"History of Quantum Mechanics or the Comedy of Errors1

The author of this interesting paper below does not realize that the locally retrocausal Costa de Beauregard zig zag is a more powerful concept than nonlocality and it is consistent with relativity.

"What Einstein called “telepathic” here is related to what nowadays is called nonlocality and this is the aspect of quantum mechanics that bothered Einstein. He and Schro ̈dinger saw clearly that aspect when everybody else had their heads in the sand, so to speak."

re: Bohm's "hidden variables" it is now clear that this was Bohm's biggest blunder in his basically correct ontological interpretation of QM.

The first term on the RHS of (43) is purely quantum destiny and history pilot wave depending on h.

Jean BRICMONT
IRMP, Universit ́e catholique de Louvain, chemin du

Cyclotron 2,
1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgique

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to explain how the views of Albert Einstein, John Bell and others, about nonlocality and the conceptual issues raised by quantum mechanics, have been rather systematically misunderstood by the majority of physicists.

1 Introduction

The history of quantum mechanics, as told in general to students, is like a third rate American movie: there are the good guys and the bad guys, and the good guys won.

The good guys are those associated with the “Copenhagen” school, Bohr, Heisenberg, Pauli, Jordan, Born, von Neumann among others. The bad guys are their critics, mostly Einstein and Schro ̈dinger and, sometimes de Broglie. The bad guys, so the story goes, were unwilling to accept the radical novelty of quantum mechanics, either its intrinsic indeterminism or the essential role of the observer in the laws of physics that quantum mechanics implies. They were hinged to a classical world-view, because of their philosophical prejudices.

Einstein invented various gedanken experiments in order to show that the Heisenberg uncertainty relations could be violated (those relations put limits on what can be known about physical systems), but Bohr successfully answered those objections. After the war, in 1952, David Bohm rediscovered an old idea of de Broglie and tried to develop an alternative to quantum mechanics that would restore determinism, but his theory got very little attention among physicists, mostly because, by then, the successes of quantum mechanics had been so spectacular that hardly anybody had still doubts about its correctness.

1 Talk given on November 11, 2014, at the conference: La m ́ecanique `a la lumi`ere de son histoire, de la Modernit ́e `a l’E ́poque Contemporaine (XVIIe-XXe s.), given in honor of Prof. Patricia Radelet -De Grave.

Bohm’s theory was introducing “hidden variables”, meaning some unobservable quantities (hence, “metaphysical”) that are not part of the standard quantum me- chanical description.2 Einstein had also favored the introduction of such variables in order to “save determinism”. The first objection to this idea is obvious: why bother with unobservable entities in order to satisfy a philosophical prejudice?"

Jack: In fact they are not unobservable.

"However, the definite blow against hidden variables was given in 1964 by John Bell who showed that, merely imagining that such variables exist leads to predictions that are in contradiction with those of quantum mechanics. Moreover, those specific predictions were later tested in laboratories and, of course, the observations came definitely on the side of quantum mechanics and against hidden variables. Case closed!"

Jack: In fact Bell only showed that classical beables restricted to local retarded (past causes —> future effects) pilot waves contradict QM entanglement experiments. As Huw Price and Rod Sutherland et-al show, classical beables that allow local advanced (future causes —> past effects) pilot waves explain entanglement without violating relativity.

"The goal of this paper is to show that all of the above is essentially false.3 And in order to show that, we will have to do almost no physics, just reading what Einstein and Bell really said (as Patricia always told me: “go read the sources!”). One may not agree with them, one may adhere to the standard views on quantum mechanics (whatever they are, which nowadays is not so simple to say), but one should, it seems to me, at least try to understand what Einstein and Bell said before rejecting their ideas!

We shall first explain what really worried Einstein about quantum mechanics, namely its nonlocal aspect.4 Next,we will discuss what Einstein (together with Podolsky and Rosen) and Bell said about that issue of nonlocality. Then we will review how this was misunderstood by most physicists."

