I L NUOVO C1ME~NT0 VoL. 2 8 B , N.

2 11 Agosto 1975

On Some New Notions Concerning Locality and Nonloeality

in the Quantum Theory.
A. BARACCA
Istituto di Fisica Teariva dell' Universit~ - ~'irenze
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica ffueleare - Sezione di Firenze

D.J. Bom~ and B.J. Hn.Ey

Department el Physics, Birkbeeb College, University el ~ondon - .5ondon

A. ]~. O. STUART
Department el Mathematics, The City University - f m n d o n

(ricevuto i l 24 Matzo 1975)

S u m m a r y , - - In this p a p e r we begin b y developing in more d e t a i l the

growing b u t largely implicit realization t h a t B e l l ' s theorem is, in essence,
not a test for the existence of hidden variables but, rather, for w h e t h e r
or not t h e wave function of a m a n y - b o d y system tends to factorize into
a p r o d u c t of localized states of its constituent particles. I f such a process
of spontaneous localization a c t u a l l y does t a k e place, i t cannot be t r e a t e d
in terms of SchredJnger's equation, b u t requires q u a l i t a t i v e l y new kinds
of laws. A possible form of these laws is i n d i c a t e d briefly in our paper.
W e show further t h a t such laws do not fit in with our c u s t o m a r y notions
of d y n a m i c a l causality b u t are r a t h e r examples of a different kin~ of
relationship t h a t m a y be called formal causality. An analogy is given
t h a t helps to explain more fully w h a t is m e a n t b y formal causality.
W e then present our proposals concerning t h e p a r a m e t e r s cletermining
t h e conclitions under which spontaneous localization will t a k e place.
W e suggest t h a t these are related, not to the coherence length, b u t
r a t h e r #~o a critical t i m e ~o= ?~/kT, in which a system large enough to
have t h e r m a l properties will undergo a change in q u a n t u m state. F r o m
our suggestion i t follows t h a t , in e x p e r i m e n t a l investigations carrie4
out thus far, we have been looking for the process of spontaneous local-
ization in t h e wrong place. Some indigations of w h a t m a y be t h e r i g h t
place to look for this process are given. F i n a l l y , we point out t h a t t h e
notion of spontaneous localization m a k e s i t unnecessary to give t h e
measuring a p p a r a t u s a f u n d a m e n t a l role in the t h e o r y so t h a t t h e
measurement problem of c~nventional q u a n t u m mechanics disappears.

453
~ A. BA.RACCA, D. J. BOHM, B. J. IIILEY anc~ A. E. G. STUART

1. - B e l l ' s t h e o r e m a n d its b e a r i n g o n a n e w process o f s p o n t a n e o u s l o c a l i z a t i o n .

T h e r e has been a growing general realization ( ~ ) t h a t Bell's t h e o r e m (6)

has no essential relationship to hidden variables, b u t r a t h e r t h a t it is mainly
significant as a test for w h e t h e r or n o t the laws of q u a n t u m mechanics have
to be e x t e n d e d in certain new ways. A t present the n a t u r e of this extension
is largely implicit, b u t in this article we shall sketch at least its general outlines
in ~ m o r e explicit fashion.
W e begin b y illustrating w h a t is m e a n t here in terms of the simple example
of F u r r y ' s hypothesis (~.~) as applied to a molecule of total spin zero, consisting
of two atoms of spin ?~/2 which are caused to separate b y some means t h a t does
n o t involve the spin. The original wave function for the spin of the s y s t e m
of the two particles is

1
(1) ~o = ~fi (~+(~.)~-(~)- y_(~.)~+(~.}),

where ?~is a u n i t v e c t o r in t h e z-direction and yJ+($~) represents a state of positive

spin in the z-direction for particle 1, ~-($s) a state of negative spin in this direc-
tion for particle 2, etc. I n essence, the F u r r y hypothesis is the supposition t h a t ,
as the a t o m s fly apart, there is a certain distance d depending on factors t h a t
are at present unknown, a t which the original wave function ceases to a p p l y
to the system. Instead, a new s t a t e arises spontaneously which will be repre-
sented b y the p r o d u c t function

(2) ~ , = ~+(~) ~_(~.),

where r a u n i t v e c t o r in some new direction. Because the original state has

no preferred orientation, it is reasonable to assume t h a t the vector is distributed
isotropically (i.e. with uniform p r o b a b i l i t y for a n y direction).
I f the new distribution is a v e r a g e d over the directions r then, as shown in
t h e Appendix, Bell's inequality will be satisfied. B u t evidently, in this appli-
cation, Bell's i n e q u a l i t y has n o t h i n g to do with an average over hidden variables.

(1) V. C~eAsso, D. FORTUNATe and F. SELL~.RI: Inter. Journ. Theor. Phys., 7, 319
(1973).
(~) J. M. JAucH: Prec. ~.I.F., Course IL (New York, N.Y., 1971), p. 22.
(3) L . E . BALLANTINE: Phys. Today, p. 53 (October 1974).
(4) J. F. CLAUSV.R and M. A. HORS~.: Phys. P~v. B, 10, 526 (1974).
(6) J . S . BELL: Prec. 8.I.~V., Course IL (New York, N.Y., 1971), p. 171.
(6) W. tI. FURRY: Phys. Rev., 49, 393 (1936).
(?) Y. AZ~RANOV and D. BOHM: Phys. Rev., 108, 1070 (1957).
ON 5 O M I : _NI:',%V NOTU,]NM C()NCi':I~,N1XG I,C~C,ktA't'Y A N D N O N I A ) C A A , I T Y I'~'I:O. 4~S

