Can locality be retrocausal?

  • #1
entropy1
Gold Member
1,141
67
Does the definition of locality in the QM sense include the prohibition of retrocausality?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
26,421
9,934
Given that this is B-level, I have to ask if you know what those words mean. For example, how do you express locality mathematically? And if you don't, how can we provide a B-level answer?
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba
  • #3
entropy1
Gold Member
1,141
67
Given that this is B-level, I have to ask if you know what those words mean. For example, how do you express locality mathematically? And if you don't, how can we provide a B-level answer?
Can you give a yes/no answer?
 
  • #4
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
26,421
9,934
No I can't because I can't figure out what you actually mean by your question.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
  • #5
entropy1
Gold Member
1,141
67
I looked up 'quantum mechanics locality', and did a few similar searches, but I can't find a definition of QM locality, so I don't know how to describe or formulate it. I mean the locality as it is ment by the Bell-inequality. If you need an I-thread I will ask to make this thread one.
 
  • #6
Nugatory
Mentor
13,246
6,128
Does the definition of locality in the QM sense include the prohibition of retrocausality?
In any proper journal article the authors will define what they mean by words of this sort, precisely because there is no single universally understood definition. Unless and until you do that, the answer to this question is going to be some variant of "It depends".
 
  • Like
Likes entropy1
  • #7
entropy1
Gold Member
1,141
67
Ok, suppose an event E lies in the same lightcone as an event C, that occurs earlier in time. Then C can causally affect E, as long as E lies in the same lightcone as C. Suppose that we call this "C locally causes E". Now my question is: if we consider retrocausality to be theoretically possible, then, if E would retrocause an event R that lies in the same lightcone as E, but earlier in time, would this be called "local"?

Sorry if I'm a bit fuzzy in my formulation.
 
  • #8
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
11,357
3,970
Does the definition of locality in the QM sense include the prohibition of retrocausality?
The proof of the Bell theorem contains an assumption that there is no retrocausality. The transactional interpretation of QM assumes that it is precisely retrocausality that resolves the associated quantum puzzles.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and entropy1
  • #9
PeterDonis
Mentor
Insights Author
2020 Award
32,961
11,443
Sorry if I'm a bit fuzzy in my formulation.
You apparently haven't grasped the fact that it is the fuzziness that makes it impossible to give a definite answer to your question. That's not going to change no matter how many times you rephrase it.
 
  • #10
entropy1
Gold Member
1,141
67
You apparently haven't grasped the fact that it is the fuzziness that makes it impossible to give a definite answer to your question. That's not going to change no matter how many times you rephrase it.
Well, maybe if I put it this way:
Bell showed that "Local Realism" can not be maintained as part of QM. So what does the term "local" mean in this context? It is often explained as: "Spooky action at a distance", but I don't know what is ment by that.
 
  • #11
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
11,357
3,970
Well, maybe if I put it this way:
Bell showed that "Local Realism" can not be maintained as part of QM. So what does the term "local" mean in this context? It is often explained as: "Spooky action at a distance", but I don't know what is ment by that.
For that purpose you need to read an actual proof of the Bell theorem, because such a proof contains a precise formal definition of locality.
 
  • #12
PeterDonis
Mentor
Insights Author
2020 Award
32,961
11,443
Bell showed that "Local Realism" can not be maintained as part of QM. So what does the term "local" mean in this context?
Have you read Bell's paper? He gives an explicit definition of his concept of "locality".
 
  • #13
entropy1
Gold Member
1,141
67
Ok, I will check that out.
 
  • #14
entropy1
Gold Member
1,141
67
I can only find this definition:
that the result of a measurement on one system be unaffected by operations on a distant system with which it has interacted in the past
Is that what you mean? Or need I do the math?
 
  • #16
entropy1
Gold Member
1,141
67
@PeterDonis I used this text, which is searchable. I think it is the same one. I searched for "local" and got four matches.
 
  • #17
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
11,357
3,970
@PeterDonis I used this text, which is searchable. I think it is the same one. I searched for "local" and got four matches.
In this paper, the locality assumption is "the vital assumption" after Eq. (1).
 
  • Like
Likes entropy1
  • #18
entropy1
Gold Member
1,141
67
Ok. I tried to read through this paper at least two times in the past, but I find the math pretty complicated. I will give it another try. :wink:
 
  • #20
stevendaryl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
8,499
2,635
It seems that Bell's separability condition is logically something beyond locality. Without even mentioning locality, there is an assumption along the lines of:

If ##A## is correlated with ##B##, then it must be the case that one of the following is true:
  1. ##A## influences ##B##
  2. ##B## influences ##A##
  3. There is some common cause ##C## that influences both.
If you make this assumption (@Demystifier probably knows the philosophical term for it), then it follows that quantum mechanics has FTL influences. Conversely (or contrapositively, maybe), if you assume that there are no FTL influences, then it follows that quantum mechanics violates the above principle/assumption.

So what is the status of that assumption? It doesn't seem logically necessary, but it seems that an assumption along those lines is behind every scientific investigation. The fact that two things are correlated is considered grounds to investigate would could cause the correlation.

An example: If you find two radios, you turn them on, and you find out that they are playing the same sequence of songs and news announcements, then you assume that either they are playing a recording, and the two have copies of the same recording, or else there is a radio station broadcasting to both of them. You assume there is a common cause for the correlation.

But there is nothing logically inconsistent about assuming that the radios are just emitting random noise, and one of the laws of the universe is that the random noise produced on one radio is always the same as that produced on the other. Entanglement in quantum mechanics without FTL influences seems a lot like this possibility. You have distant particles, and certain measurements on them are correlated, but there is no common cause to the measurement outcomes.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
  • #21
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
11,357
3,970
If ##A## is correlated with ##B##, then it must be the case that one of the following is true:
  1. ##A## influences ##B##
  2. ##B## influences ##A##
  3. There is some common cause ##C## that influences both.
If you make this assumption (@Demystifier probably knows the philosophical term for it),
It's called the Reichenbach's common cause principle.
 
  • #22
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
11,357
3,970
But there is nothing logically inconsistent about assuming that the radios are just emitting random noise, and one of the laws of the universe is that the random noise produced on one radio is always the same as that produced on the other.
But if there was such a law, I don't see how can see such a law be considered a local law.

For that reason, some defenders of local interpretation of QM go a step further, by denying the existence of correlation before the observation of correlation. For instance, if Alice measures spin of one particle in New York and, at the same time, Bob measures spin of the other particle in London, there is no correlation until someone (say Charlie) looks at both measurement results.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
stevendaryl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
8,499
2,635
For that treason, some defenders of local interpretation of QM go a step further, by denying the existence of correlation before the observation of correlation. For instance, if Alice measures spin of one particle in New york and, at the same time, Bob measures spin of the other particle in London, there is no correlation until someone (say Charlie) looks at both measurement results.
What is the punishment for treason against the scientific method?
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
  • #24
stevendaryl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Insights Author
8,499
2,635
But if there was such a law, I don't see how can see such a law be considered a local law.
Yes, I agree. But it's not logically necessary to posit a FTL mechanism for the correlations. You could just say that that's the way the universe works.
 
  • Like
Likes martinbn
  • #25
martinbn
Science Advisor
2,123
700
Yes, I agree. But it's not logically necessary to posit a FTL mechanism for the correlations. You could just say that that's the way the universe works.
To add to this, I think that if you propose a FTL mechanism, you need to show, at least in principle, a scenario where there can be FTL transmission.
 

Related Threads on Can locality be retrocausal?

  • Last Post
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
845
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
11
Views
830
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
5K
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Top