Stop making sense of Bell’s theorem and nonlocality?

Abstract

In a recent paper on this journal Stephen Boughn argued that quantum mechanics does not require nonlocality of any kind and that the common interpretation of Bell theorem as a nonlocality result is based on a misunderstanding. In this note I argue that the Boughn arguments, that summarize views widespread in certain areas of the foundations of quantum mechanics, are based on an incorrect reading of the presuppositions of the EPR argument and the Bell theorem and, as a consequence, are totally unfounded.

Open Problems in Relational Quantum Mechanics

“…The first remark to be made, before analyzing how RQM is supposed to implement the above attitude, is that RQM grounds its reading of EPR correlations on an alternative between 'strong realism' and locality which in fact is mistakenly assumed to be the core of Bell's theorem. In the RQM approach, the relativization of states and the ensuing lack of observer-independence are taken to realize a suitable weakening of an alleged 'strong realism' but, in fact, such realism does not belong to the set of independent assumptions of Bell's theorem (Laudisa 2012(Laudisa , 2017. As is well known, the EPR argument can be formulated as an inference from three conditions to the 8 Eminent physicists have shared this attitude, such as Nobel laureate Sir Antony J. Leggett: "I believe that the results of the present investigation provide quantitative backing for a point of view which I believe is by now certainly well accepted at the qualitative level, namely that the incompatibility of the predictions of objective local theories with those of quantum mechanics has relatively little to do with locality and much to do with objectivity."…”

A Critical Analysis of the Quantum Nonlocality Problem

“…A stance we deem as radical non-localist [10,14,16,46] interprets the Bell inequality violations as definitive proofs of quantum nonlocality. That interpretation, however, is controversial, poorly supported, and does not reflect Bell's clear line of reasoning.…”

“…The logically dubious approach of using a "classical inequality" to derive properties of quantum theory is not ascribable to John Bell. Unfortunately, often the same does not apply either to his followers or detractors [6,9,10,[12][13][14]16], sometimes leading to heated debates [6][7][8].…”

“…[14] We have a radical localist position asserting quantum mechanics is a local theory and that there exist no solid arguments to think otherwise [9,13,15]. On the other extreme, we find radical non-localists claiming the Bell theorem provides definitive proof of quantum nonlocality [10,14,16].…”

“…Those theorems give rise to contextuality and nonlocality, considered essential resources in quantum information [2][3][4][5]. However, nonlocality taken as quantum nonlocality remains a highly controversial subject [6][7][8][9][10][11][12].…”