]~ather, the averaging is over spin dh'ections, which are just straightforward
quantum-mc(;hanical w~riables. W h a t is new here is, however, the implication
of ~ localization process, in which an initially nonlocal state ~/]obecomes a prod-
uct T~ of local states. Such a process e v i d e n t l y c a n n o t be described b y a n y
wave function satisfying SchrSdinger's equation. And so, its law of develop-
m e n t has to be something qualitatively dii~erent from the presently k n o w n
laws of q u a n t u m theory. W h a t is needed here is indeed a new kind of relation-
ship determining the probability P ( T o , r t h a t a given nonlocal state To of the
combined system will spontaneously break into p a r t i c u l a r products ~+(g~) Y~-(r
of local states in which the individual particles h a v e spins t h a t are well defined
in the direction ~ (*).
I n some of the previous papers on the subject (7) it was indicated t h a t ex-
periments t h e n available disagreed with such a possibility. However~ since
then, the subject has advanced considerably and the d e v e l o p m e n t of new kinds
of experiments has been stimulated b y t h e consideration of Bell's t h e o r e m (s.g)
so t h a t the question has now to be re-examined.
The density m a t r i x has been c o m m o n l y used as a basic form for expressing
the laws of q u a n t u m mechanics. A clear presentation of the meaning of t h e
suggested new law involving a process of spontaneous localization therefore
requires an understanding of how this process m a y be related to the density
matrix. To do this~ we first n o t e t h a t , for each individual system, the final
localized state hr/~ will b e represented b y an i d e m p o t e n t density matrix~ corre-
sponding to a p r o d u c t of pure states for each particle

(3)

W e m a y now define an average density m a t r i x b y integration over the direc-

tions r

(4) = f P ( V ' o , n) e(~) d ~ .

I t can be readily verified t h a t the conventional q u a n t u m - m e c h a n i c a l averages

will be o b t a i n e d correctly from ~. Thus, if 0 is a n y operator~ we h a v e

(5) 6 = Tr (80).

I t is i m p o r t a n t to emphasize, however, t h a t the a c t u a l ensemble of systems

(') This is equivalent to the notion of a spontaneous change from ~rimproper ~ to

proper >> mixtures, as suggestecl by D'EsPAGNAT (s).
(8) B. D'ESPAGNAT: Conceptual Foundation.s o] Quantum Mechanics (Menlo Park,
Cal., 1971).
(~) F. J. B~LINFA~E: A Survey o] Hidden-Variables Theories ~Lond.on, 1973).
~S~ A. B A R A C C A , D . J . BOIIM, B . J . I I I L E Y and A. E. G. STUART

with p r o d u ct states ~ , is not determined by @; i.e., if ~ is given, the actual

ensemble is ambiguous. For example, the same density matrix ~ as t h a t given
b y (4) will result from an ensemble in which all the particles come off with
spins defined in the z-direction and for which the only possible final wave func-
tions for the system are ~t~ = V+(z*)~0 ($,) and Wt~= V_(~x)V+($,) with equal
probability for these two states. I t is easily seen t hat both of these ensembles
yield identical (and isotropic) results in all conventional quantum-mechanical
applications. Yet t hey result from entirely different distributions of localized
states.
This means that, if we extend t he laws of quantum mechanics to allow for
a spontaneous localization process, the density matrix will not be enough to
give a complete account of all physically significant aspects of the behaviour
of a system. W h a t is needed in addition is the actual probability distribution
P ( ~o , r over the possible localized final states.
In this new sort of theory we have to be careful to define what is m eant by
locality, and to distinguish this from other usages of the term. Thus, in quantum-
mechanical field theory, if the fields at different points on a spacelike hyper-
surface all commute (or anticommute), the field is said to be/oeal (otherwise
nonlocal). However, in the context t h a t we are now discussing, we should say
t h a t such a field is iDotentia//y localizable. T hat is it is in principle possible to
h a v e states which m a y be as localized as desired (described by products whose
factors approach delta-functions). B u t more generally the actual wave function
of the entire field is a nonlocal function of the field variables at different p l a ~ s
(of a kind similar to (1)).
F o r the sake of clarity we repeat some of the well-known arguments in which
the meaning of this notion is brought out in experiments of the type suggested
b y EINS~V.I~, ROSEN and PODOLSKY (,0.n). Thus, in the system consisting of
two atoms of spin ~[2, with total spin zero, any component of the spin of the
first ato m m a y be measured by means of an apparatus which localizes the
atom at the same time. I t then follows from the usual quantum theory t h a t
the other atom has a definite spin in the opposite direction as well as a de-
finitely different location. W i t hout interaction in any of the usual senses~ the
second atom seems to ~ k n o w , instantly in which direction its spin has to be
well defined, and in which directions its spin has to be not well defined. Thus
it can be said t h a t the measurement must, in some sense, actually produce
suitably localized states t h a t are properly correlated from an initial state t h a t
is not localized in this way at all. Any a t t e m p t to explain this result on the basis
of a system consisting initially of localized constituents would require a non-
localized interaction (e.g. instantaneous action at a distance) the very ex-
istence of which is denied in the theory.

(lo) A. EINSTV.IN, B. PODOLSKYand N. ROSEN: Phys. l~ev., 47, 777 (1935).

(11) D. BOHM: Quamb~m Theory (New York, N.Y., 1951).
ON Nt)MI,~ NI':W NOTIONN C4)N('I.:|,'NINII Lq}CALI't'Y ANt) N I ) N L O C A I , I T Y I.YI'(I. z~57

I t is oft.en implied in the literature t h ' t t w i t h o u t hidden va.riables fbhe p r o b l e m

of nonlocality does not arise. Of course, if we wish to explain q u a n t u m me-
chanics t h r o u g h hidden variables, we will a h n o s t certainly need nonlocal h i d d e n
variables (~-~). B u t as we h a v e seen above, this is because q u a n t u m m e c h a n i c s
is nonloeM, and not because a h i d d e n - v a r i a b l e e x p l a n a t i o n is being sought.
So we h a v e to u n d e r s t a n d nonlocMity as intrinsic to q u a n t u m mechanics, a n d
we c a n n o t avoid this b y j u s t refraining f r o m t h e consideration of h i d d e n v a -
riables. Moreover, as has b e e n p o i n t e d out, Bell's t h e o r e m is p r i m a r i l y a cri-
terion for w h e t h e r or not this nonlocality is limited b y a s p o n t a n e o u s process
of localization, f r o m which it follows t h a t t h e satisfaction of Bell's i n e q u a l i t y
can in no w a y be t a k e n as a proof of the existence of hidden variables.

