Quantum Locality?

Robert Griffiths has recently addressed, within the framework of a 'consistent quantum theory' that he has developed, the issue of whether, as is often claimed, quantum mechanics entails a need for faster-than-light transfers of information over long distances. He argues that the putative proofs of this property that involve hidden variables include in their premises some essentially classical-physics-type assumptions that are fundamentally incompatible with the precepts of quantum physics. One cannot logically prove properties of a system by establishing, instead, properties of a system modified by adding properties alien to the original system. Hence Griffiths' rejection of hidden-variable-based proofs is logically warranted. Griffiths mentions the existence of a certain alternative proof that does not involve hidden variables, and that uses only macroscopically described observable properties. He notes that he had examined in his book proofs of this general kind, and concluded that they provide no evidence for nonlocal influences. But he did not examine the particular proof that he cites. An examination of that particular proof by the method specified by his 'consistent quantum theory' shows that the cited proof is valid within that restrictive version of quantum theory. An added section responds to Griffiths' reply, which cites general possibilities of ambiguities that make what is to be proved ill-defined, and hence render the pertinent 'consistent framework' ill defined. But the vagaries that he cites do not upset the proof in question, which, both by its physical formulation and by explicit identification, specify the framework to be used. Griffiths confirms the validity of the proof insofar as that framework is used. The section also shows, in response to Griffiths' challenge, why a putative proof of locality that he has described is flawed.Comment: This version adds a response to Griffiths' reply to my original. It notes that Griffiths confirms the validity of my argument if one uses the framework that I use. Griffiths' objection that other frameworks exist is not germaine, because I use the unique one that satisfies the explicitly stated conditions that the choices be macroscopic choices of experiments and outcomes in a specified orde

Quantum Electrodynamics at Large Distances II: Nature of the Dominant Singularities

Accurate calculations of macroscopic and mesoscopic properties in quantum electrodynamics require careful treatment of infrared divergences: standard treatments introduce spurious large-distances effects. A method for computing these properties was developed in a companion paper. That method depends upon a result obtained here about the nature of the singularities that produce the dominant large-distance behaviour. If all particles in a quantum field theory have non-zero mass then the Landau-Nakanishi diagrams give strong conditions on the singularities of the scattering functions. These conditions are severely weakened in quantum electrodynamics by effects of points where photon momenta vanish. A new kind of Landau-Nakanishi diagram is developed here. It is geared specifically to the pole-decomposition functions that dominate the macroscopic behaviour in quantum electrodynamics, and leads to strong results for these functions at points where photon momenta vanish.Comment: 40 pages, 11 encapsulated postscript figures, latexed, math_macros.tex can be found on Archive. full postscript available from http://theorl.lbl.gov/www/theorgroup/papers/35972.p

Consistent Quantum Counterfactuals

An analysis using classical stochastic processes is used to construct a consistent system of quantum counterfactual reasoning. When applied to a counterfactual version of Hardy's paradox, it shows that the probabilistic character of quantum reasoning together with the ``one framework'' rule prevents a logical contradiction, and there is no evidence for any mysterious nonlocal influences. Counterfactual reasoning can support a realistic interpretation of standard quantum theory (measurements reveal what is actually there) under appropriate circumstances.Comment: Minor modifications to make it agree with published version. Latex 8 pages, 2 figure

On the Consequences of Retaining the General Validity of Locality in Physical Theory

The empirical validity of the locality (LOC) principle of relativity is used to argue in favour of a local hidden variable theory (HVT) for individual quantum processes. It is shown that such a HVT may reproduce the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics (QM), provided the reproducibility of initial hidden variable states is limited. This means that in a HVT limits should be set to the validity of the notion of counterfactual definiteness (CFD). This is supported by the empirical evidence that past, present, and future are basically distinct. Our argumentation is contrasted with a recent one by Stapp resulting in the opposite conclusion, i.e. nonlocality or the existence of faster-than-light influences. We argue that Stapp's argumentation still depends in an implicit, but crucial, way on both the notions of hidden variables and of CFD. In addition, some implications of our results for the debate between Bohr and Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen are discussed.Comment: revtex, 11 page

On Quantum Jumps, Events and Spontaneous Localization Models

We propose a definite meaning to the concepts of "experiment", "measurement" and "event" in the event-enhanced formalism of quantum theory. A minimal piecewise deterministic process is given that can be used for a computer simulation of real time series of experiments on single quantum objects. As an example a generalized cloud chamber is described, including multiparticle case. Relation to the GRW spontaneous localization model is discussed. The second revised version of the paper contains references to papers by other authors that are are aiming in the same direction: to enhance quantum theory in such a way that it will provide stochastic description of events triggered by individual quantum systems.Comment: 20 page

