text:
# Locality in the Everett Interpretation of Heisenberg-Picture Quantum Mechanics This work was sponsored by the Department of the Air Force under Contract F19628-00-C-0002. Opinions, interpretations, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the author and are not necessarily endorsed by the United States Air Force.

## 1 Introduction

In the paper in which he introduces what has come to be known as the Everett or many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, Everett (1957) states that “fictitious paradoxes like that of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen which are concerned with …correlated, noninteracting systems are easily investigated and clarified in the present scheme.” In the Everett interpretation the nonlocal notion of reduction of the wavefunction is eliminated, suggesting that questions of the locality of quantum mechanics might indeed be more easily addressed. On the other hand, while wavefunctions do not suffer reduction in the Everett interpretation, nonlocality nevertheless remains present in many accounts of this formulation. In DeWitt’s (1970) often-quoted description, for example, “every quantum transition taking place on every star, in every galaxy, in every remote corner of the universe is splitting our local world on earth into myriads of copies of itself.” Contrary to this viewpoint, others argue (Page, 1982; Tipler, 1986, 2000; Albert and Loewer, 1988; Albert, 1992; Vaidman, 1994, 1998, 1999; Price, 1995; Lockwood, 1996; Deutsch, 1996; Deutsch and Hayden, 2000) that the Everett interpretation can in fact resolve the apparent contradiction between locality and quantum mechanics. In particular, Deutsch and Hayden (2000) apply the Everett interpretation to quantum mechanics in the Heisenberg picture, and show that in EPRB experiments,111 Deutsch and Hayden (2000) analyze a variant of the EPRB experiment in which, rather than passing through rotated analyzer magnets, the correlated particles are themselves each independently rotated before their spins are measured. This setup yields the same correlations as the usual one, but allows the flow of information to be tracked explicitly at each step.  information regarding the correlations between systems is encoded in the Heisenberg-picture operators corresponding to the observables of the systems, and is carried from system to system and from place to place in a local manner. The picture which emerges is not one of measurement-type interactions “splitting the universe” but, rather, producing copies of the observers and observed physical systems which have interacted during the (local) measurement process (Tipler, 1986).

The purpose of the present paper is to summarize the formalism of measurement in the Everett interpretation of Heisenberg picture quantum mechanics and its application to the EPRB and GHZM experiments, to emphasize the key aspects of this formulation of quantum mechanics which allow it to circumvent Bell’s theorem (Bell, 1964) and to describe the conceptual framework—a “labeled copies interpretation”—which it seems to imply. The information carried in entangled Heisenberg-picture operators governs the nature of correlations observed between the states of entangled systems and the observers who measure them. It is the existence of this mechanism for bringing about, in a local manner, the perfect correlations which are observed, e.g., when the analyzer magnets in the EPRB experiment are parallel, which vitiates the reasoning which otherwise leads one to conclude that either Bell’s theorem must hold or nonlocal influences must come into play. Since, in this scenario, even an entity as simple as an electron carries with it for eternity a record of other entities with which it has interacted, this interpretation entails a conceptual difficulty of its own. It is possible that this difficulty may be less severe if quantized fields rather than particles are considered.

In Section 2 below I review the aspects of Bell’s theorem most relevant for the EPRB and the GHZM experiments. In Section 3 the Everett model for quantum measurement is reviewed in the original Schrödinger picture formulation as well as in the Heisenberg picture. Section 4 contains an analysis of the EPRB and GHZM experiments from an Everett point of view in the Heisenberg picture. In Section 5 I discuss the manner in which the labeled copies interpretation of quantum mechanics avoids Bell’s theorem, the problem of label proliferation, and the possible relevance of quantum field theory for a solution.

## 2 Bell’s Theorem and Counterfactual Reasoning

There are many derivations of the many variants of Bell’s theorem; here we review one of the simplest (Farris, 1995). Consider two observers performing Bohm’s version (Bohm, 1951) of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (Einstein et al., 1935) experiment (EPRB) on pairs of spin-1/2 particles in the singlet state, using pairs of Stern-Gerlach analyzer magnets which can be independently oriented in one of three directions $`120^{}`$ apart and perpendicular to the particles’ line of flight. Define the quantity $`Q`$:

$$Q=P_{uu}(0^{},120^{})+P_{uu}(120^{},240^{})+P_{uu}(240^{},0^{}),$$
(1)
where $`P_{uu}(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)`$ is the probability of both observers obtaining the result spin-up from a particle pair when analyzers 1 and 2 are oriented in directions $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ respectively. Each of the three probabilities on the right-hand side of equation (1) can be determined experimentally to any desired degree of accuracy, by performing many repetitions of the EPRB experiment with the analyzers held in the appropriate directions. There is no quantum-mechanical restriction on performing these experiments because, in each case, we are measuring spin components of two different particles, so the measurements commute.

However, whenever experiments are performed in which both analyzer magnets have the same orientation $`\varphi `$, we observe that

$$P_{uu}(\varphi ,\varphi )=0$$
(2)
for any and all choices of $`\varphi `$. That is, if the analyzer directions are the same, we find that whenever a particle is deflected in one direction by one of the analyzers, its partner is deflected in the opposite direction by the other analyzer. We find that the correlations persist even when we consider only cases in which the analyzer orientations come to be parallel by chance, because they’ve been chosen at the last possible moment before the particles arrive by some random process (delayed-choice experiment). We are thus compelled to pose a “bothersome question” (Mermin, 1990a): What is the mechanism which brings about these correlations? In answer, we adopt what seems the only explanation open to us: Each particle, even before its spin is measured by the analyzer, carries with it information—“instruction sets,” as termed by Mermin (1990a)—determining what its response will be to the analyzer in every possible orientation.

Having accepted this explanation, our doom is sealed. For if this explanation holds, it is a well-defined notion to talk about what would have happened if an analyzer had been oriented other than as it actually was in any given experiment. That is, we define the quantity $`P_{ISud}^{(1)}(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)`$ to be the probability that particle 1 is carrying instructions to be deflected up by an analyzer with orientation $`\varphi _1`$, and at the same time is carrying instructions to be deflected down by an analyzer at orientation $`\varphi _2`$. This cannot be measured directly; but, by the reasoning above, it has the value

$$P_{ISud}^{(1)}(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)=P_{uu}(\varphi _1,\varphi _2).$$
(3)
So, using this in (1),

$$Q=P_{ISud}^{(1)}(0^{},120^{})+P_{ISud}^{(1)}(120^{},240^{})+P_{ISud}^{(1)}(240^{},0^{}),$$
(4)
and since the probabilities which are being added on the right-hand side of (4) are of mutually exclusive events (e.g., particle 1 is carrying instructions to be deflected either up or down by a magnet with orientation $`120^{}`$) we conclude

$$Q1.$$
(5)
This inequality contradicts the prediction obtained from a quantum-mechanical calculation of $`Q`$ (see, e.g., Section 4.1.2 below), and it is the latter which is borne out by actual experiments (Aspect et al., 1982; Weihs et al., 1998).

The arguments leading to Mermin’s (1990b,c) three-particle version of the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (Greenberger et al., 1989,1990) experiment (GHZM) are similarly based on the need to explain perfect correlations. In this case, the fact that the results of spin measurements made on one particle correlate perfectly with those made on two other particles drives us to conclude that the results of spin measurements on all three particles are governed by instruction sets. The three particles in question each have spin-1/2 and travel outward from a common source in three coplanar directions. The spin of each particle is measured by an analyzer magnet that can be oriented at any angle in the plane perpendicular to the corresponding particle’s line of flight. (The $`0^{}`$ direction is perpendicular to the common plane of the particles’ motion.) Quantum mechanics predicts (see Section 4.2.2) that

$$P_{eu}(0^{},90^{},90^{})=P_{eu}(90^{},0^{},90^{})=P_{eu}(90^{},90^{},0^{})=0,$$
(6)
where $`P_{eu}(\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\varphi _3,)`$ is the probability that an even number of spin measurements will be up. Enumeration of the possible instruction sets that could account for these results (Mermin, 1990b) leads to the conclusion—here, not an inequality, but an equality—that

$$P_{eu}(0^{},0^{},0^{})=0\text{(instruction set prediction).}$$
(7)
However, a direct quantum-mechanical calculation of this quantity gives a probability , not of zero, but of unity (see Section 4.2.2).

## 3 Everett’s Measurement Model

### 3.1 Schrödinger Picture

Everett’s paper presents a model of ideal measurements in quantum mechanics. Consider a physical system $`𝒮`$ and an observer222The observer, of course, is also a physical system! $`𝒪`$. The space of states of $`𝒮`$ is spanned by the eigenstates of a Hermitian operator $`\widehat{a}`$ with eigenvalues $`\alpha _i`$:

$$\widehat{a}|𝒮;\alpha _i=\alpha _i|𝒮;\alpha _i,i=1,\mathrm{},N.$$
(8)
For simplicity we will assume that the eigenvalues $`\alpha _i`$ are nondegenerate. Here and below, unless indicated otherwise, all operators are time-independent Schrödinger-picture operators.

The space of states of $`𝒪`$ is spanned by the eigenstates of a Hermitian operator $`\widehat{b}`$ with eigenvalues $`\beta _I`$:

$$\widehat{b}|𝒪;\beta _I=\beta _I|𝒪;\beta _I,I=0,\mathrm{},N.$$
(9)
The eigenvalues $`\beta _I`$ correspond to distinct “states of belief” of the observer $`𝒪`$ concerning the results of measurements made on the system $`𝒮`$ ($`𝒪`$ could of course be a computer or other machine rather than a conscious human), so we can take them to be nondegenerate, with $`\beta _0`$ corresponding to the state of ignorance (no measurement yet made).