2. - D y n a m i c a l vs. f o r m a l causality.

The idea of a q u a n t u m t h e o r y t h a t involves nonlocality in an essential w a y

a n d t h a t is y e t capable of a s p o n t a n e o u s process of localization does n o t fit
into t h e conventional notions of d y n a m i c a l causal law. R a t h e r it implies a
new notion t h a t m a y be called /ormal causality. (This is a d e v e l o p m e n t of
Aristotle's original ideas concerning f o r m a l cause.)
I n classical physics, the basic concept of c a u s a l i t y is t h a t of a sequential
process, in which a cause at one t i m e b e c o m e s an effect a t a l a t e r time, while
this in t u r n becomes the n e x t cause of a y e t l a t e r effect, etc. A law such as t h a t
of classical mechanics, which connects this cause-effect sequence a t successive
times, is a typical e x a m p l e of d y n a m i c a l causality. W h e n q u a n t u m m e c h a n i c s
was developed t h e r e was a general a t t e m p t to continue such a notion of caus-
a l i t y b y t r e a t i n g the later f o r m of the w a v e function as d e t e r m i n e d in t e r m s of
the earlier one t h r o u g h SehrSdinger's equation. B u t as is well k n o w n such a
w a v e function c a n n o t contain within it a n y description of a real sequence of
events. To obtain this k i n d of sequence one has to h a v e a n o n d y n a m i c a l
(~c o l l a p s e , of the w a v e function in each m e a s u r e m e n t process. Since this
collapse ~) is entirely outside t h e f r a m e w o r k of Schr6dinger's equation, con-
sidered as a basic d y n a m i c a l law, the whole m e a n i n g of such an a t t e m p t to
r e g a r d the t h e o r y as a n extension of classical d y n a m i c s b e c o m e s highly unclear.
W e propose instead t h a t , in a p u r e q u a n t u m state, the w a v e function de-
scribed is a Jorm a n d n o t a d y n a m i c a l sequence. I n physics, the notion t h a t
the f o r m t h a t a thing has m a y be r e g a r d e d as a cause has been used e x t e n s i v e l y
in recent times especially in connection w i t h ideas of s y m m e t r y (e.g. one ap-
peals to s y m m e t r y as an e x p l a n a t i o n of t h e properties of particles). W e are

(1~) For a 4iseussion of nonlooality of hidden variables see D. BOHM and. B. J. HIL~Y:
Foundations o] Physics (to be published).
4,~ A. B A R A C C A , D . J . BOH~[~ B . J. HILEY and ~ . E, G. STUART

s u g g e s t i n g h e r e t h a t t h e q u a n t u m t h e o r y implies a m u c h wider application of

this m o d e of t h i n k i n g t h a n has been c o m m o n thus far.
T o illustrate we shall m a k e use of a n a n a l o g y f r o m music (~ L e t us begin
b y considering a musical t h e m e . T h e order of successive notes in such a t h e m e
e v i d e n t l y c a n n o t be u n d e r s t o o d as d y n a m i c a l l y determined. Rather~ t h e entire
t h e m e is a single whole f o r m , which is p e r c e i v e d directly as such. One t h e m e
m a y t h e n b e followed b y a n o t h e r , in a developing structure~ which in t u r n con-
s t i t u t e s a higher-order f o r m , a n d this sort of d e v e l o p m e n t can go on f u r t h e r
t o indefinitely higher levels. I n this development~ the s t r u c t u r e s of t h e m e s are
n o t t o b e identified with t h e notes~ w r i t t e n or a c t u a l l y played. Thus the written
n o t e s a r e m e r e l y a representation of t h e s t r u c t u r e of t h e m e s a n d e v i d e n t l y n o t
t h e s t r u c t u r e itself. A n d it is o n l y in t h e relationshi~ of th~ notes, as a c t u a l l y
played~ t h a t t h e s t r u c t u r e exists (e.g. notes p l a y e d a m i n u t e a p a r t would be
sensed as u n r e l a t e d a n d n o t as p a r t of a theme).
W h a t we suggest here is t h a t t h e single particle is similar~ in some essential
w a y , to a sequential s t r u c t u r e of t h e m e s as described above. The d e v e l o p m e n t
of t h e m e s in successive stages is t h e n like a particle which is first in one q u a n t u m
s t a t e a n d t h e n in another, etc. As t h e r e is no d y n a m i c a l causal relationship,
d e t e r m i n i n g t h e order of successive t h e m e s , so there is no d y n a m i c a l cause
of successive q u a n t u m states. R a t h e r t h e whole order a n d f o r m of t h e develop-
m e n t is t h e cause. A p a r t i c u l a r solution of SchrSdinger's equation m a y be
c o n s i d e r e d as a m a t h e m a t i c a l e q u i v a l e n t of a musical score describing a p a r -
t i c u l a r t h e m e . T h e d e v e l o p m e n t f r o m o n e , t h e m e , to a n o t h e r requires~ how-
ever~ n e w m a t h e m a t i c a l l y e x p r e s s e d , scores ~ going b e y o n d w h a t can b e p u t
as a solution of SchrSdinger's equation.
T o u n d e r s t a n d this p o i n t m o r e t h o r o u g h l y we h a v e to e x t e n d our a n a l o g y
t o t h e m a n y - p a r t i c l e system. W e c o m p a r e the m a n y - p a r t i c l e s y s t e m to an
o r c h e s t r a (each particle to a n i n s t r u m e n t ) . W h e n t h e whole orchestra is playing
one t h e m e all t h e i n s t r u m e n t s are r e l a t e d in an essential w a y (though each one
m a y b e following its own course of notes~ in general different f r o m t h a t of t h e
others). W e t h u s obtain an a n a l o g y to t h e nonlocal correlation implied b y t h e
m a n y - b o d y w a v e f u n c t i o n (e.g. as described in connection w i t h E P R - t y p e
situations).
A n e w process can n o w b e e n v i s a g e d in which the orchestra playing t o g e t h e r
as a whole (i.e. in nonloeal relationship) begins suddenly, as p a r t of the whole
s t r u c t u r e of t h e composition~ to b r e a k u p so t h a t each i n s t r u m e n t plays in-
d e p e n d e n t l y (i.e. solo) in a w a y t h a t is n o t r e l a t e d to h o w the others are playing.
This is our a n a l o g y for t h e s p o n t a n e o u s process of localization of states.

