Bell's Theorem and Locally-Mediated Reformulations of Quantum Mechanics

Bell's Theorem rules out many potential reformulations of quantum mechanics, but within a generalized framework, it does not exclude all "locally-mediated" models. Such models describe the correlations between entangled particles as mediated by intermediate parameters which track the particle world-lines and respect Lorentz covariance. These locally-mediated models require the relaxation of an arrow-of-time assumption which is typically taken for granted. Specifically, some of the mediating parameters in these models must functionally depend on measurement settings in their future, i.e., on input parameters associated with later times. This option (often called "retrocausal") has been repeatedly pointed out in the literature, but the exploration of explicit locally-mediated toy-models capable of describing specific entanglement phenomena has begun only in the past decade. A brief survey of such models is included here. These models provide a continuous and consistent description of events associated with spacetime locations, with aspects that are solved "all-at-once" rather than unfolding from the past to the future. The tension between quantum mechanics and relativity which is usually associated with Bell's Theorem does not occur here. Unlike conventional quantum models, the number of parameters needed to specify the state of a system does not grow exponentially with the number of entangled particles. The promise of generalizing such models to account for all quantum phenomena is identified as a grand challenge.Comment: 61 pages, 2 figures; accepted for publication by Rev. Mod. Phy

New Slant on the EPR-Bell Experiment

The best case for thinking that quantum mechanics is nonlocal rests on Bell's Theorem, and later results of the same kind. However, the correlations characteristic of EPR-Bell (EPRB) experiments also arise in familiar cases elsewhere in QM, where the two measurements involved are timelike rather than spacelike separated; and in which the correlations are usually assumed to have a local causal explanation, requiring no action-at-a-distance. It is interesting to ask how this is possible, in the light of Bell's Theorem. We investigate this question, and present two options. Either (i) the new cases are nonlocal, too, in which case action-at-a-distance is more widespread in QM than has previously been appreciated (and does not depend on entanglement, as usually construed); or (ii) the means of avoiding action-at-a-distance in the new cases extends in a natural way to EPRB, removing action-at-a-distance in these cases, too. There is a third option, viz., that the new cases are strongly disanalogous to EPRB. But this option requires an argument, so far missing, that the physical world breaks the symmetries which otherwise support the analogy. In the absence of such an argument, the orthodox combination of views -- action-at-a-distance in EPRB, but local causality in its timelike analogue -- is less well established than it is usually assumed to be.Comment: 26 pages, 7 figures; extensively revised for resubmissio

The Universe is not a Computer

When we want to predict the future, we compute it from what we know about the present. Specifically, we take a mathematical representation of observed reality, plug it into some dynamical equations, and then map the time-evolved result back to real-world predictions. But while this computational process can tell us what we want to know, we have taken this procedure too literally, implicitly assuming that the universe must compute itself in the same manner. Physical theories that do not follow this computational framework are deemed illogical, right from the start. But this anthropocentric assumption has steered our physical models into an impossible corner, primarily because of quantum phenomena. Meanwhile, we have not been exploring other models in which the universe is not so limited. In fact, some of these alternate models already have a well-established importance, but are thought to be mathematical tricks without physical significance. This essay argues that only by dropping our assumption that the universe is a computer can we fully develop such models, explain quantum phenomena, and understand the workings of our universe. (This essay was awarded third prize in the 2012 FQXi essay contest; a new afterword compares and contrasts this essay with Robert Spekkens' first prize entry.)Comment: 10 pages with new afterword; matches published versio