The interaction corresponding to the measurement of $`𝒮`$ by $`𝒪`$ is represented by a unitary time-evolution operator $`\widehat{U}_M`$ acting in the product space of the state spaces of $`𝒮`$ and $`𝒪`$. In order to correspond to an ideal measurement (the only type considered in this paper), $`\widehat{U}_M`$ must have the property that if at time $`t_1`$ $`𝒪`$ is in a state of ignorance and $`𝒮`$ is in a state where the quantity represented by $`\widehat{a}`$ definitely has the value $`\alpha _i`$—i.e.,

$$|\psi ;t_1=|𝒪;\beta _0|𝒮;\alpha _i,$$
(10)
so

$`\widehat{A}|\psi ;t_1`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _i|\psi ;t_1,`$ (11)
$`\widehat{B}|\psi ;t_1`$ $`=`$ $`\beta _0|\psi ;t_1,`$ (12)
where

$`\widehat{A}`$ $``$ $`\widehat{a}\widehat{I}_𝒮,`$ (13)
$`\widehat{B}`$ $``$ $`\widehat{I}_𝒪\widehat{b},`$ (14)
$`\widehat{I}_𝒮`$ $``$ $`\text{identity operator in space of states of }𝒮,`$ (15)
$`\widehat{I}_𝒪`$ $``$ identity operator in space of states of $`𝒪`$ (16)
—then the action of $`\widehat{U}_M`$ is given by

$$|\psi ;t_2=\widehat{U}|\psi ;t_1=|𝒪;\beta _i|𝒮;\alpha _i.$$
(17)
Since $`\widehat{U}_M`$ is a linear operator, its effect on a state in which $`𝒪`$ is ignorant and $`𝒮`$ is in an arbitrary superposition of $`\widehat{a}`$ eigenstates,

$$|\psi ;t_1=|𝒪;\beta _0(\underset{i}{}c_i|𝒮;\alpha _i,$$
(18)
is

$$|\psi ;t_2=\widehat{U}_M|\psi ;t_1=\underset{i}{}c_i|𝒪;\beta _i|𝒮;\alpha _i.$$
(19)
The state $`|\psi ;t_2`$ is said to be “entangled,” since it is not a product of states in the respective state spaces of $`𝒮`$ and $`𝒪`$.

Therefore

$$\widehat{U}_M=\underset{i}{}\widehat{u}_i\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_i,$$
(20)
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_i`$ is the projection operator into the $`i^{th}`$ $`\widehat{a}`$ eigenstate of $`𝒮`$,

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_i|𝒮;\alpha _i𝒮;\alpha _i|,$$
(21)
and $`\widehat{u}_i`$ are unitary operators in the space of states of $`𝒪`$ with the property

$$\widehat{u}_i|𝒪;\beta _0=|𝒪;\beta _i,i=1,\mathrm{},N.$$
(22)
The action of $`\widehat{u}_i`$ on states $`|𝒪;\beta _I`$, $`I0`$, will not play a role in what follows. (In Section 4.1 below we give a specific example of operators $`\widehat{u}_i`$ for the case $`N=2`$.)

### 3.2 Heisenberg Picture

In the Heisenberg picture, time dependence is carried by the operators. Heisenberg-picture operators will be distinguished by explicit time arguments. At the initial time $`t_0`$ the Heisenberg-picture operators are identical to their Schrödinger-picture counterparts:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\hfill \widehat{A}(t_0)& =& \widehat{A}& =& \widehat{I}_𝒪\widehat{a},\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{B}(t_0)& =& \widehat{B}& =& \widehat{b}\widehat{I}_𝒮.\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
At time $`t_2`$, after $`𝒪`$ has measured $`𝒮`$, these operators become, respectively,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \widehat{A}(t_2)& =& \widehat{U}_M^{}\widehat{A}\widehat{U}_M,\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{B}(t_2)& =& \widehat{U}_M^{}\widehat{B}\widehat{U}_M.\hfill \end{array}$$
(24)
Here $`t_2>t_1>t_0`$, and, for now, it is assumed that no interaction takes place between $`t_0`$ and $`t_1`$.

From (13-16), (20), (23), and (24),

$`\widehat{A}(t_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{I}_𝒪\widehat{a},`$ (25)
$`\widehat{B}(t_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\widehat{u}_i^{}\widehat{b}\widehat{u}_i\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_i,`$ (26)
since

$`\widehat{u}_i^{}\widehat{u}_i`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{I}_𝒪,`$ (27)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_i,`$ (28)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_i\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_j`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_i\delta _{ij},`$ (29)
$`\widehat{a}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\alpha _i\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_i.`$ (30)
In the Heisenberg picture operator the $`𝒮`$ observable $`\widehat{A}(t)`$ is the same after the measurement as before. (This will not be the case in general; see Section 4.1.1.) However, the $`𝒪`$ observable $`\widehat{B}(t)`$ has become entangled with $`𝒮`$, in that it is no longer in the form (14), the tensor product of an operator acting on $`𝒪`$ states with the identity operator on $`𝒮`$ states, but instead acts nontrivially on the states of $`𝒮`$. This is the hallmark of entanglement in the Heisenberg picture (d’Espagnat, 1995, Section 10.8). The Heisenberg picture state vector, on the other hand, remains at all times equal to the nonentangled Schrödinger picture time-$`t_0`$ state vector (18).

## 4 EPRB and GHZM Experiments

In EPRB and GHZM experiments, the particles are prepared in a state in which they are entangled with each other before measurement. A spin component of each of the particles is subsequently measured by a corresponding analyzer magnet which can be at one of several orientations. As in the previous section, the action of the unitary time evolution operator will first be determined by working in the Schrödinger picture and subsequently used to compute the form of the time-dependent operators in the Heisenberg picture. For purposes of computational convenience, all operator eigenstates employed will be time-independent eigenstates of time-independent operators—i.e., Schrödinger-picture eigenstates.

### 4.1 EPRB Experiment

The two particles are denoted $`𝒮^{(p)}`$ and the two observers $`𝒪^{(p)}`$, $`p=1,2.`$ The space of states of $`𝒮^{(p)}`$ is spanned by eigenstates of the Hermitian operator $`\widehat{a}^{(p)}`$. In this case $`\widehat{a}^{(p)}`$ is the $`z`$ component of the $`p^{th}`$-particle spin operator

$$\widehat{a}^{(p)}=\widehat{\sigma }_z^{(p)},p=1,2,$$
(31)
where spin is measured in units of $`\mathrm{}/2`$. The $`𝒮^{(p)}`$ eigenbasis thus given by

$$\widehat{a}^{(p)}|𝒮^{(p)};\alpha _i=\alpha _i|𝒮^{(p)};\alpha _i,i,p=1,2,$$
(32)
where

$$\alpha _1=+1,\alpha _2=1.$$
(33)
The space of states of $`𝒪^{(p)}`$ is spanned by

$$\widehat{b}^{(p)}|𝒪^{(p)};\beta _I=\beta _I|𝒪^{(p)};\beta _I,I=0,1,2.$$
(34)
The eigenvalue $`\beta _0`$ corresponds to the ignorant state of the observer. Eigenvalues $`\beta _1`$ and $`\beta _2`$ correspond to the observer $`𝒪^{(p)}`$ having measured the spin of particle $`𝒮^{(p)}`$ to be respectively up or down.

Since the EPRB experiment involves measurements in several directions, we consider measurement interactions by the observers $`𝒪^{(p)}`$ using analyzer magnets oriented along arbitrary independent directions denoted by unit vectors $`\stackrel{}{n}^{(p)}`$,

$$\stackrel{}{n}^{(p)}=(n_x^{(p)},n_y^{(p)},n_z^{(p)})=(\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{(p)}\mathrm{cos}\varphi ^{(p)},\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{(p)}\mathrm{sin}\varphi ^{(p)},\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{(p)}).$$
(35)
The time-evolution operators corresponding to these measurements are therefore

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \widehat{U}_{M,\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}}^{(1)}& =& _i\widehat{u}_i^{(1)}\widehat{I}_𝒪^{(2)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{i,\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}}^{(1)}\widehat{I}_𝒮^{(2)},\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{U}_{M,\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}}^{(2)}& =& _i\widehat{I}_𝒪^{(1)}\widehat{u}_i^{(2)}\widehat{I}_𝒮^{(1)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{i,\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}}^{(2)},\hfill \end{array}$$
(36)
where $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{i,\stackrel{}{n}^{(p)}}^{(p)}`$ is the projection operator into the $`i^{th}`$ eigenstate of particle $`p`$ along direction $`\stackrel{}{n}^{(p)}`$,

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{i,\stackrel{}{n}^{(p)}}^{(p)}=|𝒮^{(p)},\stackrel{}{n}^{(p)};\alpha _i𝒮^{(p)},\stackrel{}{n}^{(p)};\alpha _i|.$$
(37)
In terms of spin eigenstates defined with respect to the $`z`$ axis (Greenberger et al., 1990, Appendix A),

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill |𝒮^{(p)},\stackrel{}{n}^{(p)};\alpha _1& =& \mathrm{exp}(i\varphi /2)\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)|𝒮^{(p)};\alpha _1+\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi /2)\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)|𝒮^{(p)};\alpha _2,\hfill \\ \hfill |𝒮^{(p)},\stackrel{}{n}^{(p)};\alpha _2& =& \mathrm{exp}(i\varphi /2)\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)|𝒮^{(p)};\alpha _1+\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi /2)\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)|𝒮^{(p)};\alpha _2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(38)
so

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{1,\stackrel{}{n}^{(p)}}^{(p)}& =& \mathrm{cos}^2(\theta ^{(p)}/2)\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1^{(p)}+\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta ^{(p)}/2)\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_2^{(p)}\hfill \\ & & +\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{(p)}\left(\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi ^{(p)})\widehat{T}_{12}^{(p)}+\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi ^{(p)})\widehat{T}_{21}^{(p)}\right)/2,\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{2,\stackrel{}{n}^{(p)}}^{(p)}& =& \mathrm{sin}^2(\theta ^{(p)}/2)\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1^{(p)}+\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta ^{(p)}2)\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_2^{(p)}\hfill \\ & & \mathrm{sin}\theta ^{(p)}\left(\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi ^{(p)})\widehat{T}_{12}^{(p)}+\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi ^{(p)})\widehat{T}_{21}^{(p)}\right)/2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(39)
where

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\hfill \widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_1^{(p)}& =& |𝒮^{(p)};\alpha _1𝒮^{(p)};\alpha _1|,\hfill & & \hfill \widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_2^{(p)}& =& |𝒮^{(p)};\alpha _2𝒮^{(p)};\alpha _2|,\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{T}_{12}^{(p)}& =& |𝒮^{(p)};\alpha _1𝒮^{(p)};\alpha _2|,\hfill & & \hfill \widehat{T}_{21}^{(p)}& =& |𝒮^{(p)};\alpha _2𝒮^{(p)};\alpha _1|.\hfill \end{array}$$
(40)
The operators $`\widehat{u}_i^{(p)}`$ have the properties