(*) I t m a y be desirable to t r y to find visual analogues as well, but these tend to favour
dynamical explanations, at least at present, because a large part of the visual experience
of which we are conscious has been such as to emphasize dynamically describable
structures of objects.
ON S O M I,] N E V f NOTIONS ('ON('EI~NI N G LOC~kLITY" .kN'D XONI,OC_LkIA'I.'Y ETC. ~59

L a t e r some or all of lhe i n s t r u m e n t s could '~gain begin to p l a y t o g e t h e r , to

produce a single new whole theme, .rod this in t u r n couht again b r e a k up into
i n d e p e n d e n t t h e m e s etc. If we e x t e n d the a n a l o g y to t h e q u a n t u m t h e o r y ,
this suggests t h a t we h a v e to consider a kind of (~inverse ~) of s p o n t a n e o u s
localization, which could be called spontaneous /usion of localized s t a t e s into
a single whole nonlocalized state. So the overall m o v e m e n t would be d e t e r m i n e d
as t h e result of the i n t e r p l a y of t h e t w o opposing tendencies t o w a r d s localization
and towards fusion.
I n t h e classical limit of such a t h e o r y t h e usual d y n a m i c a l laws will h a v e
to emerge as an a p p r o x i m a t i o n . This implies firstly t h a t for sufficiently m a s s i v e
systems with m a n y degrees of freedom, a n d for sufficiently large i n t e r v a l s of
t i m e a n d space, nonloeal correlations t e n d to b e c o m e u n i m p o r t a n t so t h a t t h e
classical idea of s y s t e m s c o m p o s e d of i n d e p e n d e n t l y e x i s t e n t c o n s t i t u e n t p a r t s
will generally be a v a h d simphfication. A n d secondly it implies t h a t in con-
t e x t s indicated a b o v e there is a general statistical t e n d e n c y to d e v e l o p succes-
sive ~ t h e m e s , in such a w a y t h a t , a t least in the long r u n a n d on t h e a v e r a g e ,
l a t e r sequences will be d e t e r m i n e d d y n a m i c a l l y in t e r m s of earher ones.
W e h a v e thus come to a new conception of m o v e m e n t t h a t is s u i t a b l e for
the q u a n t u m - m e c h a n i c a l context. I n this c o n c e p t i o n t h e r e is no n e e d to p u t
the observer or the m e a s u r e m e n t process in a special role (e.g. as responsible
for the ~ collapse ,>of t h e w a v e function or a t least as essential for t h e d e s c r i p t i o n
of this collapse). Our a p p r o a c h thus m a k e s possible a description of t h e world
as a t o t a l process, t a k i n g place i n d e p e n d e n t l y of t h e observer. T h e o b s e r v e r
or his m e a s u r i n g i n s t r u m e n t m a y be included in this process. B u t as in clas-
sical physics no m e a s u r e m e n t process has to be t h o u g h t a b o u t to conceive of
the existence of a m o v e m e n t . I n this w a y m e a s u r e m e n t ceases to h a v e t h e
p r i m a r y conceptual role t h a t it is c u s t o m a r i l y given in the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e
q u a n t u m mechanics. A n d so t h e m e a s u r e m e n t p r o b l e m disappears.
I n t h e present q u a n t u m m e c h a n i c s (i.e. w i t h o u t a s p o n t a n e o u s process of
localization) t h e r e is no w a y to a r r i v e a t such a result. T h u s if one begins w i t h
the density m a t r i x , one m a y t r y to give t h e usual f r e q u e n c y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , in
a n ensemble considered as objective a n d i n d e p e n d e n t of t h e m e a s u r e m e n t pro-
cess (~s). B u t as has been p o i n t e d out here t h e a c t u a l ensemble to be a s s o c i a t e d
w i t h a given density m a t r i x is i n h e r e n t l y a m b i g u o u s . I n the usual q u a n t u m
mechanics, the only w a y to r e m o v e this a m b i g u i t y is to introduce a m e a s u r i n g
a p p a r a t u s , which not only d e t e r m i n e s w h a t the a c t u a l ensemble of s t a t e s is
b u t which a c t u a l l y creates this ensemble, l~or e x a m p l e , w i t h t h e d e n s i t y
m a t r i x (4), the ensemble t h a t is c r e a t e d m a y b e of particles w i t h spins well
defined in the z-direction if the a p p a r a t u s m e a s u r e s t h e spin in t h a t direction.
B u t t h e ensemble t h a t is created will b e of particles with spins well defined

(~8) L. E. BALLEbITINE: ReV. Mod. P~yS., 42, 358 (1970).

