Towards an Objective Physics of Bell Nonlocality: Palatial Twistor Theory

doi:10.1017/CBO9781316219393.027

25 - Towards an Objective Physics of Bell Nonlocality: Palatial Twistor Theory

from Part IV - Nonlocal Realistic Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 September 2016

Roger Penrose

Edited by

Mary Bell and

Shan Gao

Show author details

Roger Penrose: Affiliation:
University of Oxford
Shan Gao: Affiliation:
Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Abstract

In 1964, John Stewart Bell famously demonstrated that the laws of standard quantum mechanics demand a physical world that cannot be described entirely according to local laws. The present article argues that this nonlocality must be gravitationally related, as it comes about only with quantum state reduction, this being claimed to be a gravitational effect. A new formalism for curved space–times, palatial twistor theory, is outlined, which appears now to be able to accommodate gravitation fully, providing a nonlocal description of the physical world.

Nonlocality and Quantum State Reduction

Although quantum entanglement is a normal consequence of the unitary (Schrödinger) evolution U of a multiparticle quantum system, this evolution is nevertheless local in the sense that it is described as the continuous (local) evolution in the relevant configuration space. What the EPR situations considered by John Stewart Bell [1] demonstrated was that when widely separated quantum measurements, of appropriate kinds, are performed on such entangled states (a current record for distance separation being 143 km, for entangled photon pairs [2]), the results of such measurements (which may be probabilistic or of a yes/no character) cannot be mimicked by any local realistic model. Thus, in trying to propose a mathematical model of what is going on realistically in the physical world, one would need to face up to the actual physical process involved in quantum state reduction R, which is an essential feature of quantum measurement.

For many years, my own position on the state-reduction issue has been that R would have to involve a fundamental mathematical extension of current quantum theory, giving a description of something objectively taking place ‘out there’ in the physical world (OR: objective reduction), rather than R being the effect of some kind of ‘interpretation’ of the standard unitary quantum formalism. Moreover, the extended theory should be able to describe the one physical world that we all experience, rather than some sort of coexisting superposition of vast numbers of alternatives. To be more specific about my own viewpoint, it has long been my position that such necessary deviation from unitarity U in this OR would result from a correct melding of the quantum formalism with that of general relativity.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: Quantum Nonlocality and Reality
50 Years of Bell's Theorem
, pp. 400 - 418

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316219393.027 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

[1] Bell, J.S. (1964), On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox, Physics 1, 195–200.Google Scholar

[2] Xiao, S.M., Herbst, T., Scheldt, T.,Wang, D., Kropatschek, S., Naylor, W.,Wittmann, B., Mech, A., Kofler, J., Anisimova, E., Makarov, V. Jennewein, Y., Ursin, R., and Zeilinger, A. (2012), Quantum teleportation over 143 kilometres using active feedforward, Nature Lett. 489, 269–73.Google Scholar

[3] Penrose, R. (2014), On the gravitization of quantum mechanics: 1. Quantum state reduction, Found. Phys. 44, 557–75.Google Scholar

[4] Hawking, S.W. (1976), Breakdown of predictability in gravitational collapse, Phys. Rev. D 14, 2460–73.CrossRef Google Scholar

[5] Hawking, S.W. (2005), Information loss in black holes, Phys. Rev. D 72, 084013–6.Google Scholar

[6] Penrose, R. (2004), The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe (Jonathan Cape, London).

[7] Almheiri, A., Marolf, D., Polchinski, J. and Sully, J. (2013), Black holes: complementarity or firewalls? J. High Energy Phys. 2013 (2), 1–20.Google Scholar

[8] Penrose, R. (1993), Gravity and quantum mechanics, in R.J., Gleiser, C.N., Kozameh, and O.M., Moreschi (eds.), General Relativity and Gravitation 13. Part 1: Plenary Lectures 1992 (Inst. of Phys. Publ., Bristol/Philadelphia), pp. 179–89.

[9] Penrose, R. (1996), On gravity's role in quantum state reduction, Gen. Rel. Grav. 28, 581–600.CrossRef Google Scholar

[10] Diosi, L. (1984), Gravitation and quantum mechanical localization of macro-objects, Phys. Lett. A 105, 199–202.CrossRef Google Scholar

[11] Diosi, L. (1987), A universal master equation for the gravitational violation of quantum mechanics, Phys. Lett. A 120, 377–81.CrossRef Google Scholar

[12] Penrose, R. (1987), On the origins of twistor theory, in W., Rindler and A., Trautman (eds.), Gravitation and Geometry: A Volume in Honour of I. Robinson (Bibliopolis, Naples).

[13] Einstein, A., Podolsky, P. and Rosen, N. (1935), Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777–80.Google Scholar

[14] Bohm, D. (1951) Quantum Theory (Prentice–Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ), Chap. 22, Sects. 15–19.

[15] Geroch, R. (1970), Domain of dependence, J. Math. Phys. 11, 437.Google Scholar

[16] Penrose, R. and Rindler, W. (1984), Spinors and Space–Time, Vol. 1: Two-Spinor Calculus and Relativistic Fields (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).

[17] Woodhouse, N.M.J. (1991), Geometric Quantization, 2nd ed. (Clarendon Press, Oxford).

[18] Penrose, R. (2015), Palatial twistor theory and the twistor googly problem, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 373, 20140237.Google Scholar

[19] Tomassini, S. and Dragomir, G. (2006), Differential geometry and analysis on CR manifolds, Progress in Mathematics, Vol. 246 (Birkhauser, Basel).

[20] Huggett, S.A. and Tod, K.P. (1985), An Introduction to Twistor Theory, London Mathematical Society Student Texts, Vol. 4 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).

[21] Ward, R.S. and Wells, R.O., Jr. (1989), Twistor Geometry and Field Theory (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).

[22] Penrose, R. and Rindler, W. (1986), Spinors and Space–Time, Vol. 2: Spinor and Twistor Methods in Space–Time Geometry (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).

[23] Frauendiener, J. and Sparling, G. (1992), On the symplectic formalism for general relativity, Proc. R. Soc. (London) A 436, 141–53.CrossRef Google Scholar

[24] Dirac, P.A.M. (1947), The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, 3rd ed. (Clarendon Press, Oxford).

[25] Penrose, R. (1969), Solutions of the zero rest-mass equations, J. Math. Phys. 10, 38–9.CrossRef Google Scholar

[26] Wells, R.O., Jr. (1991), Differential Analysis on Complex Manifolds (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).

[27] Penrose, R. (1991), On the cohomology of impossible figures, Structural Topology 17, 11–16.Google Scholar

[28] Norsen, T. (2004), Einstein's boxes, Am. J. Phys. 73, 164–76.Google Scholar

[29] Bell, J.S. (1966), Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge). [Reprint 1987]

[30] Penrose, R. (1976), Non-linear gravitons and curved twistor theory, Gen. Rel. Grav. 7, 31–52.Google Scholar

[31] Ward, R.S. (1980), Self-dual space–times with cosmological constant, Comm. Math. Phys. 78, 1–17.Google Scholar

[32] Kodaira, K. (1963), On stability of compact submanifolds of complex manifolds, Am. J. Math. 85, 79–94.

[33] Connes, A. and Berberian, S.K. (1995), Noncommutative Geometry (Academic Press, San Diego).

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.