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\widehat{u}_1^{(p)}|𝒪^{(p)};\beta _I\hfill & =& \hfill |𝒪^{(p)};\beta _{I+1\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}},\\ \widehat{u}_2^{(p)}|𝒪^{(p)};\beta _I\hfill & =& \hfill |𝒪^{(p)};\beta _{I1\text{mod}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}.\end{array}$$
(41)
Of these properties, the relevant ones for what follows are those for $`I=0`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\widehat{u}_1^{(p)}|𝒪^{(p)};\beta _0\hfill & =& \hfill |𝒪^{(p)};\beta _1,\\ \widehat{u}_2^{(p)}|𝒪^{(p)};\beta _0\hfill & =& \hfill |𝒪^{(p)};\beta _2.\end{array}$$
(42)
In the Heisenberg picture, the average of the product of the results of the measurements made by $`𝒪^{(1)}`$ and $`𝒪^{(2)}`$ at time $`t_2`$ is

$$B^{(1)}B^{(2)}(t_2)=\psi ,t_0|\widehat{B}^{(1)}(t_2)\widehat{B}^{(2)}(t_2)|\psi ,t_0,$$
(43)
where $`|\psi ,t_0`$ is the state of $`𝒪^{(1)}`$,$`𝒪^{(2)}`$, $`𝒮^{(1)}`$ and $`𝒮^{(2)}`$ at the initial time $`t_0`$, and the $`\widehat{B}^{(p)}(t_2)`$ are the operators on states of $`𝒪^{(p)}`$ after both measurements have been made. (From (36) we see that $`\widehat{U}_{M,\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}}^{(1)}`$ and $`\widehat{U}_{M,\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}}^{(2)}`$ commute, so the order in which the measurements are made is immaterial.) At time $`t_0`$,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\widehat{A}^{(1)}=\widehat{I}_𝒪^{(1)}\widehat{I}_𝒪^{(2)}\widehat{a}^{(1)}\widehat{I}_𝒮^{(2)},\hfill & & \\ \widehat{A}^{(2)}=\widehat{I}_𝒪^{(1)}\widehat{I}_𝒪^{(2)}\widehat{I}_𝒮^{(1)}\widehat{a}^{(2)},\hfill & & \\ \widehat{B}^{(1)}=\widehat{b}^{(1)}\widehat{I}_𝒪^{(2)}\widehat{I}_𝒮^{(1)}\widehat{I}_𝒮^{(2)},\hfill & & \\ \widehat{B}^{(2)}=\widehat{I}_𝒪^{(1)}\widehat{b}^{(2)}\widehat{I}_𝒮^{(1)}\widehat{I}_𝒮^{(2)}.\hfill & & \end{array}$$
(44)
For the initial-time Heisenberg picture state, we will use the state in which both observers are ignorant and each of the pair of particles has a well-defined spin, with particle 1 up with respect to the $`z`$ axis and particle 2 down:

$$|\psi ,t_0=|𝒪^{(1)};\beta _0|𝒪^{(2)};\beta _0|𝒮^{(1)};\alpha _1|𝒮^{(2)};\alpha _2.$$
(45)
#### 4.1.1 Nonentangled Particles

First consider the case in which the only interactions which take place subsequent to time $`t_0`$ are the measurements of the two particles by the two observers. The time evolution operator from time $`t_0`$ to time $`t_2`$ is then

$$\widehat{U}\widehat{U}_{M,\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}}^{(2)}\widehat{U}_{M,\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}}^{(1)}.$$
(46)
The Heisenberg-picture observables at time $`t_2`$,

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\hfill \widehat{A}^{(p)}(t_2)& =& \widehat{U}^{}\widehat{A}^{(p)}\widehat{U}& =& \left(\widehat{U}_{M,\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}}^{(1)}\widehat{U}_{M,\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}}^{(2)}\right)\widehat{A}^{(p)}\left(\widehat{U}_{M,\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}}^{(2)}\widehat{U}_{M,\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}}^{(1)}\right),p=1,2,\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{B}^{(p)}(t_2)& =& \widehat{U}^{}\widehat{B}^{(p)}\widehat{U}& =& \left(\widehat{U}_{M,\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}}^{(1)}\widehat{U}_{M,\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}}^{(2)}\right)\widehat{B}^{(p)}\left(\widehat{U}_{M,\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}}^{(2)}\widehat{U}_{M,\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}}^{(1)}\right),p=1,2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(47)
are therefore, using (36),

$`\widehat{A}^{(1)}(t_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\widehat{u}_i^{(1)}\widehat{u}_j^{(1)}\widehat{I}_𝒪^{(2)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{i,\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}}^{(1)}\widehat{a}^{(1)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{j,\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}}^{(1)}\widehat{I}_𝒮^{(2)},`$ (48)
$`\widehat{A}^{(2)}(t_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\widehat{I}_𝒪^{(1)}\widehat{u}_i^{(2)}\widehat{u}_j^{(2)}\widehat{I}_𝒮^{(1)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{i,\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}}^{(2)}\widehat{a}^{(2)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{j,\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}}^{(2)},`$ (49)
$`\widehat{B}^{(1)}(t_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\widehat{u}_i^{(1)}\widehat{b}^{(1)}\widehat{u}_i^{(1)}\widehat{I}_𝒪^{(2)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{i,\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}}^{(1)}\widehat{I}_𝒮^{(2)},`$ (50)
$`\widehat{B}^{(2)}(t_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\widehat{I}_𝒪^{(1)}\widehat{u}_i^{(2)}\widehat{b}^{(2)}\widehat{u}_i^{(2)}\widehat{I}_𝒮^{(1)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{i,\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}}^{(2)}.`$ (51)
We see that in this case $`𝒮^{(p)}`$ as well as $`𝒪^{(p)}`$ are entangled. From (32)-(34), (39), (40), (42), (43), (45), (50) and (51), the average value of the product of the spin measurements is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}B^{(1)}B^{(2)}(t_2)\hfill & & \\ =\psi ,t_0|_{i,j}\widehat{u}_i^{(1)}\widehat{b}^{(1)}\widehat{u}_i^{(1)}\widehat{u}_j^{(2)}\widehat{b}^{(2)}\widehat{u}_j^{(2)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{i,\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}}^{(1)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{j,\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}}^{(2)}|\psi ,t_0\hfill & & \\ =_{i,j}\beta _i\beta _j𝒮^{(1)};\alpha _1|𝒮^{(2)};\alpha _2|\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{i,\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}}^{(1)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{j,\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}}^{(2)}|𝒮^{(1)};\alpha _1|𝒮^{(2)};\alpha _2\hfill & & \\ =\left(\beta _1\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta ^{(1)}/2)+\beta _2\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta ^{(1)}/2)\right)\left(\beta _1\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta ^{(2)}/2)+\beta _2\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta ^{(2)}/2)\right),\hfill & & \end{array}$$

while the individual expected spin measurements are

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill B^{(1)}(t_2)& =& \psi ,t_0|\widehat{B}^{(1)}(t_2)|\psi ,t_0\hfill \\ & =& \psi ,t_0|_i\widehat{u}_i^{(1)}\widehat{b}^{(1)}\widehat{u}_i^{(1)}\widehat{I}_𝒪^{(2)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{i,\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}}^{(1)}\widehat{I}_𝒮^{(2)}|\psi ,t_0\hfill \\ & =& \beta _1\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta ^{(1)}/2)+\beta _2\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta ^{(1)}/2),\hfill \\ \hfill B^{(2)}(t_2)& =& \psi ,t_0|\widehat{B}^{(2)}(t_2)|\psi ,t_0\hfill \\ & =& \psi ,t_0|_i\widehat{I}_𝒪^{(1)}\widehat{u}_i^{(2)}\widehat{b}^{(2)}\widehat{u}_i^{(2)}\widehat{I}_𝒮^{(1)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{i,\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}}^{(2)}|\psi ,t_0\hfill \\ & =& \beta _1\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta ^{(2)}/2)+\beta _2\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta ^{(2)}/2).\hfill \end{array}$$

So,

$$B^{(1)}B^{(2)}(t_2)=B^{(1)}(t_2)B^{(2)}(t_2),$$
(52)
as of course should be the case for measurements of independent systems.

#### 4.1.2 Entangled Particles

Now suppose that between times $`t_0`$ and $`t_1`$ an interaction $`\widehat{U}_E`$ occurs between the two particles which takes the state $`|𝒮^{(1)};\alpha _1|𝒮^{(2)};\alpha _2`$ to the singlet state. Specifically, let

$$\widehat{U}_E=\widehat{I}_𝒪^{(1)}\widehat{I}_𝒪^{(2)}\widehat{u}_E,$$
(53)
where

$`\widehat{u}_E|𝒮^{(1)};\alpha _1|𝒮^{(2)};\alpha _1`$ $`=`$ $`|𝒮^{(1)};\alpha _1|𝒮^{(2)};\alpha _1,`$ (54)
$`\widehat{u}_E|𝒮^{(1)};\alpha _2|𝒮^{(2)};\alpha _1`$ $`=`$ $`\left(|𝒮^{(1)};\alpha _1|𝒮^{(2)};\alpha _2+|𝒮^{(1)};\alpha _2|𝒮^{(2)};\alpha _1\right)/\sqrt{2},`$ (55)
$`\widehat{u}_E|𝒮^{(1)};\alpha _1|𝒮^{(2)};\alpha _2`$ $`=`$ $`\left(|𝒮^{(1)};\alpha _1|𝒮^{(2)};\alpha _2|𝒮^{(1)};\alpha _2|𝒮^{(2)};\alpha _1\right)/\sqrt{2},`$ (56)
$`\widehat{u}_E|𝒮^{(1)};\alpha _2|𝒮^{(2)};\alpha _2`$ $`=`$ $`|𝒮^{(1)};\alpha _2|𝒮^{(2)};\alpha _2.`$ (57)
The time evolution operator from time $`t_0`$ to time $`t_2`$ is in this case

$$\widehat{U}^{}\widehat{U}_{M,\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}}^{(2)}\widehat{U}_{M,\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}}^{(1)}\widehat{U}_E,$$
(58)
so the Heisenberg-picture observables at time $`t_2`$,

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\hfill \widehat{A}^{(p)}(t_2)& =& \widehat{U}^{}\widehat{A}^{(p)}\widehat{U}^{}& =& \left(\widehat{U}_E^{}\widehat{U}_{M,\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}}^{(1)}\widehat{U}_{M,\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}}^{(2)}\right)\widehat{A}^{(p)}\left(\widehat{U}_{M,\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}}^{(2)}\widehat{U}_{M,\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}}^{(1)}\widehat{U}_E\right),p=1,2,\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{B}^{(p)}(t_2)& =& \widehat{U}^{}\widehat{B}^{(p)}\widehat{U}^{}& =& \left(\widehat{U}_E^{}\widehat{U}_{M,\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}}^{(1)}\widehat{U}_{M,\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}}^{(2)}\right)\widehat{B}^{(p)}\left(\widehat{U}_{M,\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}}^{(2)}\widehat{U}_{M,\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}}^{(1)}\widehat{U}_E\right),p=1,2,\hfill \end{array}$$
(59)
become