460 A. BARA.CCA, D . J . B O H M , B . J . I t l L E Y a I l ~ A. F,, O. STUART

in some o t h e r direction if t h e orientation of the a p p a r a t u s is correspondingly

altered. I f the orientation of t h e a p p a r a t u s is changed a t r a n d o m from one
m e a s u r e m e n t to the n e x t , one will o b t a i n the F u r r y ensemble (with probability
P(V'o, ~)).
To sum up, in t h e usual q u a n t u m mechanics, the a p p a r a t u s functions as
a m a e r o s y s t e m which removes the a m b i g u i t y in the microscopic state and
a c t u a l l y contributes in a n unanalysable w a y to the d e t e r m i n a t i o n of this state.
This is, in essence, t h e m e a n i n g of w h a t BOHR, HEISENBERO, etc. say about
t h e subject. However~ in the view t h a t we are now proposing 9 there is no am-
b i g u i t y of this kind because t h e r e are definite laws in which the determination
of an actual state is c o m p r e h e n d e d as the o u t c o m e of a process of spontaneous
localization.

3. - T h e r m a l properties and the conditions for spontaneous localization.

T h e f u r t h e r d e v e l o p m e n t of this general line of t h e o r y requires an under-

s t a n d i n g of w h a t determines the critical distance d at which a noulocalized state
t e n d s spontaneously to factorize into localized states. A t present there are
s o m e speculations t h a t this is related to the coherence length a~sociated with
t h e w a v e function. Aside f r o m calling a t t e n t i o n to the arbitrariness of this
suggestion, we h a v e to p o i n t out t h a t the existing experimental evidence (9)
is generally against such an assumption (although there are two reports in its
favour (1'.~)).
W e are ourselves considering a n o t h e r approach in which it is proposed
t h a t this distance d m a y be d e t e r m i n e d b y a certain critical time ro associated
with the t e m p e r a t u r e , which expresses the time needed for a system in t h e r m a l
equilibrium to go f r o m one q u a n t u m state to another. Our detailed proposals
(along with our reasons for a d o p t i n g t h e m ) will be published later b u t we shall
h e r e indicate briefly the general line of our thinking on this subject.
A system in thermal equilibrium is c o m m o n l y t r e a t e d as being in a state
of definite energy E with a p r o b a b i l i t y P ~ cxp [ - - E / k T ] t h a t this energy
has a p a r t i c u l a r value E. W e suggest, however, t h a t a system in t h e r m a l equi-
librium should be described b y a t i m e - d e p e n d e n t wave packet, r a t h e r t h a n
b y a state of definite energy. This fits the fact t h a t such t h e r m a l systems have
observable fluctuations of their properties as functions of the time. W e propose
t h a t an a p p r o p r i a t e wave p a c k e t will h a v e the form

E x /~t

(,4) G. FA~xcI, D. GUTKOWSKI,S. NOTARRIGOanc1,A. R. PENNISI: /Serf..Nuovo Cimen$o,

9, 607 (1974).
(16) R. A. HOLY and F. M. PxP~I~: private communication.
ON Kt)MI'~ NIi%V N O T I O N S CONCI'I~,NING 1 , 0 C A I , I T Y A N D NOKLOC/tLITY 1,IT(.;. 461

where y,~(x,) is the cig(mfunction of tim }Iamiitoniall of the whole system, corre-
sponding to energy E (the V~(x,) are assumed to bc an o r t h o n o r n m l set).
I t is readily verified t h a t all t i m e a v e r a g e properties a.rc the s a m e w i t h
this w a v e function as t h e y are for the e n s e m b l e of s t a t i o n a r y states w i t h
P ~ exp [-- E/kT]. To show this one m a y , for e x a m p l e , define a t i m e a v e r a g e
density m a t r i x

-bE
-2-kT /]e x p [+(E--.E
. ,$ ] , ,
)-~ v/,(x,)v/,.(x,)dt =
t
.E . I

T h e a b o v e will give the t i m e a v e r a g e of a n y o p e r a t o r ( t h a t is n o t explicitly

t i m e dependent) t h r o u g h the f o r m u l a

t+T
9 1 ,
(8) l'~a -~ f fV (x,, t)Ov(x,, t)dx, dt ---- T r ( 0 ~ ) .
$

A n d so we see t h a t all c o n v e n t i o n a l q u a n t u m - m e c h a n i c a l averages are t h e s a m e

as t h o s e o b t a i n e d in t h e usual t h e o r y for a s y s t e m in t h e r m a l equilibrium a t
t e m p e r a t u r e T.
L e t us n o w obtain an expression for t h e inner p r o d u c t of ~(x o t + ~) a n d
~(x~, t). This is

exp[ 2k-T (t-5 v)-

W i t h the o r t h o n o r m a l i t y of t h e set Vj(z,) this reduces to

(9) z = ~: exp [ - E,/kT] exp [-- iE~/h].