Jack: In fact it's not "nonlocality" but "local retrocausality" in the sense of the Costa de Beauregard "zig-zag" explained in recent papers by Huw Price.

2 "Throughout this paper, we will use the expression “hidden variables” to mean any variables that are used to describe the state of a quantum system and that are not included in the usual quantum description, via a wave function or a quantum state (the latter being simply a wave function “times” some internal states such as spin states, but we will not stress that distinction here and we will speak only of wave functions).

3 The material for this paper is in part taken from [20, 21], and we refer to those texts for more details. In particular, we will not discuss much Bohm’s theory here, but only note that it is not true that this theory has been refuted Bell; see [14, 29, 30, 46, 20] for an exposition of that theory.

4 At least that was one of his worries. He also worried about the centrality of the “observer” in quantum mechanics, but we will not discuss that problem here (see [20]). Let us nevertheless mention that this worry is illustrated by the following remark by Abraham Pais about his conversations with Einstein [58, p. 907]: “We often discussed his notions on objective reality. I recall that during one walk Einstein suddenly stopped, turned to me and asked whether I really believed that the moon exists only when I look at it.” “Is the moon there when nobody looks?” has also become a famous Einstein quote (frequently misunderstood, since Einstein had no doubt that the answer to that question was “yes”, while quantum mechanics is often interpreted as implying that we don’t know anything about the world before we “look”)."

"2 Einstein’s Real Worries

The most often quoted phrase of Einstein is probably “God does not play dice”.5 But this is misleading. It is true that Einstein did express concerns about determinism, but that determinism was Einstein’s main concern was strongly denied even by Pauli, who was, in general, on the Copenhagen side of the arguments (if one wants to use this somewhat reductionist terminology) and who wrote in 1954 to Max Born:

Einstein does not consider the concept of “determinism” to be as fundamental as it is frequently held to be (as he told me emphatically many times) [. . . ] he disputes that he uses as a criterion for the admissibility of a theory the question: “Is it rigorously deterministic?”

Wolfgang Pauli [19, p. 221]

If determinism was not Einstein’s main concern, what was? A clue to the answer is given in a letter, written in 1942, which also speaks of God not playing dice:

It seems hard to sneak a look at God’s cards. But that he plays dice and uses “telepathic” methods (as the present quantum theory requires of him) is something that I cannot believe for a single moment.

Albert Einstein [36] quoted in [27, p. 68]

What Einstein called “telepathic” here is related to what nowadays is called nonlocality and this is the aspect of quantum mechanics that bothered Einstein. He and Schro ̈dinger saw clearly that aspect when everybody else had their heads in the sand, so to speak.

To understand nonlocality, let us think for a moment about the concept of wave function and what it means to say (as is usually done) that it provides a complete description of quantum systems. The wave function, let’s say for one particle, is a (complex valued) function defined on R3: Ψ(x) ∈ C, x ∈ R3. Its meaning, in quantum mechanics textbooks is that the square of its absolute value, |Ψ(x)|2, gives the prob- ability density of finding the particle at a given point, if one “measures” the particle’s position. A naive interpretation of the word measurement would lead us to think that, if the particle is found somewhere, it is because it was there in the first place! But that is not what quantum mechanics says: indeed, “measurements” might affect the object being measured and not simply reveal any of its properties, so that the word measurement is used in quantum mechanics in a rather awkward way.

5 The complete quote comes from a letter to Max Born in 1926 [19, p. 91]: “Quantum mechanics is very worthy of regard. But an inner voice tells me that this is not yet the right track. The theory yields much, but it hardly brings us closer to the Old One’s secrets. I, in any case, am convinced that He does not play dice.” Of course, as Einstein emphasized several times, his “God” had nothing to do with the personal gods of the “revealed” religions.