$`\widehat{A}^{(1)}(t_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\widehat{u}_i^{(1)}\widehat{u}_j^{(1)}\widehat{I}_𝒪^{(2)}\widehat{u}_E^{}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{i,\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}}^{(1)}\widehat{a}^{(1)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{j,\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}}^{(1)}\widehat{I}_𝒮^{(2)}\right)\widehat{u}_E,`$ (60)
$`\widehat{A}^{(2)}(t_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\widehat{I}_𝒪^{(1)}\widehat{u}_i^{(2)}\widehat{u}_j^{(2)}\widehat{u}_E^{}\left(\widehat{I}_𝒮^{(1)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{i,\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}}^{(2)}\widehat{a}^{(2)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{j,\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}}^{(2)}\right)\widehat{u}_E,`$ (61)
$`\widehat{B}^{(1)}(t_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\widehat{u}_i^{(1)}\widehat{b}^{(1)}\widehat{u}_i^{(1)}\widehat{I}_𝒪^{(2)}\widehat{u}_E^{}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{i,\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}}^{(1)}\widehat{I}_𝒮^{(2)}\right)\widehat{u}_E,`$ (62)
$`\widehat{B}^{(2)}(t_2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\widehat{I}_𝒪^{(1)}\widehat{u}_i^{(2)}\widehat{b}^{(2)}\widehat{u}_i^{(2)}\widehat{u}_E^{}\left(\widehat{I}_𝒮^{(1)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{i,\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}}^{(2)}\right)\widehat{u}_E.`$ (63)
Using (32)-(34), (39)-(40), (42), (43), (45), (62) and (63),

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\multicolumn{2}{c}{B^{(1)}B^{(2)}(t_2)}& \\ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{=\psi ,t_0|_{i,j}\widehat{u}_i^{(1)}\widehat{b}^{(1)}\widehat{u}_i^{(1)}\widehat{u}_j^{(2)}\widehat{b}^{(2)}\widehat{u}_j^{(2)}\widehat{u}_E^{}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{i,\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}}^{(1)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{j,\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}}^{(2)}\right)\widehat{u}_E|\psi ,t_0}\\ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{=\left(\left(\beta _1+\beta _2\right)^2\left(\beta _1\beta _2\right)^2\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}\right)/4.}\end{array}$$

If the eigenvalues labeling the observers’ states of awareness are chosen to be $`\beta _i=\alpha _i`$, (4.1.2) takes the well-known form (Greenberger et al., 1990, Appendix B)

$$B^{(1)}B^{(2)}(t_2)_{\beta _1=1,\beta _2=1}=\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}.$$
(64)
If $`\beta _1=1`$ and $`\beta _2=0`$, eq.(4.1.2) is equal to the probability that both observers find the particles they measure to be deflected in the spin-up direction:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill B^{(1)}B^{(2)}(t_2)_{\beta _1=1,\beta _2=0}& =& P_{uu}(\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)},\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)})\hfill \\ & =& \left(1\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}\right)/4.\hfill \end{array}$$
(65)
If the angle between $`\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}`$is $`120^{}`$, (65) has the value $`3/8`$, so the quantum-mechanical prediction for $`Q`$ in eq. (1) is

$$Q=9/8,$$
(66)
contradicting the prediction (5) that $`Q1`$.

### 4.2 GHZM Experiment

We now consider three particles $`𝒮^{(p)}`$ and their corresponding observers $`𝒪^{(p)}`$, $`p=1,2,3`$. In addition, we will explicitly introduce an additional observer $`𝒪^{(0)}`$ who ascertains the states of awareness of the three observers $`𝒪^{(1)}`$, $`𝒪^{(2)}`$ and $`𝒪^{(3)}`$, after they have performed their respective spin measurements. The space of states of $`𝒪^{(0)}`$ is spanned by the eigenstates of the Hermitian operator $`\widehat{G}`$:

$$\widehat{G}=\widehat{g}\widehat{I}_𝒪^{(1)}\widehat{I}_𝒪^{(2)}\widehat{I}_𝒪^{(3)}\widehat{I}_𝒮^{(1)}\widehat{I}_𝒮^{(2)}\widehat{I}_𝒮^{(3)},$$
(67)
where

$$\widehat{g}|𝒪^{(0)};\gamma _I=\gamma _I|𝒪^{(0)};\gamma _I,I=0,1,2.$$
(68)
We want $`\gamma _0`$ to correspond to ignorance, while $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ correspond respectively to $`𝒪^{(0)}`$ having determined that $`𝒪^{(p)}`$, $`p=1,2,3`$ have observed an odd or even number of spin-up results. The interaction corresponding to the measurement of $`𝒪^{(p)}`$ by $`𝒪^{(0)}`$ is therefore

$$\widehat{V}=\underset{i}{}\widehat{v}_i\widehat{P}_i\widehat{I}_𝒮^{(1)}\widehat{I}_𝒮^{(2)}\widehat{I}_𝒮^{(3)},$$
(69)
where

$$\widehat{v}_i|𝒪^{(0)};\gamma _0=|𝒪^{(0)};\gamma _i,i=1,2.$$
(70)
and $`\widehat{P}_i`$, $`i=1,2`$ are the projection operators into the spaces of states in which the three observers $`𝒪^{(p)}`$ perceive, respectively, an odd and an even number of spin-up results:

$`\widehat{P}_1`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{p}_1^{(1)}\widehat{p}_2^{(2)}\widehat{p}_2^{(3)}+\widehat{p}_2^{(1)}\widehat{p}_1^{(2)}\widehat{p}_2^{(3)}+\widehat{p}_2^{(1)}\widehat{p}_2^{(2)}\widehat{p}_1^{(3)}+`$ (71)
$`\widehat{p}_1^{(1)}\widehat{p}_1^{(2)}\widehat{p}_1^{(3)},`$
$`\widehat{P}_2`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{p}_1^{(1)}\widehat{p}_1^{(2)}\widehat{p}_2^{(3)}+\widehat{p}_1^{(1)}\widehat{p}_2^{(2)}\widehat{p}_1^{(3)}+\widehat{p}_2^{(1)}\widehat{p}_1^{(2)}\widehat{p}_1^{(3)}+`$ (72)
$`\widehat{p}_2^{(1)}\widehat{p}_2^{(2)}\widehat{p}_2^{(3)},`$
where

$$\widehat{p}_i^{(p)}=|𝒪^{(p)};\beta _i𝒪^{(p)};\beta _i|,p=1,2,3,i=1,2.$$
(73)
If the measurement by $`𝒪^{(0)}`$ of $`𝒪^{(p)}`$ takes place between times $`t_2`$ and $`t_3>t_2`$,

$`\widehat{G}(t_3)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\widehat{U}_E^{}\widehat{U}_M^{(1)}\widehat{U}_M^{(2)}\widehat{U}_M^{(3)}\widehat{V}^{}\right)\widehat{G}\left(\widehat{V}\widehat{U}_M^{(3)}\widehat{U}_M^{(2)}\widehat{U}_M^{(1)}\widehat{U}_E\right)`$ (75)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i,j,k,l}{}}\widehat{v}_i^{}\widehat{g}\widehat{v}_i\widehat{u}_j^{(1)}\widehat{u}_k^{(2)}\widehat{u}_l^{(3)}\widehat{P}_i\widehat{u}_l^{(3)}\widehat{u}_k^{(2)}\widehat{u}_j^{(1)}`$
$`\widehat{u}_E^{}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{j,\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}}^{(1)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{k,\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}}^{(2)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{l,\stackrel{}{n}^{(3)}}^{(3)}\right)\widehat{u}_E`$
where, as in the previous section, $`\widehat{U}_E=\mathrm{}\widehat{u}_E`$ takes a nonentangled state of $`𝒮^{(p)}`$ to an entangled state, and $`\widehat{u}_i^{(p)}`$ takes $`𝒪^{(p)}`$ from a state of ignorance to a state of awareness $`\beta _i`$.

We take the state at the initial time $`t_0`$ to be one in which all four observers are ignorant and in which all three particles have spin up with respect to their respective $`z`$-axes:

$$|\psi _G,t_0=|𝒪^{(0)};\gamma _0\left(\underset{p=1}{\overset{3}{}}|𝒪^{(p)};\beta _0\right)\left(\underset{p=1}{\overset{3}{}}|𝒮^{(p)};\alpha _1\right).$$
(76)
Here we take the positive $`z`$ axis for each particle to be in the direction of its motion, and the positive $`x`$ axis perpendicular to the plane in which their motion lies (same direction for all particles).

The expected value of $`𝒪^{(0)}`$’s awareness at time $`t_3`$ is

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\multicolumn{2}{c}{\psi _G,t_0|\widehat{G}(t_3)|\psi _G,t_0=}& \\ & \gamma _1\underset{\stackrel{\{j,k,l\}}{\text{odd \# 1’s}}}{}\left(\underset{p=1}{\overset{3}{}}𝒮^{(p)};\alpha _1|\right)\widehat{u}_E^{}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{j,\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}}^{(1)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{k,\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}}^{(2)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{l,\stackrel{}{n}^{(3)}}^{(3)}\right)\widehat{u}_E\left(\underset{p=1}{\overset{3}{}}|𝒮^{(p)};\alpha _1\right)\hfill & +\hfill \\ & \gamma _2\underset{\stackrel{\{j,k,l\}}{\text{even \# 1’s}}}{}\left(\underset{p=1}{\overset{3}{}}𝒮^{(p)};\alpha _1|\right)\widehat{u}_E^{}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{j,\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}}^{(1)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{k,\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}}^{(2)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{l,\stackrel{}{n}^{(3)}}^{(3)}\right)\widehat{u}_E\left(\underset{p=1}{\overset{3}{}}|𝒮^{(p)};\alpha _1\right).\hfill & \end{array}$$
(77)
If the eigenvalues $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\gamma _2`$ have the respective values 0 and 1, then the operator $`\widehat{G}`$ measures the probability of $`𝒪^{(0)}`$ determining that the $`𝒪^{(p)}`$’s observe an even number of spin-up particles during one run of the GHZM experiment:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\multicolumn{2}{c}{P_{eu}(\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)},\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)},\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)})=}& \\ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\underset{\stackrel{\{j,k,l\}}{\text{even \# 1’s}}}{}\left(\underset{p=1}{\overset{3}{}}𝒮^{(p)};\alpha _1|\right)\widehat{u}_E^{}\left(\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{j,\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}}^{(1)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{k,\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)}}^{(2)}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_{l,\stackrel{}{n}^{(3)}}^{(3)}\right)\widehat{u}_E\left(\underset{p=1}{\overset{3}{}}|𝒮^{(p)};\alpha _1\right).}\end{array}$$
(78)
#### 4.2.1 Nonentangled Particles