One can see t h a t w h e n v>vo=~/kT, I-->O, a n d t h u s t h e s t a t e

~(z~, t + ~) becomes orthogonal to the original s t a t e V(x~, t). T h a t is to say,
T0 is a n e s t i m a t e of the t i m e for a s y s t e m in t h e r m a l equilibrium to chang%
in t h e sense t h a t a given v e c t o r in H f l b e r t space t r a n s f o r m s into a different
a n d o r t h o g o n a l vector 9
Of course, all of t h e a b o v e discussion h a s b e e n in t e r m s of t h e usual q u a n t u m
theory, in which there is no s p o n t a n e o u s process of localization. I t seems
reasonable~ however, to suppose t h a t a n y process of s p o n t a n e o u s localization
m u s t b e r e l a t e d to s o m e change t a k i n g place in t h e original nonlocal state. I t
is clear t h a t no significant change can t a k e place in this s t a t e until the H f l b e r t
~2 A. B A R A C C A , D . J . B O I l M , B . J . H I L E Y a n ~ A. ~ . G. S T U A R T

s p a c e v e c t o r is different f r o m w h a t it was initially. And, as has been seen,

vo ~ t$/kT is an e s t i m a t e of t h e m i n i m u m t i m e for such a change. So the simplest
a s s u m p t i o n possible in this situation is t h a t in a s y s t e m large enough to give
t h e r m o d y n a m i c concepts a meaning~ the process of s p o n t a n e o u s localization
occurs on t h e a v e r a g e in a t i m e i n t e r v a l of t h e order of To = ~ / k T .
W e m a y t h e n p i c t u r e a large-scale s y s t e m in or n e a r t h e r m a l equilibrium
as c o n t i n u a l l y b r e a k i n g u p a t a r a t e p r o p o r t i o n a l to l / r e into relatively localized
d o m a i n s , which are c o n t i n u a l l y r e c o m b i n i n g or fusing to p r o d u c e s o m e sort
of s t e a d y s t a t e , d o m a i n s t r u c t u r e ,~. T h e size of these domains will e v i d e n t l y
d e p e n d in some w a y on re a n d on t h e relative rates of localization a n d fusion
of states.
This m e a n s t h a t t o s t u d y t h e process of localization we h a v e to look a t
s y s t e m s with enough degrees of f r e e d o m to h a v e t h e r m o d y n a m i e properties.
E x p e r i m e n t s done t h u s f a r h a v e all b e e n oriented in the opposite direction to
s y s t e m s h a v i n g a t m o s t only a few degrees of freedom (~
M o r e o v e r e v e n if we tried to give a m e a n i n g to t e m p e r a t u r e for s y s t e m s with
o n l y a few degrees of f r e e d o m , we would h a v e to n o t e t h a t e x p e r i m e n t s h a v e
generally a i m e d a t defining t h e energy w i t h as little fluctuation as possible, so
t h a t t h e effective ~ t e m p e r a t u r e ~>would be close to absolute zero. T h e critical
t i m e Vo would t h e n b e so long t h a t it would be difficult to observe a n y process
of localization t h a t m i g h t b e t a k i n g place. I n d e e d , it can be said t h a t , f r o m the
p o i n t of view t h a t we are suggesting here, t h e usual q u a n t u m t h e o r y is a frag-
m e n t a r y a b s t r a c t i o n or a p p r o x i m a t i o n holding only a t or n e a r the absolute
zero of ~ t e m p e r a t u r e ~ a n d t h a t the sort of e x p e r i m e n t a l conditions designed
t o a n s w e r questions raised in this t h e o r y generally preclude the possibility of
o b s e r v i n g s p o n t a n e o u s localization.
I t is clear t h e n t h a t we h a v e n o t been looking for s p o n t a n e o u s localization
in t h e r i g h t place. W h a t is t h e right place is n o t y e t entirely clear. B u t it
seems likely t h a t a useful a r e a to e x a m i n e would be t h a t of large-scale s y s t e m s
w i t h q u a n t u m p r o p e r t i e s (e.g. s u p e r c o n d u c t i v i t y and superfluldity), for long-
r a n g e q u a n t u m correlations are p r e s e n t in such systems. A n d y e t it seems likely
t h a t t h e r a n g e of this correlation is limited b y some sort of process related to
t h e r m a l exchanges of energy. I t a p p e a r s t h e n t h a t a s t u d y of localized d o m a i n

(') Note added in precis. - An experiment due to I~APALIOLIO8(16) WaS designed to

consider a special form of hidden-variable theory and the results do not necessarily
invalidate the point of view proposed hero. However, even with regard to hidden
variables, the e x p e r i m e n t is inconclusive because it was done using photons rather
than particles. Quantum field theory would load us to question the identity of the
photon as it passes through space and, in particular, as it passes through the analyscr,
so that the conclusion drawn by PAPXLIOLIOS, which is based on the assumption of
identity, may be entirely irrelevant. We will discuss these and further points in a
future publication.
(~6) C. PAPALIOLIOS: Phys. Roy. •ett., 12, 622 (1967).
()N SOMI,I .NEW N O T I ( ) N S CONCER,.~ING L O C A L I T Y -~NI) NONLOCXLVi)Y 15TC. ~03

structures in such systems might yiehl a clue as to the exist(race of spontaneous

localization processes.
In experiments such as those of E P R the number of degrees of freedom and
the effective temperature of the microsystem under investigation arc both so
low th at (in agreement with most observations) one would not expect spon-
taneous localization. To undergo such localization, a microsystem has to com-
bine with a larger system, having thermal properties. A special case of this
is for the microsystem to combine with a (macroscopic) measuring apparatus.
We must be careful here, however, not to imply t h a t the microsystem interacts
with the apparatus in some dynamical sense. Rather, the microsystem and the
macrosystem fuse, to form an undivided whole. In our musical analogy we could
say th at the apparatus and the microsystem then make up a single larger
orchestra ,. At a certain stage the whole orchestra then factorizes into (~in-
s t r u m e n t s , playing independent themes (or at least into smaller independent
orchestras).
B u t of course our whole approach is such t h a t we do not wish undul y to
emphasize the measurement situation. This latter emphasis has been due to
the fact t h a t in the usual quantum mechanics there is, as has already been
pointed out, no way to discuss, or even to think about, an actual process w i t hout
bringing in the measuring apparatus. However, in our theory, the general mode
of existence is taken to be in the process in which nonlocal states break up
into local states, while the latter fuse again into nonloeal states.
We mention the measuring apparatus here only to orient our t h e o r y in
relationship to the actual historical context in which quant um mechanics
developed. B u t from here on we no longer need to discuss the measuring ap-
paratus in a central role. R a t he r our main interest is now to explore and de-
velop the new laws of spontaneous localization and fusion of q u a n t u m states.

