Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T13:32:52.540Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Loophole in Bell's Theorem? Parameter Dependence in the Hess-Philipp Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Wayne C. Myrvold
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The hidden-variables model constructed by Karl Hess and Walter Philipp is claimed by its authors to exploit a “loophole” in Bell's theorem; according to Hess and Philipp, the parameters employed in their model extend beyond those considered by Bell. Furthermore, they claim that their model satisfies Einstein locality and is free of any “suspicion of spooky action at a distance.” Both of these claims are false; the Hess-Philipp model achieves agreement with the quantum-mechanical predictions, not by circumventing Bell's theorem, but via Parameter Dependence.

Type
Quantum Field Theory, Bell's Theorem, and Hidden Variables
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 70 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2002 Biennial Meeting of The Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers , December 2003 , pp. 1357 - 1367
Copyright
Copyright © 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

‡

I am grateful to Jim Brown for encouraging me to look at Hess and Philipp's paper, and to Richard Gill for helpful discussions. Since the completion of the draft of the version of this paper originally submitted for presentation at PSA, two other criticisms of Hess and Philipp have been put forward, that of Gill et al. (2002), and that of Mermin (2002). There is agreement among these criticisms—that Hess and Philipp have not shown—that there is a flaw in the standard proofs of Bell's theorem, and that their model achieves its result via nonlocality. It is hoped that the present paper is a useful supplement to the other criticisms and that, in particular, the simplified model of Section 4 helps to make it clearer what Hess and Philipp have done.

References

Appleby, D. M (2002), “The Hess-Philipp Model is Non-Local”, http://arXiv.org/quant-ph/0210145. To appear in International Journal of Quantum Information.Google Scholar
Ballentine, L. E., and Jarett, Jon P. (1987), “Bell's Theorem: Does Quantum Mechanics Contradict Relativity?”, Bell's Theorem: Does Quantum Mechanics Contradict Relativity? 55:696–701.Google Scholar
Bell, John S. (1964), “On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox”, On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox 1:195–200. Reprinted in Bell 1987, 14–21.Google Scholar
Bell, John S. (1966), “On the Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics”, On the Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics 38:447–452. Reprinted in Bell 1987, 1–13.Google Scholar
Bell, John S. (1971), “Introduction to the Hidden-Variable Question”, in d'Espagnat, Bernard (ed.), Foundations of Quantum Mechanics: Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi”, course IL, New York: Academic Press, 171–181. Reprinted in Bell 1987, 29–39.Google Scholar
Bell, John S. (1987), Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bohm, David (1952a), “A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of ‘Hidden’ Variables, I”, A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of ‘Hidden’ Variables, I 85:166–179.Google Scholar
Bohm, David (1952b), “A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of ‘Hidden’ Variables, II”, A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of ‘Hidden’ Variables, II 85:180–193.Google Scholar
Butterfield, Jeremy (1989), “A Space-Time Approach to the Bell Inequality”, in Cushing, James and McMullin, Ernan (eds.), Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflections on Bell's Theorem. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 114–144.Google Scholar
Gill, R. D., Weihs, G., Zeilinger, A., and Zukowski, M. (2002), “Comment on ‘Exclusion of Time in the Theorem of Bell’ by K. Hess and W. Philipp”, http://arXiv.org/quant-ph/0204169.Google Scholar
Hess, Karl, and Philipp, Walter (2001a), “Einstein Separability, Time-Related Hidden Parameters for Correlated Spins, and the Theorem of Bell”, http://arXiv.org/quant-ph/0103028.Google Scholar
Hess, Karl, and Philipp, Walter (2001b), “A Possible Loophole in the Theorem of Bell”, A Possible Loophole in the Theorem of Bell 98:14224–27.Google Scholar
Hess, Karl, and Philipp, Walter (2001c), “Bell's Theorem and the Problem of Decidability between the Views of Einstein and Bohr”, Bell's Theorem and the Problem of Decidability between the Views of Einstein and Bohr 98:14228–33.Google Scholar
Hess, Karl, and Philipp, Walter (2002), “Exclusion of Time in the Theorem of Bell”, Exclusion of Time in the Theorem of Bell 57:775–781.Google Scholar
Jarrett, Jon (1984), “On the Physical Significance of the Locality Conditions in the Bell Arguments”, On the Physical Significance of the Locality Conditions in the Bell Arguments 18:569–89.Google Scholar
Jarrett, Jon (1989), “Bell's Theorem: A Guide to the Implications”, in Cushing, James and McMullin, Ernan (eds.), Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflections on Bell's Theorem. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 60–79.Google Scholar
Kochen, Simon, and Specker, E. P. (1967), “The Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics”, The Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics 17:59–87.Google Scholar
Mermin, N. David (2002), “Shedding (Red and Green) Light on ‘Time-Related Hidden Parameters’”, http://arXiv.org/quant-ph/0206118.Google Scholar
Myrvold, Wayne C. (2002), “On Peaceful Coexistence: Is the Collapse Postulate Incompatible with Relativity?”, On Peaceful Coexistence: Is the Collapse Postulate Incompatible with Relativity? 33:435–466.Google Scholar
Myrvold, Wayne C. (2003), “Relativistic Quantum Becoming”, forthcoming in The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Available at PhilSci archive, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/, PITT-PHIL-SCI00000569.Google Scholar
Redhead, Michael L. G. (1986), “Relativity and Quantum Mechanics—Conflict or Peaceful Coexistence?”, in Daniel M. Greenberger (ed.), New Techniques and Ideas in Quantum Measurement Theory, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 480:14–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Redhead, Michael L. G. (1989), Incompleteness, Nonlocality, and Realism: A Prolegomenon to the Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shimony, Abner (1978), “Metaphysical Problems in the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics”, Metaphysical Problems in the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics 18, 3–17.Google Scholar
Shimony, Abner (1984), “Controllable and Uncontrollable Non-Locality”, in Kamefuchi, S. et al. (eds.), Foundations of Quantum Mechanics in Light of New Technology. Tokyo: The Physical Society of Japan, 225–230. Reprinted in Shimony 1993, 130–38.Google Scholar
Shimony, Abner (1986), “Events and Processes in the Quantum World”, in Penrose, R. and Isham, C. (eds.), Quantum Concepts in Space and Time. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 182–203. Reprinted in Shimony 1993, 140–162.Google Scholar
Shimony, Abner (1993), Search for a Naturalistic World View, Volume II: Natural Science and Metaphysics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Teller, Paul (1989), “Relativity, Relational Holism, and the Bell Inequalities”, in Cushing, James and McMullin, Ernan (eds.), Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflections on Bell's Theorem. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 208–223.Google Scholar