We first consider the case in which an entangling interaction among the particles is absent, i.e.,

$$\widehat{u}_E=I_𝒮^{(1)}I_𝒮^{(2)}I_𝒮^{(3)}.$$
(79)
Then, using the above equation with (39), (40), and (78)

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\multicolumn{2}{c}{P_{eu}(\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)},\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)},\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)})=}& \\ & \mathrm{cos}^2(\theta ^{(1)}/2)\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta ^{(2)}/2)\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta ^{(3)}/2)+\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta ^{(1)}/2)\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta ^{(2)}/2)\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta ^{(3)}/2)\hfill & +\hfill \\ & \mathrm{sin}^2(\theta ^{(1)}/2)\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta ^{(2)}/2)\mathrm{cos}^2(\theta ^{(3)}/2)+\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta ^{(1)}/2)\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta ^{(2)}/2)\mathrm{sin}^2(\theta ^{(3)}/2),\hfill & \end{array}$$
(80)
independent of the $`\varphi ^{(p)}`$’s. So, for any choices of the analyzer-magnet orientations $`\stackrel{}{n}^{(p)}`$ perpendicular to the particles’ respective directions of motion ($`\theta ^{(p)}=\pi /2`$),

$$P_{eu}(\varphi ^{(1)},\varphi ^{(2)},\varphi ^{(3)})=1/2.$$
(81)
#### 4.2.2 Entangled Particles

On the other hand, if $`\widehat{U}_E`$ is such as to take the initial $`𝒮^{(p)}`$ state to the GHZM state, i.e.,

$$\widehat{u}_E\left(\underset{p=1}{\overset{3}{}}|𝒮^{(p)};\alpha _1\right)=\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right)\left(\left(\underset{p=1}{\overset{3}{}}|𝒮^{(p)};\alpha _1\right)\left(\underset{p=1}{\overset{3}{}}|𝒮^{(p)};\alpha _2\right)\right),$$
(82)
the probability of $`𝒪^{(0)}`$ determining that an even number of spin-up measurements are made is, using the above equation with(39), (40), and (78),

$$P_{eu}(\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)},\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)},\stackrel{}{n}^{(2)})=\left(1+\mathrm{cos}(\varphi ^{(1)}+\varphi ^{(2)}+\varphi ^{(2)})\mathrm{sin}(\theta ^{(1)})\mathrm{sin}(\theta ^{(2)})\mathrm{sin}(\theta ^{(3)})\right)/2$$
(83)
or, for $`\theta ^{(p)}=\pi /2`$,

$$P_{eu}(\varphi ^{(1)},\varphi ^{(2)},\varphi ^{(3)})=\left(1+\mathrm{cos}(\varphi ^{(1)}+\varphi ^{(2)}+\varphi ^{(2)})\right)/2.$$
(84)
So an even number of spin-up measurements will never be found if one of the analyzers is oriented perpendicular to the plane of the particles’ motion,

$$P_{eu}(0^{},90^{},90^{})=P_{eu}(90^{},0^{},90^{})=P_{eu}(90^{},90^{},0^{})=0,$$
(85)
but, contrary to the prediction (7) from instruction-set reasoning, an even number of spin-up measurements will always be found if all analyzers are oriented in the same sense perpendicular to this plane:

$$P_{eu}(0^{},0^{},0^{})=1.$$
(86)
## 5 Discussion

In the Heisenberg-picture formalism, the reason for the difference between the correlations of the observers’ measurements in the nonentangled and entangled cases is the presence in the operators $`\widehat{B}^{(p)}`$, $`\widehat{G}`$ of different factors acting in subspaces of states pertaining, not to the observers but, rather, to the particles with which the observers have interacted by virtue of the measurements they’ve performed. These factors are in effect “labels” which become attached to the observers $`𝒪^{(p)}`$ , $`𝒪^{(0)}`$ after they have undergone the local interactions $`\widehat{U}_{M,\stackrel{}{n}^{(1)}}^{(p)}`$, $`\widehat{V}`$. In the case that, prior to any measurements, the particles are subject to a local entangling interaction $`\widehat{U}_E`$, each of the particles $`𝒮^{(p)}`$ is labeled with a factor acting in the space of states of the other particle(s) with which it has interacted, so the label which becomes attached to $`𝒪^{(p)}`$ after measuring the corresponding particle $`𝒮^{(p)}`$ involves factors corresponding to the particle which the other observer(s) measured. In the end the observers compare their observations by means of another local interaction ($`𝒪^{(1)}`$ interrogates $`𝒪^{(2)}`$, $`𝒪^{(0)}`$ interrogates $`𝒪^{(1)}`$, $`𝒪^{(2)}`$, and $`𝒪^{(3)}`$), which has the effect of computing quantities such as (43) and (77).

The conceptual picture which emerges is thus the following: Interactions between entities label those entities. The labels consist of modifications to the Heisenberg-picture operators corresponding to the properties of the entities. Measurement-type interactions (20) transform the operators for the states of awareness of observers into sums of operators, each corresponding to a distinct state of awareness of the observer, and each labeled with factors corresponding to the system which the observer measured, as well as to other systems with which that system has previously interacted. These labels control the subsequent results of measurement involving the labeled operators, including in particular measurements of correlations between the states of awareness of observers who have measured particles which have previously interacted with one another.

Bell’s theorem (5), (7) is avoided because the counterfactual reasoning which leads to it is not required and cannot be justified. In answer to the question “What is the mechanism which brings about these correlations?” there exists an answer other than the existence of instruction sets. Namely: When one of the observers performing, say, an EPRB experiment with both analyzer magnets oriented in the same direction measures the spin of one of the paired particles, that observer splits into noninteracting copies, each copy labeled with information corresponding to the states of the observed particle as well as to the state of the other particle. When the two observers—or, more precisely, the two pairs of observer-copies—exchange information about the results of their measurements, it is the attached labels which ensure that the “correct” copies of each of the observers interact; e.g., preventing two observer-copies who have both observed spin-up from communicating.

To be completely precise, we should say “two pairs of sets of observer-copies.” This is necessary because, of course, the analyzer magnets need not be oriented in the same direction. When the analyzer magnets do not have the same orientation, there are four possible outcomes which the observers can experience, with (in general) unequal probabilities for the “same-spin” and “different-spin” cases. To avoid being led to the conclusion that our formalism erroneously implies equal probabilities for all outcomes regardless of the magnet orientations (Ballentine, 1973; Graham, 1973), we proceed along the lines of Deutsch’s (1985) modification to the Everett interpretation and regard, for example, the third and fourth lines of eq. (44) as respectively representing continuous infinities of identical observers $`𝒪^{(1)}`$ and $`𝒪^{(2)}`$. The two terms in eq. (62) or eq. (63) then represent continuous infinities of two different types of observers (“saw-up” and “saw-down”), and the four terms in the operator in the second member of eq. (4.1.2) represent continuous infinities of four different types of pairs of observers (”saw-up/saw-up,” “saw-up/saw-down,” etc.). The relative number of each type, as well as the specific nature of each type (states of awareness of the observers), is governed by the expectation value of the corresponding term in the initial state $`|\psi _0,t_0`$.

So, the splitting of each observer into copies at each measurement interaction is represented by the local dynamics of the operators describing their states of awareness relative to what they were at the initial time $`t_0`$; in particular, the possibilities for interaction of observers of entangled systems are determined by the labels attached to the operators. Determination of the number of each type of observer-copy produced at each splitting, as well as the specific state of awareness of each type of observer-copy, involves information about the initial conditions of the system, information which in the Heisenberg picture is contained in the time $`t_0`$ state vector. (DeWitt (1998) emphasizes that quantum systems are “described jointly by the dynamical variables and the state-vector.”) Just as observers or other entities may be regarded as receiving and carrying with them, in a local manner, the labels described above, they may also be envisioned as carrying with them in a similarly local manner the requisite initial-condition information.

Since one cannot argue for the existence of counterfactual instruction sets, the conditions of Bell’s theorem do not apply. Had angles other than those that actually were used been chosen for the analyzer magnets, copies of each observer carrying labels appropriate to those angles would have resulted. There are indeed “instruction sets” present; but they determine, not the results of experiments which were not performed but, rather, the possibilities for interaction and information exchange between the Everett copies of the observers who have performed the experiments.

Bohr’s reply to EPR can also be reinterpreted in the present context. Regarding correlations at a distance, Bohr (1935) states that “of course there is in a case like that just considered no question of a mechanical disturbance of the system under investigation during the last critical stage of the measuring procedure. But even at this stage there is essentially the question of an influence on the very conditions which define the possible types of predictions regarding the future behavior of the system.” The Everett splitting and labeling of each observer constitutes just such an influence, determining the possible types of interactions with physical systems and observers which the observer can experience in the future without in any way producing a “mechanical disturbance” of distant entities.

The Everett interpretation in the Heisenberg picture thus removes nonlocality from the list of conceptual problems of quantum mechanics. The idea of viewing the tensor-product factors in the Heisenberg-picture operators as in some sense “literally real” introduces, however, a conceptual problem of its own.333The fact that the precise details of representation of the Heisenberg-picture operators depend, e.g., on the choice of initial time $`t_0`$ (d’ Espagnat, 1995, Section 10.8) should not be a problem in viewing them as “real,” any more than, e.g., the fact that the components of the electromagnetic stress tensor depend on the choice of Lorentz frame. Entanglement via the introduction of nontrivial “label” factors is not limited to interactions between two or three particles; each particle of matter is labeled, for eternity, by all the particles with which it has ever interacted. What is the physical mechanism by means of which all of this information is stored?

The issue of “where the labels are stored” may seem less problematic in the context of the Everett interpretation of Heisenberg-picture quantum field theory. After all, in quantum field theory, operators corresponding to each species of particle and evolving according to local differential equations already reside at each point in spacetime. (In the EPRB and GHZM experiments the particles in question are considered to be distinguishable and so may be treated, for purposes of analyzing the experiments, as quanta of different fields. More complicated objects, such as observers and magnets, might be approximated as excitations of effective composite fields, following, e.g., Zhou et al. (2000).)

Even in the event that such a program for a literal, indeed mechanistic picture of measurement in quantum field theory cannot be realized, it remains the case that Everett’s model for measurement in the Heisenberg picture provides a quantum formalism which is explicitly local and in which the problem of Bell’s theorem does not arise.

## Acknowledgment

I would like to thank Allen J. Tino for countless quantum conversations.

## References

Quantum Mechanics and Experience (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).

