Undergrad What is passive locality ? Bell's Theorem.

Click For Summary
"Passive locality," introduced by Nelson in 1986, distinguishes between "active" and "passive" locality in the context of Bell's theorem. Nelson argued that classical realism only requires active locality, while Bell's theorem necessitates both forms. The discussion highlights the confusion surrounding the implications of passive locality for understanding Bell's theorem. Participants express difficulty in grasping the concept and its significance, indicating that the topic remains complex and not well understood. Overall, the conversation underscores the ongoing challenges in interpreting Bell's theorem and its associated 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 Greg Bernhardt
I am slowly going through the book 'What Is a Quantum Field Theory?' by Michel Talagrand. I came across the following quote: One does not" prove” the basic principles of Quantum Mechanics. The ultimate test for a model is the agreement of its predictions with experiments. Although it may seem trite, it does fit in with my modelling view of QM. The more I think about it, the more I believe it could be saying something quite profound. For example, precisely what is the justification of...

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
Views
30K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
8K
  • · Replies 226 ·
8
Replies
226
Views
23K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
  • · Replies 99 ·
4
Replies
99
Views
10K