0
$\begingroup$

I have read these posts here:

Why do people still talk about bohmian mechanics/hidden variables

Disproof of Bell’s Theorem

What combinations of realism, non-locality, and contextuality are ruled out in quantum theory?

and the discussions. I haven't read any of the papers mentioned there yet. I have also made an internet search on the subject of locality and I' d wish to understand some thinks.

The question after reading the above is this: Is the locality - non-locality a subject of interpretation of quantum mechanics? I understand that maybe it's me who got confused, but what I ask is, if the subject of locality(if it holds or not) is a function of the interpretation of quantum mechanics(or maybe if it still is under research) or if it is settled: quantum mechanics is a local or non-local theory for all interpretations.

Note: I take these definitions of locality and non-locality in quantum mechanics:1)Locality is the assumption that an object can be influenced only by its immediate surroundings by the events which took place in its immediate past.2)Non locality implies that two events which are separated from each other by space-like separation can affect each other.

Thank you.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ If more notes must be added in the post, please note. $\endgroup$ – Constantine Black Apr 29 '15 at 20:52
  • $\begingroup$ "Locality" and especially "realism" are not purely scientific terms. They graze the pre-text of what humans understand to be "objects" and "reality". Both are completely irrelevant for physics proper as long as we don't find a deviation between standard QM and reality. As long as experimental research into these thing is done to actually find deviations from standard QM it's valid physics, but the more common theoretical tale chasing that can be found in articles about quantum locality and realism is, sorry to say, not even science. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne Apr 29 '15 at 23:20
  • $\begingroup$ Allow me to disagree. Every exercise of the thought that aims at understanding of a phenomenon or a functionality, in the position of a theoretical viewpoint of physical science, isn't just an exercise in the mathematical foundations or formalism of QM(or any other theory.) It' s also an exercise in philosophy of physics, a discipline that' s not at all a compromise between philosophy and physics. I don't consider, although they are different in way of action, the existence of the one without the other. $\endgroup$ – Constantine Black Apr 30 '15 at 18:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Physics and science in general are tools. The "philosophy of physics" is therefor like the "philosophy of the shovel". Either you use a shovel to dig the foundations for a house or a road or you stand around other people who are using shovels and then you look like a useless person. Moreover, in case of "locality" and "realism" it's like sticking the handle of the shovel into the ground and wondering why it doesn't work well. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne Apr 30 '15 at 22:40
  • $\begingroup$ Gell-Mann's concordant views on unfortunate terminology. $\endgroup$ – Cosmas Zachos Jun 18 '18 at 15:51

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.