Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Foundations
Physical Probability in the Everett Interpretation and Bell Inequalities
arXiv
Authors: Simon Saunders
Year
2025
Paper ID
16453
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
135
Citations
N/A
Abstract
I define a notion of local causality LOC closely modelled on the Bell principle, construed as the condition that single case probabilities cannot be modified by actions at spacelike separation. The new principle, like that of Bell, forces Bell inequalities, but with two loopholes: one is retrocausation, known to Bell, but the other is nonuniqueness of remote outcomes, a loophole only for LOC, not for the Bell principle. I also set out a theory of physical probability, applicable to the Everett interpretation, in agreement with the Born rule, and therefore violating Bell inequalities. I show it is consistent with LOC. Surprisingly, both loopholes are exploited. I conclude not only that probability in the Everett interpretation involves no action at a distance, but that the observed violations of Bell inequalities is powerful evidence for many worlds.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Foundations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2025 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- I define a notion of local causality LOC closely modelled on the Bell principle, construed as the condition that single case probabilities cannot be modified by actions at...
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.