Bell, and Nonseparable Realism”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46: 309–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maudlin, Tim (1994), Quantum Nonlocality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Shimony, Abner (1984), “Controllable and Uncontrollable Nonlocality”, in Kamefuchi, S. et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Tokyo: Physical Society of Japan, 225–230.Google Scholar