APPENDIX

In order to bring out clearly t h a t systems satisfying Bell's inequality can

be considered in terms of a probability distribution over products of localized
states, regardless of whether these arise from hidden variables or from a
spontaneous localization process of t he kind suggested in this paper, let us
consider the following argument.
We let A , B , (7, D be a set of real numbers such t h a t ] A I < I , I B [ < I , IG l <],
IDI<I. Consider the form

A B - - AC, = A B [ 1 • DC] - - AG[1 -}- D B ] .

Then since

W-QI< IPl+ IQI,

464 A. I~ARACCA, O. J . BOIIM, B. J . IIILF,Y ~n~l A. E. G. S T V A R T

it follows t h a t

[ A B - - A C I < lAB[1 ~ D(7]I + IA(7[1 • D B ] I < [ I =~ DC] + [1 ~ DB] .

I n t h e a b o v e we h a v e used t h e f a c t t h a t

[1 -b D C ] > 0 and [1 ~= D B ] = 0 .

I t follows t h e n t h a t

(A.1) I A B - - A ( T I < 2 - - I [ D O ~- D B J I .

W e can see a l r e a d y t h a t this g e n e r a l result has a f o r m similar to t h a t of Bell's

i n e q u a l i t y which, for a spin s y s t e m , can be w r i t t e n as

IP(a, b) -- P(a, v)l < 2 - - lP(d, e) + _P(d, b)l ,

w h e r e P ( a , b) is t h e correlation f u n c t i o n for spin m e a s u r e m e n t s in direction

for p a r t i c l e 1 and in d i r e c t i o n b for p a r t i c l e 2, etc.
I n o r d e r to establish t h e a c t u a l relationship b e t w e e n the two forms of ine-
q u a l i t y , consider a composite spin s y s t e m for which the density m a t r i x can
b e w r i t t e n as a local p r o d u c t f o r m p ---- ~1 (~ Q~. I n this case each correlation
f u n c t i o n is a p r o d u c t , such as

P(a, b) = (0o ~)Ob) -~ ( 0 . ) (0~) -~ A B ,

.P(a, e) = ( 0 ~ (~0~) = ( 0 ~ (0,~ = A C ,
etc.

w h e r e 0o is t h e spin o p e r a t o r in d i r e c t i o n ~ etc., and where we h a v e used the

f a c t t h a t ( 0 o ) is a real number~ such t h a t I ( 0 ~ ) [ < 1 so t h a t we can i d e n t i f y it
with A, a n d so on.
I n t h e case of a spin s y s t e m satisfying the F u r r y hypothesis, as discussed
in t h e t e x t of this article, t h e correlation function is obtained b y averaging
A B o v e r all the directions r in which the spin m a y be well defined

(A.2) P(a, b) =fdaP(U'o, ~)A(C~)B(r .

B y c a r r y i n g out a similar a v e r a g e of t h e forms leading to eq. (A.1) over direc-

tions ~, we can r e a d i l y show t h a t P ( a , b) as defined above actually satisfies
BoWs i n e q u a l i t y . I n d e e d , t h e calculation h e r e is precisely t h e same as t h a t
n e e d e d in Bell's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e i n e q u a l i t y (5), the only difference being
t h a t BELL defines t h e c o r r e l a t i o n as

(A.3) PB(a, b) = f d 2 ~(2)A(2)B(2),

w h e r e 2 represents t h e h i d d e n variables, and ~ t h e i r statistical distribution.

(PN Sq)Sll.: NI,~,V NO'I'I(~NS CON'('I']I~NIN[; J,Or ,'~NI) N o N I , O C A I , I T Y I'~'I'C. 465

\Ve .~ee |h('ll 1 h a l , e v e n if s y s l e ] n s a r e f o u n d l h a t s a t i s f y l h c ] h q l i n ( ' q u ' d i l y ,

we (,aJmot d r a w a n y (,on(.lusions (ton(.eriling 1he c x i s i e n ( , e of h i d d e n ~:ariabh, s.
A d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n for m o r e g e n e r a l 'q)l)lieations of B e l l ' s i n e q u a l i t y ,
w i t h i n t h e p r e s e n t q u a n t u m f r a m e w o r k , will b e f o u n d i n CAPASSO, FORTU.NATO
a n d SELLEm (1) a n d B,~.RACCi (17).

(1~) A. BXRACCX: introductory lecture at the Con]erence on .Foundations o] Quantum

Mechanics, _Frascati, June 4-6, 1974, in press.

@ RIASSUNTO

I n questo lavoro si eomincia con lo sviluppare in maggiore dettaglio il riconoscimento,