But what worried Einstein is that, after the measurement of the position, the wave function changes and collapses to a wave function concentrated at or around the point where the particle is found. But that means that the value of the wave function suddenly jumps to zero everywhere, except where the particle is found and that effect is supposed to be instantaneous. Since the wave function can be, before the measurement, different from zero far away from the point of detection, it means that the collapse of the wave function is a sort of nonlocal action, or an action at a distance, and this is what Einstein could not accept (in part, because it contradicted the theory of relativity, as he and most people understood it).6 That action at a distance is what “telepathy” means in the above quote;7 Einstein also called such actions at a distance “spooky” ([19, p. 158]).

Already at the 1927 Solvay Conference, Einstein expressed very clearly this worry. He considered a particle going through a hole, as shown in Fig. 1. In the situation described in the picture, the wave function spreads itself over the half circle, but one always detects the particle at a given point, on the hemispherical photographic film denoted by P in Fig. 1. If the particle is not localized anywhere before its detection (think of it as a sort of “cloud”, as spread out as the wave function), then it must condense itself at a point, in a nonlocal fashion, since the part of the particle that is far away from the detection point must “jump” there instantaneously. If, on the other hand, the particle is localized somewhere before its detection, then quantum mechanics is an incomplete description of reality, since quantum mechanics does not include the position of the particle in its description.

Einstein contrasted two conceptions of what the wave function could mean:

Conception I. The de Broglie–Schro ̈dinger waves do not correspond to a single electron, but to a cloud of electrons extended in space. The theory gives no information about individual processes, but only about the ensemble of an infinity of elementary processes.

Conception II. The theory claims to be a complete theory of individual processes. Each particle directed towards the screen, as far as can be determined by its position and speed, is described by a packet of de Broglie– Schro ̈dinger waves of short wavelength and small angular width. This wave packet is diffracted and, after diffraction, partly reaches the screen P in a state of resolution.8

Albert Einstein [2, p. 441]

6 That is because the relativity of simultaneity, which is part of the theory of relativity, implies that, if causal effects can be instantaneous in some reference frames, then they must act backward in time in some other reference frames. This, to put it mildly, contradicts our intuitive notion of causality. This problem is discussed in detail in [51].

7 To be precise, Einstein was probably referring there to the stronger sort of nonlocality implied by the EPR argument discussed in Sect. 6.

8 That last expression is not very clear, but the original German text has been lost and the French translation [61], from which this is translated into English, is not clear either. (Note by J.B.)

Fig. 1: Einstein’s objection at the 1927 Solvay Conference. Reproduced with the permission of the Solvay Institutes and of Cambridge University Press. See [2, p. 440], or [61, p. 254] for the “original” (published in French translation at the time of the Solvay Conference). In fact Einstein raised a similar issue as early as 1909, at a meeting in Salzburg [2, p. 198]

The distinction made here was repeated by Einstein all his life. Either one adopts a statistical view (conception I) and a more complete theory can be envisioned (for “individual processes”), or one declares the quantum description “complete”, but this means that the particle is spread out in space before being detected on the screen. After explaining the merits of conception II, Einstein raises the following objection:

But the interpretation, according to which |ψ|2 expresses the probability that this particle is found at a given point, assumes an entirely peculiar mechanism of action at a distance, which prevents the wave continuously distributed in space from producing an action in two places on the screen.

Albert Einstein [2, p. 441]

Indeed, if the particle is spread out in space before being detected (which is what the expression “complete description” means), then the fact that it is always detected at a given point implies that it condenses itself on that point and that its presence vanishes elsewhere. Thus something nonlocal must be taking place. Einstein adds:

In my opinion, one can remove this objection [action at a distance] only in the following way, that one does not describe the process solely by the Schro ̈dinger wave, but that at the same time one localises the particle during the propagation. I think that Mr de Broglie is right to search in this direction.9 If one works solely with theSchro ̈dingerwaves,interpretationII of |ψ|2 implies to my mind a contradiction with the postulate of relativity.

the url for the full paper is below

* History of Quantum Mechanics or the Comedy of Errors
http://www.ijqf.org/archives/3859