The quantum speed up as advanced knowledge of the solution

With reference to a search in a database of size N, Grover states: "What is the reason that one would expect that a quantum mechanical scheme could accomplish the search in O(square root of N) steps? It would be insightful to have a simple two line argument for this without having to describe the details of the search algorithm". The answer provided in this work is: "because any quantum algorithm takes the time taken by a classical algorithm that knows in advance 50% of the information that specifies the solution of the problem". This empirical fact, unnoticed so far, holds for both quadratic and exponential speed ups and is theoretically justified in three steps: (i) once the physical representation is extended to the production of the problem on the part of the oracle and to the final measurement of the computer register, quantum computation is reduction on the solution of the problem under a relation representing problem-solution interdependence, (ii) the speed up is explained by a simple consideration of time symmetry, it is the gain of information about the solution due to backdating, to before running the algorithm, a time-symmetric part of the reduction on the solution; this advanced knowledge of the solution reduces the size of the solution space to be explored by the algorithm, (iii) if I is the information acquired by measuring the content of the computer register at the end of the algorithm, the quantum algorithm takes the time taken by a classical algorithm that knows in advance 50% of I, which brings us to the initial statement.Comment: 23 pages, to be published in IJT

Free Will in a Quantum World?

In this paper, I argue that Conway and Kochen’s Free Will Theorem (1,2) to the conclusion that quantum mechanics and relativity entail freedom for the particles, does not change the situation in favor of a libertarian position as they would like. In fact, the theorem more or less implicitly assumes that people are free, and thus it begs the question. Moreover, it does not prove neither that if people are free, so are particles, nor that the property people possess when they are said to be free is the same as the one particles possess when they are claimed to be free. I then analyze the Free State Theorem (2), which generalizes the Free Will Theorem without the assumption that people are free, and I show that it does not prove anything about free will, since the notion of freedom for particles is either inconsistent, or it does not concern our common understanding of freedom. In both cases, the Free Will Theorem and the Free State Theorem do not provide any enlightenment on the constraints physics can pose on free will

Minimum detection efficiency for a loophole-free atom-photon Bell experiment

In Bell experiments, one problem is to achieve high enough photodetection to ensure that there is no possibility of describing the results via a local hidden-variable model. Using the Clauser-Horne inequality and a two-photon non-maximally entangled state, a photodetection efficiency higher than 0.67 is necessary. Here we discuss atom-photon Bell experiments. We show that, assuming perfect detection efficiency of the atom, it is possible to perform a loophole-free atom-photon Bell experiment whenever the photodetection efficiency exceeds 0.50.Comment: REVTeX4, 4 pages, 1 figur

Lorentz-covariant quantum mechanics and preferred frame

In this paper the relativistic quantum mechanics is considered in the framework of the nonstandard synchronization scheme for clocks. Such a synchronization preserves Poincar{\'e} covariance but (at least formally) distinguishes an inertial frame. This enables to avoid the problem of a noncausal transmision of information related to breaking of the Bell's inequalities in QM. Our analysis has been focused mainly on the problem of existence of a proper position operator for massive particles. We have proved that in our framework such an operator exists for particles with arbitrary spin. It fulfills all the requirements: it is Hermitean and covariant, it has commuting components and moreover its eigenvectors (localised states) are also covariant. We have found the explicit form of the position operator and have demonstrated that in the preferred frame our operator coincides with the Newton--Wigner one. We have also defined a covariant spin operator and have constructed an invariant spin square operator. Moreover, full algebra of observables consisting of position operators, fourmomentum operators and spin operators is manifestly Poincar\'e covariant in this framework. Our results support expectations of other authors (Bell, Eberhard) that a consistent formulation of quantum mechanics demands existence of a preferred frame.Comment: 21 pages, LaTeX file, no figure

The importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes

Based on a calculation of neural decoherence rates, we argue that that the degrees of freedom of the human brain that relate to cognitive processes should be thought of as a classical rather than quantum system, i.e., that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the current classical approach to neural network simulations. We find that the decoherence timescales ~10^{-13}-10^{-20} seconds are typically much shorter than the relevant dynamical timescales (~0.001-0.1 seconds), both for regular neuron firing and for kink-like polarization excitations in microtubules. This conclusion disagrees with suggestions by Penrose and others that the brain acts as a quantum computer, and that quantum coherence is related to consciousness in a fundamental way.Comment: Minor changes to match accepted PRE version. 15 pages with 5 figs included. Color figures and links at http://www.physics.upenn.edu/~max/brain.html or from [email protected]. Physical Review E, in pres