“Interpreting the many worlds interpretation,” Synthese 77 16.

“Experimental tests of Bell’s inequalities using time-varying analyzers,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 47 1804-1807.

“Can the statistical postulate of quantum theory be derived?—a critique of the many-universes interpretation,” Found. Phys. 3 229-240.

“On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox,” Physics 1 195-200, reprinted in J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987).

Quantum Theory (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ).

“Can quantum-mechanical description of reality be considered complete?” Phys. Rev. 48 696-702, quoted in Ch. 16 of J. S.Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987).

Veiled Reality: An Analysis of Present-Day Quantum Mechanical Concepts (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA).

“Quantum theory as a universal physical theory,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. 24 1-41.

“Reply to Lockwood,” Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 47 222-228.

“Information flow in entangled quantum systems,” Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A456, 1759-1774; quant-ph/9906007.

“Quantum mechanics and reality,” Physics Today 32 155-165.

“The quantum mechanics of isolated systems,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A13 1881-1916.

“Can quantum-mechanical description of reality be considered complete?” Phys. Rev. 47 777-780.

“ ‘Relative state’ formulation of quantum mechanics,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 29 454-462. Reprinted in B. S. DeWitt and N. Graham, eds., The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1973).

“Probability in quantum mechanics,” appendix to D. Wick, The Infamous Boundary: Seven Decades of Heresy in Quantum Physics (Springer-Verlag, New York).

“The measurement of relative frequency,” in B. S. DeWitt and N. Graham, eds., The Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ).

“Bell’s theorem without inequalities,” Am. J. Phys. 58 1131-1143.

“Going beyond Bell’s theorem,” in M. Kafatos, ed., Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory, and Conceptions of the Universe (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands).

“ ‘Many minds’ interpretations of quantum mechanics,” Brit. J. Phil. Sci. 47 159-188.

“Spooky actions at a distance: mysteries of the quantum theory,” in The Great Ideas Today (Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 1988), reprinted in N. D. Mermin, Boojums All The Way Through: Communicating Science in a Prosaic Age (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge).

“Quantum mysteries revisited,” Am. J. Phys. 58 731-734.

“What’s wrong with these elements of reality?,” Physics Today June 1990, 9-11.

“The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen physical reality is completely described by quantum mechanics,” Phys. Lett.  91A 57-60.

“The Everett FAQ,” http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm.

“The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics in quantum cosmology,” in R. Penrose and C. J. Isham, Quantum Concepts in Space and Time (Oxford University Press, New York).

“Does quantum nonlocality exist? Bell’s theorem and the many-worlds interpretation,” quant-ph/00003146.

“On the paradoxical aspects of new quantum experiments,” in D. Hull et al., eds., PSA 1994: Proceedings of the 1994 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1, pp. 211-217 (Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, MI, 1994).

“On schizophrenic experiences of the neutron or why we should believe in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum theory,” Int. Stud. Phil. Sci. 12, 245; quant-ph/9606006.

“The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics,” http://www.tau.ac.il/ vaidman/mwi/mwstr.tml.

“Violation of Bell’s inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 5039-5043.

“Idealization second quantization of composite particles,” quant-ph/0012080.


format: text

text:
# Experiment can decide between standard and Bohmian quantum mechanics

## 1 Introduction

The statistical interpretation of the wave function of the standard quantum mechanics (SQM) is consistent with all performed experiments. An interference pattern on a screen is built up by a series of apparently random events, and the wave function correctly predicts where the particle is most likely to land in an ensemble of trials. Instead, one may take the view that the characteristic distribution of spots on a screen which build up an interference pattern is an evidence that the wave function has a more potent physical role. If one attempts to understand the experimental results as the outcome of a causally connected series of individual process, then one is free to inquire about further significance of the wave function and to introduce other concepts in addition to the wave function. Bohm , in 1952, showed that an individual physical system comprises a wave propagating in space-time together with a point particle which moves continuously under the guidence of the wave \[1-4\]. He applied his theory to a range of examples drawn from non-relativistic quantum mechanics and speculated on the possible alternations in the particle and field laws of motion such that the predictions of the modified theory continue to agree with those of SQM where this is tested, but it could disagree in as yet unexplored domains . For instance, when Bohm presented his theory in 1952, experiments could be done with an almost continuous beam of particles. Thus, it was impossible to discriminate between the standard and the Bohmian quantum mechanics (BQM) at the individual level. However, the two theories can be discriminated at this level, because SQM is a probabilistic theory while BQM is a precisely defined and deterministic theory.

In recent years, the significance of proposals that can predict different results for SQM and BQM have been the subject of many discussions \[for example, 5-17\]. At first, it seems that definition of time spent by a particle within a classically forbidden barrier provides a good evidence for the preference of BQM. But, there are difficult technical questions, both theoretically and experimentally, that are still unsolved about these tunneling times . On the other hand, Englert et al.  and Scully  have claimed that in some cases Bohm’s approach gives results that disagree with those obtained from SQM and, in consequence, with experiment. Concerning this, at first Dewdney et al.  and then Hiley et al.  showed that the specific objections raised by Englert and Scully cannot be sustained. Furthermore, Hiley et al.  believe that no experiment can decide between the standard interpretation and Bohm’s interpretation. However, Vigier , in his recent work, has given a brief list of new experiments which suggest that the U(1) invariant massless photon assumed properties of light within the standard interpretation, are too restrictive and that the O(3) invariant massive photon causal de Broglie-Bohm interpretation of quantum mechanics, is now supported by experiments. In addition, Leggett  considered some thought experiments involving macrosystems which can predict different results for SQM and BQM. 333Legget  assumes that the experimental predictions of SQM will continue to be realized under the extreme conditions specified, although a test of this hypothesis is part of the aim of the macroscopic quantum cohrence program. In addition, he considered BQM as another interpretation of the same theory rather than an alternative theory. Furthermore, in some of the recent works, feasible thought experiments have been suggested to distinguish between SQM and BQM . In one of the works, Ghose  indicated that although BQM is equivalent to SQM when the averages of dynamical variables are taken over a Gibbs ensemble of Bohmian trajectories, the equivalence breaks down for ensembles built over clearly separated short intervals of time in special entangled two-bosonic particle systems. In another work , we have shown incompatibility between SQM and BQM at the individual and ensemble levels, using a two-slit device whose source emits two uncorrelated identical particles. However, Marchildon  has tried to show that there is no reason to expect discrepancies between BQM and SQM in the context of the two-particle interference devices. Ghose  believes that Marchildon’s arguments against his work are untenable and that his basic conclusion stands. In addition, we have shown elsewhere  that the incompatibility between SQM and BQM can also appeare in a new more feasible experiment at the individual level and that the statistical disagreement is also valid if we use our selective detection. It should be noted that, the role of selective detection in altering the statistics of predictions is explained by Durr et al. .

In this work, in parallel to the works , we have studied the entangled and the unentangled wave functions that can be imputed to a two-particle interference device, using a Gaussian wave function as a real representation. Then, SQM and BQM predictions are compared at both the individual and the statistical level. 444The individual level refers to our experiment with pairs of particles which are emitted in clearly separated short intervals of time, and by statistical level we mean our final interference pattern. We also discuss about some objections that can be raised.

## 2 Description of two-particle double-slit experiment

Consider the famous double-slit experiment. Instead of the usual one-particle emitting source, one can consider a special point source $`S_1`$, so that a pair of identical non-relativistic particles originate simultaneously from it. We assume that, the intensity of the beam is so low that at a time we have only a single pair of particles passing through the slits and the detection screen $`S_2`$ registers only those pairs of particles that reach it simultaneously, so that the interference effects of single particles will be eliminated. Furthermore, it is assumed that the detection process has no causal role in the phenomenon of interference . In the two-dimensional coordinate system, the centers of the two slits are located at $`(0,\pm Y)`$.

Concerning the assumed source, we can have two alternatives:
1. The wave function of the two emitted particles are so entangled that if one particle passes from the upper (lower) slit, the other particle must go through lower (upper) slit. In other words, the total momentum and the center of mass of the two particles in the $`y`$-direction is zero at the source, that is, $`p_{1y}p_{2y}=0`$ and $`y_1+y_2=0`$.
2. The wave function of the two emitted particles have no correlation and they are unentangled. In other words, the emission of each particle is done freely and two particles can be considered independently.
In the following, we shall study each one of the two alternatives, separately, and apply them, using SQM. Then, in the next section, the Bohmian predictions have been compared with those of SQM.

### 2.1 Entangled wave function

We take the wave incident on the double-slit screen to be a plane wave of the form

$$\psi _{in}(x_1,y_1;x_2,y_2;t)=ae^{i[k_x(x_1+x_2)+k_y(y_1y_2)]}e^{iEt/\mathrm{}},$$
(1)
where $`a`$ is a constant and $`E=E_1+E_2=\mathrm{}^2(k_x^2+k_y^2)/m`$ is the total energy of the system of the two identical particles. The parameter $`m`$ is the mass of each particle and $`k_i`$ is the wave number of particle in the $`i`$-direction. For mathematical simplicity, we avoid slits with sharp edges which produce the mathematical complexity of Fresnel diffraction, i.e., we assume that the slits have soft edges, so that the Gaussian wave packets are produced along the $`y`$-direction, and that the plane wave along the $`x`$-axis remain unchanged . We take the time of the formation of the Gaussian wave to be $`t=0`$. Then, the emerging wave packets from the slits $`A`$ and $`B`$ are respectively

$$\psi _A(x,y)=a(2\pi \sigma _0^2)^{1/4}e^{(yY)^2/4\sigma _0^2}e^{i[k_xx+k_y(yY)]},$$
(2)
$$\psi _B(x,y)=a(2\pi \sigma _0^2)^{1/4}e^{(y+Y)^2/4\sigma _0^2}e^{i[k_xxk_y(y+Y)]},$$
(3)
where $`\sigma _0`$ is the half-width of each slit.

Now, for this two-particle system, the total wave function at the detection screen $`S_2`$, at time $`t`$, can be written as

$`\psi (x_1,y_1;x_2,y_2;t)=N[\psi _A(x_1,y_1,t)\psi _B(x_2,y_2,t)\pm \psi _A(x_2,y_2,t)\psi _B(x_1,y_1,t)],`$ (4)
where $`N`$ is a normalization constant which is unimportant here, and

$$\psi _A(x,y,t)=a(2\pi \sigma _t^2)^{1/4}e^{(yYu_yt)^2/4\sigma _0\sigma _t}e^{i[k_xx+k_y(yYu_yt/2)E_xt/\mathrm{}]},$$
(5)
$$\psi _B(x,y,t)=a(2\pi \sigma _t^2)^{1/4}e^{(y+Y+u_yt)^2/4\sigma _0\sigma _t}e^{i[k_xxk_y(y+Y+u_yt/2)E_xt/\mathrm{}]},$$
(6)
where

$$\sigma _t=\sigma _0(1+\frac{i\mathrm{}t}{2m\sigma _0^2}),$$
(7)
and

$`u_y={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}k_y}{m}},`$ (8)
$`E_x={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}mu_x^2.`$ (9)
Note that, the upper and lower signs in the total entangled wave function (4) are due to symmetric and anti-symmetric wave function under the exchange of particles 1 and 2, corresponding to bosonic and fermionic property, respectively.