crescente ma in larga misura implicito, che il teorema di Bell, in sostanza, n o n ~ u n a
prova dell'esistenza di variabili nascoste ma piuttosto del fatto c h e l a funzione d ' o n d a
di u n sistema di molti corpi t e n d a o meno a fattorizzarsi in u n prodotto di stati loea-
lizzati delle sue particelle costituenti. Se u n tale proeesso di loealizzazione spontanea
ha realmente luogo, esso non pub essere t r a t t a t o in t e r m i n i dell'equazione di SehrSdinger,
ma riehiede leggi qualitativamente nuove. Si indica brevemente nel lavoro u n a forma
possibile di queste leggi. Si mostra poi ehe queste leggi n o n si aecordano con le nostre
nozioni abituali di causalit~ dinamica ma sono piuttosto esempi di un diverse ripe di
relazioni ehe si possono ehiamare eausalit~ formale. Si d~ u n ' a n a l o g i a ehe aiuta a spiegare
meglio che eosa si intende per causalith formale. Si presentano poi le nostre proposte
concernenti i parametri che determinano le eondizioni nelle quali la localizzazione
spontanea ha luogo. Si suggerisce che queste siano legate, non alla lunghezza di coerenza,
m a piuttosto ad u n tempo eritieo T0= h/kT, d u r a n t e il quale u n sistema abba~tanza
grande da avere propriet~ termiche subisce u n cambiamento di state quantico. Dalla
nostra ipotesi segue ehe, nelle ricerehe sperimentali eseguite finora, si ~ ricereato il
processo di localizzazione spontanea nel posto sbagliato. Si danno alcune indicazioni di
loealizzazione spontanea nel posto sbagliato. Si danno aleune indieazioni di quale pub
essere il posto giusto per osservare questo processo. Infine, si sottolinea e h e l a nozione
di loealizzazione spontanea rende superfluo assegnare all'apparato di misura u n ruolo
fondamentale nella teoria, cosiech6 il problema della misura della meccanica quantistica
eonvenzionale scompare.

O HeKOTOpLIX IHIOBbiX Hpe,~c'I~BJI~t[]HLqX, KaCaIOIllHxe~[ JIOKa."IL, H O ~ I ~ N HeJIOKaXlbHOCTH B

KBa.IHtTOBO~t T e o p H H no.,~l.

PeamMe (*). - - B 3TOI~ CTaT/~ MbI I I o , H p o ~ H o rtoraa~maeM, ~ITO T e O p e M a Ben:ia, rfo cy-
tUeCTBy, u r ffan~eTC~ RpoBeprofi cymecTBoBann~ cxp~,~T~,~x nepeMcnnbLX, a yxaa~,raaeT
MO~KCT JIH BO.rlHOBa~I ~ y H K ~ MHOFOqaCTHqHOI~ CHCTeMI~I 6blTb IIpe~cTaB.ueHa B BH~e
IIpoHsBC~eHH.q noxann3oBamu,~x COCTOHHHI~COCTa]B~I~IIOIILHX~acTm~ I~nH HOT. ECJIH TaXOi~

(*) IlepeneOeuo pet)aK~/ue~.

466 A. BARACCA, D. J. BOHM, B. J. HILEY aIl(~ A. F.. G. STUART

n p o H e c c ClIOHTaHHOI~ n o r a J m 3 a m m ~eI~OTBHTe.rIBHO l,lMeeT MeCTO, TO 3TOT IIpotlecc He

MoT~eT 6 b t T b n'HTepIIpeTnpOBaH C nOMOI~S~O y p a B H e M n ~ l l I p e n n n r e p a , a T p e 6 y e T x a q e -
CTBeHHO HOBbIX 3aKOHOB. B H a m c t t p a 6 o T C yKa3blBaCTC~l BO3MO)KHa~I d~opMa 3TnX 3aKOHOB.
~ t T C M MbI nOKa3bIBaeM, HTO TaKHr 3aKOHbI HC COOTBeTCTByIOT HaIII~M O~bIqHbIM H p e ~ c T a -
BHCHH~M ]IHHaMHqCCKO~ npI~HHHOCTH, a ffBH~tOTC~I c x o p c e IlpHMepaMH p a 3 Y l t ~ H o r o p o ~ a
]~n~ COOTHOmeHH~, XOTOpOC MO)KHO Ha3BaTb d ~ o p M a n ~ n o l t n p t ~ u m H o c ~ r ~ . Hp~mc~eHna~
aHaHOFHH n o M o r a e T O~bHCHHTb ~OJICe HOHHO, HTO O3HatIaeT ~)opMaHbHaN HpHtIHHHOCTb.
3aTeM Mbl ~opMyJIHpyeM Hatl/'H H~eH, KacaIOtI~eC~I IIapaMeTpOB, Ir oHpe,~eJIRIOT
ycnoBnn, n p n XOTOpI,LX 6y]ICT HMeTb MeCTO cnonTaHHan aorannaam~. M e npcnuo-
f l a r a e M , qTO 3TH y c n o a ~ , CBH3aHM He C xorepenTHOi~ ]InI~Kl~, a C KpHTh~eCKHM BpeMeHCM,
To-~-~/k7', B T e ~ C h ~ e XOTOpOro ~OCTaTO~HO 6 0 y r b m a ~ CHCTeMa, HMeIOI~aR TeIUIOBbIC
CBOI~CTBa, 6 y ~ e T n p e T c p I I e B a T b H'3MeHCHIIe KBflHTOBOYO COCTOIIHHH. I/I3 3TOrO Ilpe]lIIO-
n o ) ~ e m 4 H c n e ~ y c T , ~TO B IIpOBC~eHHbIX 3XCIIepHMeHTaJIbHbIX Hcc~e]~oBaHHflX MbI HCKa~H
IIpOI~eCC CIIOHTaHHO~ JIOgaJIH3aI~I4H B OIII]I~OqHOM MeCTe. ] - [ p ~ B O ~ T C g HeKOTOpbIe c o o ~ p a -
)KeHH$1, r ~ c MO)IfeT ~bITb npaBHYlbHOe MeCTO ~YI$I nOHCKOB 3TOrO IlpoIIecca. B 3aKYIIO-
9IeHHe MbI OTMe~IaeM, ~ITO HOH~THe cnoHTaHHO~t n o x a n n 3 a ~ ~ e ~ a e T HCHy)KHbIM, ~ T O S ~
H 3 M e p w r e n b H a ~ a n n a p a T y p a ~ w p a n a (~yIt~aMCHTaJ-IbHyIO p o n b s 3TO~ T e O p n ~ , T a x ~TO
npo6neMa ~3MCpCm~ O6~Ott KBaHTOBO~ MeXaHItKH HC BO3HHKaCT.