|
| NATO ADVANCED RESEARCH WORKSHOP |
| Modality, Probability, and Bell’s Theorems |
| to be held in Cracow (Poland) in Aug. 19-23, 2001 |
| co-sponsored by the Jagiellonian University (Cracow) |
| home page | How to apply for participation | Objectives of the workshop | Tentative programme | Papers of the key speakers | Relevant topics |
| link to NATO | Since Bell's [1]
proof that no contextual deterministic local hidden variable model can
correctly reproduce the experimental probabilities predicted by quantum
mechanics, there have been other proofs designed to show which models of
the phenomena are excluded by quantum mechanics. Since Aspect et al.'s
1981 experimental confirmation [2] of Bell's
result, a few new Bell-type experiments have been carried out, and a few
new Gedankenkenexperimenten proposed. The common feature of various
Bell-type theorems is the deduction of an experimentally ascertainable
fact from a set of assumptions about the functioning of the assumed hidden
variables, these in turn being reflections of quite general (say, metaphysical)
views like the locality of physical actions, or determinism, or factorizability,
or realism with respect to quantum properties, and the freedom of experimenters.
Since the experimentally ascertainable fact is most likely refuted, at
least one of the premises, and hence, at least one of the metaphysical
assumptions, is not satisfied in nature.
Now, finding out which of the premises must go, and what this exactly entails for our worldview is what we mean by finding the implications of the Bell-type theorems. This is the objective of our workshop `Modality, Probability, and Bell's Theorems'. |
||||
| directions | |||||
| the conference site | |||||
| Jagiellonian University | |||||
| Cracow | |||||
| bell.workshop@uj.edu.pl | |||||
| Bell-type theorems typically involve
probabilistic, modal, and spatiotemporal notions as the following widely
accepted premise clearly exhibits: `if a setting different from the actual
one were selected at one measurement apparatus, this would not alter the
actually observed probabilities of results at the other apparatus.' The
combination of the three notions sets up the challenge of producing a unified
framework, and requires combining the perspectives of physics, logic, probability
theory, and philosophy. This is why our workshop gathers researchers working
in those four areas.
Clearly, implications of the Bell-type theorems being a fascinating subject, there have been a few events similar to our workshop, notably the Notre Dame 1987 conference (documented in [3]). Yet, recent years have seen an abundance of experimental and theoretical results in the field, which, we believe, call for discussion and assessment and this is what our workshop will offer. To point to the mentioned experimental results, [4] carried out an essentially improved version of Aspect et al.'s [5] experiment. [6], [7] and [8] put forward the so-called `Bell theorems without inequalities'. Somewhat similarly, [9] put forward a non-stochastic Bell-type experiment using the setup of [2]. Turning to the theoretical side, the spatiotemporal features of Bell-Aspect experiment have been clarified considerably [10]. Proofs of nonlocality (based on GHZ's or Hardy's experiments) that are neutral with respect to determinism, factorizability, realism etc. have been proposed in [11]; they elicited severe critiques [12], [13], and [14], and discussions of the status of counterfactual statements in physics [15] and [16]. Models of branching space-time have been used to analyze GHZ's experiments in [17] and [18]. [18] and [19] investigated the tenability of the factorizability condition and its relation to determinism, the tentative verdict being that it reduces to determinism. Bohm's quantum mechanics has been reassessed and further developed in [20], [21], and [22]. There are new insights as to whether generalized probabilities can offer any help in explaining Bell's theorems [23] and [24]. This list could be continued, but we think it already makes evident the considerable progress in the area, which stands in need of analysis and consolidation. Importantly, the workshop is also intended to facilitate the development of this research in Central Europe. This will be achieved by inviting the most promising young researchers from the area. Bibilography: [1] Bell, J., Physics 1, 195-200, 1964; [2] Aspect, A. et al., Phys.Rev.Let 47, 460-463, 1981; [3] Cushing, J.T., McMullin, E.(eds), Philosophical Consequences ..., Univ Notre Dame Press, 1989; [4] Weihs, G. et al., Phys.Rev.Lett. 81, 5039—5043, 1998; [5] Aspect, A. et al., Phys.Rev.Lett. 49,1804-1807, 1982; [6] Greenberger, D. et al., in M. Kafatos (ed.) Bell's Theorem,... Kluwer, 1989; [7] Greenberger, et al., Am.Jour.Phys. 58(12), 69-72, 1990; [8] Mermin, N.D., Am.Jour.Phys. 58(8), 731-734, 1990; [9] Hardy, L., Phys.Rev.Lett. 68, 2981-4, 1992; [10] Butterfield, J., Brit.Jour.Phil.Sci. 43, 41-83, 1992; [11] Stapp, H.P., Am.Jour.Phys. 65(4), 300-4, 1997; [12] Dickson, M. et al., Phys.Rev.A 49 (5), 4251-6, 1994; [13] Unruh, W.G., Phys.Rev.A 59(1), 126-30, 1999; [14] Mermin, D., Am.Jour.Phys. 66(10), 920-4, 1998; [15] Stapp, H.P., Am.Jour.Phys.. 66(10) 924-6, 1998; [16] Unruh, W.G., Phys.Rev. A 60(3), 2597-9, 1999; [17] Belnap, N., Szabó, L.E., Found.Phys. 26(8), 982-1002, 1996; [18] Kowalski, T., Placek, T., Brit.Jour.Phil.Sci. 50, 349-75, 1999; [19] Hofer-Szabó G. et al., Brit.Jour.Phil.Sci. 50, 377-99, 1999; [20] Holland, P.R. Quantum Theory of Motion, Cambridge UP, 1993; [21] Valentini, A. Phys.Lett. A 156 5-11 and 158 1-8, 1991; [22] Cushing, J.T. Quantum Mechanics...., Univ. Chicago Press, 1994; [23] Rédei, M., Quantum Logic..., Kluwer, 1998; [24] Szabó, L.E., in: M.Rédei and M. Stoelzner (eds.) John von Neumann..., Kluwer, 2001. |
|||||
| home page | How to apply for participation | Objectives of the workshop | Tentative programme | Papers of the key speakers | Relevant topics |