New Slant on the EPR-Bell Experiment

British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 64 (2):297-324 (2013)
  Copy   BIBTEX


The best case for thinking that quantum mechanics is nonlocal rests on Bell's Theorem, and later results of the same kind. However, the correlations characteristic of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR)–Bell (EPRB) experiments also arise in familiar cases elsewhere in quantum mechanics (QM), where the two measurements involved are timelike rather than spacelike separated; and in which the correlations are usually assumed to have a local causal explanation, requiring no action-at-a-distance (AAD). It is interesting to ask how this is possible, in the light of Bell's Theorem. We investigate this question, and present two options. Either (i) the new cases are nonlocal too, in which case AAD is more widespread in QM than has previously been appreciated (and does not depend on entanglement, as usually construed); or (ii) the means of avoiding AAD in the new cases extends in a natural way to EPRB, removing AAD in these cases too. There is a third option, viz., that the new cases are strongly disanalogous to EPRB. But this option requires an argument, so far missing, that the physical world breaks the symmetries which otherwise support the analogy. In the absence of such an argument, the orthodox combination of views—action-at-a-distance in EPRB, but local causality in its timelike analogue—is less well established than it is usually assumed to be. 1 Introduction1.1 Background1.2 Outline of the argument2 The Experiments2.1 Standard EPRB2.2 Sideways EPRB2.3 Comparing the experiments2.4 The need for beables3 The Symmetry Considerations3.1 The action symmetry3.2 Time-symmetry in SEPRB4 The Basic Trilemma4.1 An intuitive defence of Option III?5 Avoiding the Trilemma?6 The Classical Objection7 Defending Option III7.1 The free will argument7.2 Independence and consistency8 Entanglement and Epistemic Perspective



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 74,429

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Causal Inference in Quantum Mechanics: A Reassessment.Mauricio Suárez - 2007 - In Frederica Russo & Jon Williamson (eds.), Causality and Probability in the Sciences. College Publications. pp. 65-106.
Quantum Mechanics and Realism.Peter Kosso - 2000 - Foundations of Science 5 (1):47-60.
The Quantum World is Not Built Up From Correlations.Michael Seevinck - 2006 - Foundations of Physics 36 (10):1573-1586.
Nonlocality and the Aharonov-Bohm Effect.Richard Healey - 1997 - Philosophy of Science 64 (1):18-41.


Added to PP

272 (#42,749)

6 months
3 (#209,902)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Huw Price
University of Bonn
Peter W. Evans
University of Queensland

Citations of this work

Laws of Nature as Constraints.Emily Adlam - 2022 - Foundations of Physics 52 (1):1-41.
Does Time-Symmetry Imply Retrocausality? How the Quantum World Says “Maybe”?Huw Price - 2012 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 43 (2):75-83.
Discovering Quantum Causal Models.Sally Shrapnel - 2019 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 70 (1):1-25.
Timelike Entanglement for Delayed-Choice Entanglement Swapping.David Glick - 2019 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 68:16-22.
Isolation, Not Locality.Heather Demarest & Michael Townsen Hicks - 2021 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 103 (3):607-619.

View all 13 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Time’s Arrow and Archimedes’ Point.Huw Price - 1996 - Philosophical and Phenomenological Research 59 (4):1093-1096.
La Nouvelle Cuisine.J. S. Bell - 2004 - In Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge University Press. pp. 232--248.
Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point: New Directions for the Physics of Time.Huw Price - 1998 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 49 (1):135-159.

View all 26 references / Add more references