Objective realism and freedom of choice in relativistic quantum field theory
Adam Bednorz*
Faculty of Physics, University of Warsaw, ul. Pasteura 5, PL02-093 Warsaw, Poland
(Received 13 July 2016; published 31 October 2016)
"Traditional Bell’s argument shows that freedom of choice is inconsistent with quantum realism if lack of
signaling and sufficiently fast choices and readouts are assumed. While no-signaling alone is a
consequence of special relativity, this is not the case of spacetime location of choice and readout.
Here we attempt to incorporate freedom of choice into quantum objective realism relying solely on
relativistic quantum field theory. We conclude that this is impossible without breaking relativistic
invariance and put forward the possibility of signaling faster than light, which cannot be excluded if an
ultimate theory violates relativity.
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.085032
I. INTRODUCTION
Objective realism means that all physical quantities (e.g.,
field and currents) have well-defined values at all times and
positions, although they may be random. The values are
independent of the fact of being observed. Objective
realism in the macroscopic world is obvious, but in the
microworld it is at best ambiguous due to conceptual
problems of the quantum description. Moreover, practical
and useful physics relies on free choice—an ability to affect
the system in real time. Freedom of choice means that we
are not mere spectators of the world’s evolution but can
actively change its fate. Free choice localized in time and
space is important in the interpretation of tests of local
realism [1–3]. Incorporating free choice into theory is done
by adding some variable parameters (usually localized),
meaning a variety of choices. However, observations for
different choices are not always compatible in quantum
realism, as shown by Bell theorem (for a particular state and
choices) [1]. The Bell’s argument relies on several important
assumptions, depicted in Fig. 1:
(i) Entanglement: existence and stability of a special,
nonlocal entangled state, that can be observed by
two (or more) separate parties
(ii) No-signaling: observations are freely chosen and are
completed (become sufficiently sharp, with negligible
error) before a signal about the other party’s
choice reaches the observation point
Bell’s conclusion is that it is impossible to find a common
probability distribution (equivalent to quantum realism) of
all outcomes depending only on those choices that can be
signaled to them. Both assumptions cannot be directly
derived from fully relativistic quantum field theory because
the Bell argument works in simplified Hilbert space and
reduces to a few basis states. No-signaling could indeed
follow from at least axiomatic quantum field theory [4] but
the point of choice and readout is arbitrary in general. One
can easily invalidate the Bell’s conclusion by delaying
actual observation (or its sharpening) until signals reach its
point. Bell theorem has been recently confirmed experimentally
[5–7] but of course for no-signaling one assumes
special relativity combined with the trust in the times of
choices and readouts."
Adam's error is assuming only retarded past-causes of future effects.
Nevertheless, his more general thesis may be correct, i.e.
free will requires signaling - but that signaling need not conflict
with relativity at all.
"Here we try to assign joint objective realism for all
choices by asking if a common joint positive probability
exists and basing it directly on relativistic quantum field
theory [8], not Bell’s assumptions (so we, e.g., do not need
to trust the time of choice and readout). We will show that
indeed objective realism with free choice cannot stand with
both relativistic invariance and quantum theory. It will turn
out that it is possible but violating relativistic invariance."
This is wrong, everything is consistent with local retrocausality
(Costa-de Beauregard, I.J. Good, Aharonov, Price, Wharton, Sutherland
plus my post-quantum back activity of Bohm's beables on their advanced
destiny and retarded history (Aharonov) pilot waves.
"If relativity is to drop, then binding the assumption of the Bell
theorem about compatibility with relativistic no-signaling
may be false and there might be signaling faster than light."
Muddled conclusion: there is entanglement signaling in the
post-quantum regime, but it is locally retrocausal consistent
with relativity. Nevertheless, on can communicate
faster than light via the Costa de Beauregard zig-zag.
In John Wheeler's terms like "mass without mass" it's
"FTL WITHOUT FTL"
"We show that trying to preserve the speed of light as the
signaling speed in a relativity violating theory is misleading
if one tries to do it perturbatively. The relativistic signaling
limit is simply a nonperturbative property of quantum field
theory, and may get falsified in future experiments.
The paper is organized as follows. We start with the
general construction of quantum mechanics and field
theory with free choice. Next, we state the problem of
realism and attempts of quantum construction, insisting on
agreement with relativity. Finally, we show that relativistic
invariance must be broken, by a perturbative example, and
discuss possible consequences, including superluminal
signaling. We close the paper with conclusions. …
The presented direct conflicts of freedom of choice in
quantum realism with relativity demonstrates incompleteness
of the present quantum framework without using the
assumption of the Bell theorem. The easiest way seems to
abandon relativistic invariance."
This is wrong. The easiest way is to keep
relativistic invariance with local retrocausality
plus post-quantum backactivity needing Bohm's
pilot wave/beable dualism similar to the back reaction
of matter on geometry in Einstein's GR.
"This can be tested experimentally,
especially by no-signaling in the test of local
realism, which is different from the direct search for
violations of relativistic invariance [28]. Theoretical and
experimental development of such tests is critical for
finding a way to reconcile quantum realism with free
choices. Finally, the freedom of choice remains a matter of
trust in electronics, with human choice yet to be considered
[29]."