### 2.2 Unentangled wave function

In this case, the incident plane wave can be considered to be

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{in}(x_1,y_1;x_2,y_2;t)=ae^{i[k_x(x_1+x_2)+k_y(\pm y_1\pm y_2)]}e^{iEt/\mathrm{}},$$
(10)
where it has four cases corresponding to each sign. Now, for this two-particle system, the total wave function at time $`t`$ can be written as

$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }(x_1,y_1;x_2,y_2;t)=`$ (14)
$`\stackrel{~}{N}[\psi _A(x_1,y_1,t)\psi _B(x_2,y_2,t)+\psi _A(x_2,y_2,t)\psi _B(x_1,y_1,t)`$
$`+\psi _A(x_1,y_1,t)\psi _A(x_2,y_2,t)+\psi _B(x_1,y_1,t)\psi _B(x_2,y_2,t)]`$
$`=\stackrel{~}{N}[\psi _A(x_1,y_1,t)+\psi _B(x_1,y_1,t)][\psi _A(x_2,y_2,t)+\psi _B(x_2,y_2,t)],`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ is another normalization constant.

### 2.3 SQM’s prediction

Based on SQM, the wave function can be associated with an individual physical system. It provides the most complete description of the system that is, in principle, possible. The nature of description is statistical, and concerns the probabilities of the outcomes of all conceivable measurements that may be performed on the system. It is well known from SQM that, the probability of simultaneous detection of the particles at $`y_M`$ and $`y_N`$, at the screen $`S_2`$, located at $`x_1=x_2=D`$ and $`t=D/u_x`$, is equal to

$$P_{12}(y_M,y_N,t)=_{y_M}^{y_M+\mathrm{}}𝑑y_1_{y_N}^{y_N+\mathrm{}}𝑑y_2|\psi (x_1,y_1;x_2,y_2;t)|^2.$$
(15)
The parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which is taken to be small, is a measure of the size of the detectors. We shall compare this prediction of SQM with that of BQM.

## 3 Bohmian predictions and their comparison with SQM

Based on basic postulates of BQM, an individual physical system consists of a wave propagating in space-time and a point particle which moves continuously under the guidance of the wave. The wave function $`\psi (\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ is a solution of Schr$`\ddot{o}`$dinger’s equation and the particle motion is obtained from the following first order differential equation

$$\stackrel{}{\dot{x}_i}(\stackrel{}{x},t)=\frac{1}{m_i}\stackrel{}{_i}S(\stackrel{}{x},t)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_i}Im\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{_i}\psi (\stackrel{}{x},t)}{\psi (\stackrel{}{x},t)}\right),$$
(16)
where $`\stackrel{}{x}=(\stackrel{}{x_1},\stackrel{}{x_2},\mathrm{},\stackrel{}{x_n})`$, and $`S(\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ is the phase of $`\psi (\stackrel{}{x},t)`$ in polar form, that is,

$$\psi (\stackrel{}{x},t)=R(\stackrel{}{x},t)e^{iS(\stackrel{}{x},t)/\mathrm{}}.$$
(17)
To compare between the two theories, here, we study the speed of particles 1 and 2 in the $`y`$-direction, that is,

$$\dot{y}_1(x_1,y_1;x_2,y_2;t)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m}Im(\frac{_{y_1}\psi (x_1,y_1;x_2,y_2;t)}{\psi (x_1,y_1;x_2,y_2;t)}),$$
(18)
$$\dot{y}_2(x_1,y_1;x_2,y_2;t)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m}Im(\frac{_{y_2}\psi (x_1,y_1;x_2,y_2;t)}{\psi (x_1,y_1;x_2,y_2;t)}).$$
(19)
Remember that two kinds of the wave function could be considered; the entangled and the unentangled wave function. Thus, in the following we study each of them, separately.

### 3.1 Predictions for the entangled wave function

Consider the entangled wave function (4). By substituting it in (14) and (15), we have

$`\dot{y}_1=`$ $`N{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{m}}`$ $`Im\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\psi }}[[2(y_1Yu_yt)/4\sigma _0\sigma _t+ik_y]\psi _{A_1}\psi _{B_2}`$ (20)
$`\pm `$ $`[2(y_1+Y+u_yt)/4\sigma _0\sigma _tik_y]\psi _{A_2}\psi _{B_1}]\},`$ (21)
$`\dot{y}_2=`$ $`N{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{m}}`$ $`Im\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\psi }}[[2(y_2+Y+u_yt)/4\sigma _0\sigma _tik_y]\psi _{A_1}\psi _{B_2}`$ (22)
$`\pm `$ $`[2(y_2Yu_yt)/4\sigma _0\sigma _t+ik_y]\psi _{A_2}\psi _{B_1}]\},`$ (23)
On the other hand, from (5) and (6) one can see that,

$`\psi _A(x_1,y_1,t)=\psi _B(x_1,y_1,t),`$ (24)
$`\psi _A(x_2,y_2,t)=\psi _B(x_2,y_2,t),`$ (25)
which indicate the reflection symmetry of $`\psi (x_1,y_1;x_2,y_2;t)`$ with respect to the $`x`$–axis. Using this symmetry in (16) and (17), we have

$`\dot{y}_1(x_1,y_1;x_2,y_2;t)=\dot{y}_1(x_1,y_1;x_2,y_2;t),`$ (26)
$`\dot{y}_2(x_1,y_1;x_2,y_2;t)=\dot{y}_2(x_1,y_1;x_2,y_2;t).`$ (27)
These relations show that if $`y_1(t)=y_2(t)=0`$, i.e., two particles are on the $`x`$-axis, simultaneously, then the speed of each bosonic particles in the $`y`$-direction is zero along the symmetry axis $`x`$, but we have no such constraint on fermionic particles, as was mentioned by Ghose . We have shown elsewhere  that, there is such a constraint on both bosonic and fermionic particles, using the two entangled particles in a two double-slit device.

If we consider $`y=(y_1+y_2)/2`$ to be the vertical coordinate of the center of mass of the two particles, then we can write

$`\dot{y}`$ $`=`$ $`(\dot{y}_1+\dot{y}_2)/2`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`N{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2m}}Im\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\psi }}({\displaystyle \frac{y_1+y_2}{2\sigma _0\sigma _t}})(\psi _{A_1}\psi _{B_2}\pm \psi _{A_2}\psi _{B_1})\}`$ (29)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{}/2m\sigma _0^2)^2}{1+(\mathrm{}/2m\sigma _0^2)^2t^2}}yt.`$ (30)
Solving this differential equation, we get the path of the $`y`$-coordinate of the center of mass

$$y=y_0\sqrt{1+(\mathrm{}/2m\sigma _0^2)^2t^2}.$$
(31)
Using equation (21) and doing the same as what was done in ref. , one obtains the quantum potential for the center of mass motion

$$Q_{cm}=\frac{my_0^4}{2y^2}(\frac{\mathrm{}}{2m\sigma _0^2})^2=\frac{1}{2}my_0^2\frac{(\mathrm{}/2m\sigma _0^2)^2}{1+(\mathrm{}t/2m\sigma _0^2)^2}.$$
(32)
If the center of mass of the system is exactly on the $`x`$-axis at $`t=0`$ , then $`y_0=0`$, and the center of mass of the system will always remain on the $`x`$-axis. In addition, the quantum potential for the center of mass of the two particles is zero at all times. Thus, we have $`y_1(t)=y_2(t)`$ and the two particles, in both the bosonic and fermionic case, will be detected at points symmetric with respect to the $`x`$-axis. This differs from the prediction of SQM, as the probability relation (11) shows. SQM predicts that the probability of asymmetrical detection of the pair of particles can be different from zero in contrast to BQM’s symmetrical prediction. Furthermore, according to SQM’s prediction, the probability of finding two particles at one side of the $`x`$-axis can be non-zero while it is shown that BQM forbids such events, provided that $`y_0=0`$. Figure 1 shows one of the typical inconsistencies which can be considered at the individual level. Based on BQM, bosonic and fermionic particles have the same results, but, we know that if one bosonic particle passes through the upper (lower) slit, it must detected on the upper (lower) side on the $`S_2`$ screen, due to relations (19). Instead, there is no such constraint on fermionic particles.

We assumed that the two particles are entangled so that in spite of a position distribution for each particle, $`y_0`$ can be always considered to be on the $`x`$-axis. However, one may argue that, it is necessary to consider a position distribution for $`y_0`$, that is, $`\mathrm{}y_00`$ while $`y_0=0`$. Therefore, it may seem that, not only symmetrical detection of the two particles is violated, but also they can be found at one side of the $`x`$-axis on the $`S_2`$ screen, because the majority of pairs can not be simultaneously on the $`x`$-axis . Ghose  believes that the two entangled bosonic particles cannot cross the symmetry axis even if we have the situation $`(y_1+y_2)_{t=0}0`$. However, by accepting Marchildon’s argument about this situation , this problem can be solved if we adjust $`\mathrm{}y_0`$ to be very small and $`\mathrm{}t/2m\sigma _0^21`$. We assume that, to maintain symmetrical detection about the $`x`$-axis with reasonable approximation, the center of mass deviation from the $`x`$-axis must be smaller than the distance between any two neighbouring maxima on the screen $`S_2`$, that is,

$`\mathrm{}y{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda D}{2Y}}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{}t}{Ym}},`$ (33)
where $`\lambda `$ is the de Broglie wavelength. For conditions $`\mathrm{}t/2m\sigma _0^21`$, $`Y\sigma _0`$ and using equation (21), one obtains

$`\mathrm{}y_0{\displaystyle \frac{\pi \mathrm{}t}{Ym}}\sigma _0.`$ (34)
Therefore, if we use a source with $`\mathrm{}y_0\sigma _0`$, we will obtain $`yy_0\sigma _0`$ for each individual observation, and our symmetrical detection can be maintained with good approximation. In this case, we only lose our information about the trajectory of bosonic particles. It is evident that, if one considers $`\mathrm{}y_0\sigma _0`$, as was done in , the incompatibility between the two theories will disappear. But based on the entanglement of the two particles in the $`y`$-direction, we believe that, instead of the usual one-particle double-slit experiment with $`\mathrm{}y_0\sigma _0`$, our two-particle system provides a new situation in which we can adjust $`y_0`$ independent of $`\sigma _0`$, so that

$`0y_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(y_1+y_2)_{t=0}\sigma _0.`$ (35)
Although it is obvious that $`(\mathrm{}y_1)_{t=0}=(\mathrm{}y_2)_{t=0}\sigma _0`$, but the position entanglement of the two particles at the source $`S_1`$ in the $`y`$-direction makes them always satisfy equation (25), which is not feasible in the one-particle double-slit devices.

