What is passive locality ? Bell's Theorem.

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

"Passive locality," introduced by Nelson in 1986, is a concept discussed in relation to Bell's Theorem. Nelson distinguished between "active" and "passive" locality, asserting that classical realism requires only active locality, while Bell's Theorem necessitates both. This distinction is crucial for understanding the implications of Bell's Theorem, which remains a complex topic for many physicists. The discussion highlights the ongoing challenges in grasping these concepts, even with recent literature available.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Bell's Theorem
  • Familiarity with classical realism in physics
  • Knowledge of the distinction between active and passive locality
  • Access to Nelson's original paper from 1986
NEXT STEPS
  • Read Nelson's original paper on passive locality
  • Explore the implications of Bell's Theorem in quantum mechanics
  • Investigate recent follow-up discussions on Bell's Theorem
  • Study the differences between active and passive locality in detail
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of quantum mechanics, and anyone interested in the philosophical implications of Bell's Theorem and locality concepts.

harrylin
Messages
3,874
Reaction score
93
What is "passive locality"? Bell's Theorem.

In a current thread about explaining Bell's theorem, the question of "passive locality" came up.

"Passive locality" was introduced by Nelson in 1986. After discussions with Bell he distinguished between "active" and "passive" locality, arguing that for classical realism only active locality is required. Apparently Bell's theorem needs both.

Regretfully I don't manage to understand what it means, let alone the consequences for a good understanding of Bell's Theorem. Even recent follow-up discussions don't make it clear to me... :confused:

Can anyone explain it in clear, simple English?

- Nelson's original paper:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1986.tb12456.x/abstract

- Recent follow-ups:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3369 Annalen der Physik (Berlin) 18, No. 4, 231 (2009)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.4740 Annalen der Physik, 523: n/a. doi: 10.1002/andp.201010462
http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5660

Harald
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Greg!
Wow that's a long time ago. Regretfully I didn't find more insight on that topic.
In fact, the whole Bell theorem issue remains one of the greatest riddles to me - and I had forgotten about that subtle point. Thanks for reminding me of it! :-)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Greg Bernhardt

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
9K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 79 ·
3
Replies
79
Views
19K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 177 ·
6
Replies
177
Views
30K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
  • · Replies 226 ·
8
Replies
226
Views
24K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 99 ·
4
Replies
99
Views
10K