{"title":"Locality and Probability in Relativistic Quantum Theories and Hidden Variables Quantum Theories","authors":"Avi Levy, Meir Hemmo","doi":"10.1007/s10701-025-00885-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>We use the framework of Empirical Models (EM) and Hidden Variables Models (HVM) to analyze the locality and stochasticity properties of relativistic quantum theories, such as Quantum Field Theory (QFT). First, we present the standard definition of properties such as determinism, no signaling, locality, and contextuality for HVM and for EM and their relations. Then, we show that if no other conditions are added, there are only two types of EM: An EM is either classical, by which we mean that it is strongly deterministic, local, and non-contextual; Or else an EM is non-classical, in which case it is weakly deterministic, non-local and contextual. Consequently, we define criteria for an HVM to be Lorentz invariant and prove that Lorentz invariance implies parameter independence. As a result, we show that a Lorentz invariant and contextual model (e.g., relativistic quantum theory) must be genuinely stochastic i.e., it cannot have a deterministic (strong or weak) HVM. This proof is an improved version of a theorem we proved previously, and it has a wider scope. Finally, we discuss Bell’s definition of locality and show that it is equivalent to non-contextuality. We argue that Bell’s justification for this definition tacitly assumes non-contextuality (which is equivalent to strong determinism). We propose an alternative definition of locality for contextual and relativistic theories that accounts for correlations that result from common history and renders QFT a local theory.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":569,"journal":{"name":"Foundations of Physics","volume":"55 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Foundations of Physics","FirstCategoryId":"101","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10701-025-00885-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"物理与天体物理","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
We use the framework of Empirical Models (EM) and Hidden Variables Models (HVM) to analyze the locality and stochasticity properties of relativistic quantum theories, such as Quantum Field Theory (QFT). First, we present the standard definition of properties such as determinism, no signaling, locality, and contextuality for HVM and for EM and their relations. Then, we show that if no other conditions are added, there are only two types of EM: An EM is either classical, by which we mean that it is strongly deterministic, local, and non-contextual; Or else an EM is non-classical, in which case it is weakly deterministic, non-local and contextual. Consequently, we define criteria for an HVM to be Lorentz invariant and prove that Lorentz invariance implies parameter independence. As a result, we show that a Lorentz invariant and contextual model (e.g., relativistic quantum theory) must be genuinely stochastic i.e., it cannot have a deterministic (strong or weak) HVM. This proof is an improved version of a theorem we proved previously, and it has a wider scope. Finally, we discuss Bell’s definition of locality and show that it is equivalent to non-contextuality. We argue that Bell’s justification for this definition tacitly assumes non-contextuality (which is equivalent to strong determinism). We propose an alternative definition of locality for contextual and relativistic theories that accounts for correlations that result from common history and renders QFT a local theory.
期刊介绍:
The conceptual foundations of physics have been under constant revision from the outset, and remain so today. Discussion of foundational issues has always been a major source of progress in science, on a par with empirical knowledge and mathematics. Examples include the debates on the nature of space and time involving Newton and later Einstein; on the nature of heat and of energy; on irreversibility and probability due to Boltzmann; on the nature of matter and observation measurement during the early days of quantum theory; on the meaning of renormalisation, and many others.
Today, insightful reflection on the conceptual structure utilised in our efforts to understand the physical world is of particular value, given the serious unsolved problems that are likely to demand, once again, modifications of the grammar of our scientific description of the physical world. The quantum properties of gravity, the nature of measurement in quantum mechanics, the primary source of irreversibility, the role of information in physics – all these are examples of questions about which science is still confused and whose solution may well demand more than skilled mathematics and new experiments.
Foundations of Physics is a privileged forum for discussing such foundational issues, open to physicists, cosmologists, philosophers and mathematicians. It is devoted to the conceptual bases of the fundamental theories of physics and cosmology, to their logical, methodological, and philosophical premises.
The journal welcomes papers on issues such as the foundations of special and general relativity, quantum theory, classical and quantum field theory, quantum gravity, unified theories, thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, cosmology, and similar.