Now, one can compare the results of SQM and BQM at the ensemble level. To do this, we consider an ensemble of pairs of particles that have arrived at the detection screen $`S_2`$ at different times $`t_i`$. It is well known that, in order to ensure the compatibility between SQM and BQM for ensemble of particles, Bohm added a further postulate to his three basic and consistent postulates \[1-3\]. Based on this further postulate, the probability that a particle in the ensemble lies between $`\stackrel{}{x}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{x}+d\stackrel{}{x}`$, at time $`t`$, is given by

$`P(\stackrel{}{x},t)=R^2(\stackrel{}{x},t).`$ (36)
Thus, the joint probability of simultaneous detection for all pairs of particles of the ensemble arriving at $`S_2`$ is

$`P_{12}=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}R^2(y_1(t_i),y_1(t_i),t_i){\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑y_1{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}𝑑y_2|\psi (y_1,y_2,t)|^2=1,`$ (37)
where every term in the sum shows only one pair arriving on the screen $`S_2`$ at the symmetrical points about the $`x`$-axis at time $`t_i`$, with the intensity of $`R^2`$. If all times $`t_i`$ in the sum are taken to be $`t`$, the summation on $`i`$ can be converted to an integral over all paths that cross the screen $`S_2`$ at that time, and we obtain an interference pattern. Then, one can consider the joint probability of detecting two particles at two arbitrary points $`y_M`$ and $`y_N`$ which can belong to different pairs

$$P_{12}(y_M,y_N,t)=_{y_M}^{y_M+\mathrm{\Delta }}𝑑y_1_{y_N}^{y_N+\mathrm{\Delta }}𝑑y_2|\psi (y_1,y_2,t)|^2,$$
(38)
which is similar to the prediction of SQM, but obtained in a Bohmian way, as was shown by Ghose . Thus, it appears that for such conditions, the possibility of distinguishing the two theories at the statistical level is impossible, as was expected \[1-3, 9, 18\].

Here, to show equivalence of the two theories, we have assumed for simplicity that $`y_0=0`$. If one consider $`y_00`$ or $`\mathrm{}y_00`$, the equivalence of the two theories is maintained, as it is argued by Marchildon . But, using this special case, we show that assumption of $`y_0=0`$ is consistent with statistical results of SQM and in consequence, finding such a source may not be impossible.

### 3.2 Predictions for the unentangled wave function

In this subsection, we complete our discussion by considering the unentangled wave function (10) and some of the Marchildon’s hints . Based on equations (14) and (15), Bohmian velocities of particle 1 and 2 can be obtained as

$`\dot{y}_1=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{m}}Im\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\psi _{A_1}+\psi _{B_1})}}([{\displaystyle \frac{2(y_1Yu_yt)}{4\sigma _0\sigma _t}}+ik_y]\psi _{A_1}`$ (39)
$`+`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{2(y_1+Y+u_yt)}{4\sigma _0\sigma _t}}ik_y]\psi _{B_1}\},`$ (40)
$`\dot{y}_2=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{N}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{m}}Im\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\psi _{A_2}+\psi _{B_2})}}([{\displaystyle \frac{2(y_2Yu_yt)}{4\sigma _0\sigma _t}}+ik_y]\psi _{A_2}`$ (41)
$`+`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{2(y_2+Y+u_yt)}{4\sigma _0\sigma _t}}ik_y]\psi _{B_2}\},`$ (42)
Thus, as we expected, the speed of each particle is independent of the other. Using these relations as well as equations (18), we have

$`\dot{y}_1(x_1,y_1,t)=\dot{y}_1(x_1,y_1,t),`$ (43)
$`\dot{y}_2(x_2,y_2,t)=\dot{y}_2(x_2,y_2,t).`$ (44)
This implies that the $`y`$-component of the velocity of each particle would vanish on the $`x`$-axis. Although these relations are similar to the relations that were obtained for the entangled wave function, but here we have an advantage: none of the particles can cross the $`x`$-axis nor are tangent to it, independent of the other particle’s position. This property can be used to show that BQM’s predictions are incompatible with SQM’s.

To see this incompatibility, we use a special detection process on the screen $`S_2`$ that we call it selective detection. In the selective detection, we register only those pair of particles which are detected on the two sides of the $`x`$-axis, simultaneously. That is, we eliminate the cases of detecting only one particle or detecting both particles of the pair on the upper or lower part of the $`x`$-axis on the screen. Again, it is useful to obtain the equation of motion of the center of mass in the $`y`$-direction. Using equation (29) and (30), one can show that,

$`\dot{y}={\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{}/2m\sigma _0^2)^2t(y_1+y_2)/2}{1+(\mathrm{}/2m\sigma _0^2)^2t^2}}+\stackrel{~}{N}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2m}}Im\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\psi }}({\displaystyle \frac{Y+u_yt}{\sigma _0\sigma _t}}+2ik_y)(\psi _{A_1}\psi _{A_2}\psi _{B_1}\psi _{B_2})\}.`$ (45)
We can assume that the distance between the source and the two-slit screen is so large that we have $`k_y0`$. Then, using the special case $`Y\sigma _0`$, the second term in eq. (32) becomes negligible and the equation of motion for the $`y`$-coordinate of the center of mass is reduced to

$$\dot{y}\frac{(\mathrm{}/2m\sigma _0^2)^2}{1+(\mathrm{}/2m\sigma _0^2)^2t^2}yt,$$
(46)
and similar to the last experiment, we have

$$yy_0\sqrt{1+(\mathrm{}/2m\sigma _0^2)^2t^2}.$$
(47)
Since for this special source there was not any entanglement between the two particles, we must have $`\mathrm{}y_0\sigma _0`$. Consider the case in which $`y_0=0`$. To obtain symmetrical detection with reasonable approximation, we consider $`\mathrm{}t/2m\sigma _0^21`$ so that $`yy_0`$. Then, according to eq. (23), one can write

$$\mathrm{}y_0\frac{\pi \mathrm{}t}{Ym},$$
(48)
which yields

$$Y2\pi \sigma _0.$$
(49)
Therefore, under these conditions, BQM’s symmetrical prediction is incompatible with SQM’s asymmetrical prediction. Figure 2 shows a schematic drawing of BQM’s symmetrical detection occurred at the first maximum for the condition $`Y2\pi \sigma _0`$.

Now, consider conditions under which $`y_00`$ and $`\mathrm{}t/2m\sigma _0^21`$. Then, the $`x`$-axis will not be an axis of symmetry and we have a new point on the $`S_2`$ screen along the $`y`$-axis around which all pairs of particles will be detected symmetrically. Thus, based on BQM, that is relations (31) and (34), there will be an empty interval

$$L=2y\frac{\mathrm{}ty_0}{m\sigma _0^2},$$
(50)
on the screen $`S_2`$ where no particle is recorded. But, one can argue that the quantum distribution of the two particles does not allow to form the empty interval on the screen. Thus, assume that $`y_00`$ and $`\mathrm{}y_0\sigma _0`$. Then, we can have a relative empty interval of low intensity particles that has a length

$$L2y\frac{\mathrm{}t}{m\sigma _0^2}y_0,$$
(51)
if $`\mathrm{}yL`$ condition is satisfied. It is obvious that, the last condition corresponds to $`\mathrm{}y_0y_0`$. Therefore, it is seen that, using BQM and under the condition

$$Y\sigma _0y_0,$$
(52)
a considerable change in the position of the source $`S_1`$ toward positive (negative) $`y`$-direction produces a region with very low intensity in the interference pattern above (below) the $`x`$-axis which cannot be predicted by SQM, as is shown in Figure 3.

However, based on SQM, we have two alternatives:
i) The joint probability relation (11) is still valid and there is only a reduction in the intensity throughout the screen $`S_2`$, due to the selective detection.
ii) SQM is silent about our selective detection.
In the first case, there is a disagreement between the predictions of SQM and BQM and in the second case, BQM has a better predictive power than SQM, even at the statistical level.

It is worthy to note that, based on our factorizable wave function (10), one may object that each particle simply follows one of the single-particle two-slit trajectories and is quite independent of the other particle and in consequence, both SQM and BQM must yield the same results. But, one can see that this objection is unfounded for our specified conditions in which we have used the guidance condition along with the selective detection. If we study the interference pattern without using selective detection, we must obtain the same results for the two theories. But, using selective detection, it is clear that not only the two theories do not have the same statistical predictions, but also BQM clarifies and illuminates SQM, as Durr et al.  said:“note that by selectively forgetting results we can dramatically alter the statistics of those that we have not forgotten. This is a striking illustration of the way in which Bohmian mechanics does not merely agree with the quantum formalism, but, eliminating ambiguities, clarifies, and sharpens it.”. In our selective detection, we have forgotten detected single-particle and two-particle contributions at the one side of the $`x`$-axis on the screen $`S_2`$. Elsewhere , we have also shown that there is another statistical disagreement between the two theories for a new two-particle system described by an entangled wave function, using a different selective detection and without any deviation of the source from the $`x`$-axis. Therefore, it seems that performing such experiments provides observable differences between the two theories, particularly at the statistical level.

## 4 Conclusion

In this article, we have suggested two thought experiments to distinguish between the standard and the Bohmian quantum mechanics. The suggested experiments consist of a two-slit interferometer with a special source which emits two identical non-relativistic particles. We have shown that, according to the characteristic of the source, our two-particle system can be described by two kinds of wave functions: the entangled and the unentangled wave functions. For the entangled wave function, we have obtained some disagreement between SQM and BQM at the individual level. But, it is shown that, the two theories predict the same statistical results, as expected. For the unentangled wave function, the predictions of the two theories could be different at the individual level too. Again, the results of the two theories were the same at the ensemble level. However, the use of selective detection can dramatically alter the interference pattern, so that not only the statistical results of BQM do not agree with those of SQM, but BQM can also increase our predictive power. Therefore, it seems that, our suggested thought experiments can decide between the standard and the Bohmian quantum mechanics.