Bell's theorem does not eliminate fully causal hidden variables

Philippe H. Eberhard

Pavel Vyacheslavovich Kurakin

Bell's theorem proves only that hidden variables evolving in true physical time can't exist; still the theorem's meaning is usually interpreted intolerably wide. The concept of hidden time (and, in general, hidden space-time) is introduced. Such concept provides a whole new class of physical theories, fully compatible with current knowledge, but giving new tremendous possibilities. Those theories do not violate Bell's theorem.

T. E. Phipps

Horace P. Yuen

Bell inequality is violated in quantum mechanics and in experiments. Bell's theorem, on the other hand, concludes that quantum physics or nature is hence nonlocal. Bell's derivation of such a theorem comes in two versions, BT1 in which he started with determinism assumption in his 1964 original paper, and BT2 in his 1976 paper where he started with a "local causality" condition (LC). In this paper we show that (LC) does not follow from the physical concept of local causality except in the determinism limit. A local hidden variable model for the singlet pair is given that yields the correct quantum predictions for pair correlations. We also show determinism flagrantly violates quantum predictions. Thus Bell's theorem has no scope of applicability on possible hidden variable theory for quantum mechanics.

Jonte R. Hance, S Hossenfelder, TN Palmer

Bell’s theorem is often said to imply that quantum mechanics violates local causality, and that local causality cannot be restored with a hidden-variables theory. This however is only correct if the hidden-variables theory fulfils an assumption called Statistical Independence. Violations of Statistical Independence are commonly interpreted as correlations between the measurement settings and the hidden variables (which determine the measurement outcomes). Such correlations have been discarded as “fine-tuning” or a “conspiracy”. We here point out that the common interpretation is at best physically ambiguous and at worst incorrect. The problem with the common interpretation is that Statistical Independence might be violated because of a non-trivial measure in state space, a possibility we propose to call “supermeasured”. We use Invariant Set Theory as an example of a supermeasured theory that violates the Statistical Independence assumption in Bell’s theorem without requiring correlations between hidden variables and measurement settings (physical statistical independence).

Aleksandr V. Belinskii