Local Causality and Completeness: Bell vs. Jarrett

J.S. Bell believed that his famous theorem entailed a deep and troubling conflict between the empirically verified predictions of quantum theory and the notion of local causality that is motivated by relativity theory. Yet many physicists continue to accept, usually on the reports of textbook writers and other commentators, that Bell's own view was wrong, and that, in fact, the theorem only brings out a conflict with determinism or the hidden-variables program or realism or some other such principle that (unlike local causality), allegedly, nobody should have believed anyway. (Moreover, typically such beliefs arise without the person in question even being aware that the view they are accepting differs so radically from Bell's own.) Here we try to shed some light on the situation by focusing on the concept of local causality that is the heart of Bell's theorem, and, in particular, by contrasting Bell's own understanding with the analysis of Jon Jarrett which has been the most influential source, in recent decades, for the kinds of claims mentioned previously. We point out a crucial difference between Jarrett's and Bell's own understanding of Bell's formulation of local causality, which turns out to be the basis for the erroneous claim, made by Jarrett and many others, that Bell misunderstood the implications of his own theorem.Comment: 10 pages, 4 figure

Yet Another Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics

A survey probing respondents' views on various foundational issues in quantum mechanics was recently created by Schlosshauer, Kofler, and Zeilinger [arXiv:1301.1069] and then given to 33 participants at a quantum foundations conference. Here we report the results of giving this same survey to the attendees at another recent quantum foundations conference. While it is rather difficult to conclude anything of scientific significance from the poll, the results do strongly suggest several interesting cultural facts -- for example, that there exist, within the broad field of "quantum foundations", sub-communities with quite different views, and that (relatedly) there is probably even significantly more controversy about several fundamental issues than the already-significant amount revealed in the earlier poll.Comment: 11 pages, 16 bar graph

Einstein's Boxes

At the 1927 Solvay conference, Einstein presented a thought experiment intended to demonstrate the incompleteness of the quantum mechanical description of reality. In the following years, the thought experiment was picked up and modified by Einstein, de Broglie, and several other commentators into a simple scenario involving the splitting in half of the wave function of a single particle in a box. In this paper we collect together several formulations of this thought experiment from the existing literature; analyze and assess it from the point of view of the Einstein-Bohr debates, the EPR dilemma, and Bell's theorem; and generally lobby for Einstein's Boxes taking its rightful place alongside similar but historically better-known quantum mechanical thought experiments such as EPR and Schroedinger's Cat.Comment: Published versio