‘... all this action at a distance business will pass [like the ether]. If we're lucky it will be to some big new development like the theory of relativity. Maybe someone will just point out that we were being rather silly, with no big new development. But anyway, I believe the questions will be resolved,' after Bell (1990:9). ‘Nobody knows where the boundary between the classical and quantum domain is situated. More plausible to me is that we'll find that there is no boundary: the hidden-variable possibility,' after Bell (2004:28-29).
Abstract: Studying Bell's work, using classical analysis and author-date referencing suited to undergraduate STEM students, we arrive at a new classical theory: local realistic quantum mechanics. Adjusting EPR to accord with Bohr's insight, and accepting Bell's principles (but not his false inferences), our method follows: (i) we allow Bell's pristine λ (and its pairwise twin μ) to be classical fair-coin vectors in 3-space; (ii) we complete the QM account of EPR correlations in a classical way; (iii) we deliver Bell's hope for a simple constructive model of EPRB; (iv) we justify EPR's belief that additional variables would bring locality and causality to QM's completion; (v) we refute key claims that such variables are impossible; (vi) we show that interactions between particles and polarizers are driven by the total angular momentum; (vii) we bypass Pauli's vector-of-matrices, but retain all the tools of the quantum trade. In short, under local realism: classically deriving the related results of quantum theory, we classically endorse Einstein's locally-causal Lorentz-invariant worldview.
‘... all this action at a distance business will pass [like the ether]. If we're lucky it will be to some big new development like the theory of relativity. Maybe someone will just point out that we were being rather silly, with no big new development. But anyway, I believe the questions will be resolved,' after Bell (1990:9). ‘Nobody knows where the boundary between the classical and quantum domain is situated. More plausible to me is that we'll find that there is no boundary: the hidden-variable possibility,' after Bell (2004:28-29).
Abstract: Studying Bell's work, using classical analysis and author-date referencing suited to undergraduate STEM students, we arrive at a new classical theory: local realistic quantum mechanics. Adjusting EPR to accord with Bohr's insight, and accepting Bell's principles (but not his false inferences), our method follows: (i) we allow Bell's pristine λ (and its pairwise twin μ) to be classical fair-coin vectors in 3-space; (ii) we complete the QM account of EPR correlations in a classical way; (iii) we deliver Bell's hope for a simple constructive model of EPRB; (iv) we justify EPR's belief that additional variables would bring locality and causality to QM's completion; (v) we refute key claims that such variables are impossible; (vi) we show that interactions between particles and polarizers are driven by the total angular momentum; (vii) we bypass Pauli's vector-of-matrices, but retain all the tools of the quantum trade. In short, under local realism: classically deriving the related results of quantum theory, we classically endorse Einstein's locally-causal Lorentz-invariant worldview.
Adjusting EPR (to accord with Bohr's insight), and accepting Bell's principles (but not his false inferences), we:— (i) complete the QM account of EPR correlations in a classical way; (ii) deliver Bell's hope for a simple constructive model of EPRB; (iii) justify EPR's belief that additional variables would bring locality and causality to QM's completion; (iv) refute key claims that such variables are impossible — including CHSH, Mermin's three-particle always-vs-never variant of GHZ, and this: in the context of Bell's theorem ‘it's a proven scientific fact that a violation of local realism has been demonstrated theoretically and experimentally,' (Annals of Physics Editors, 2016). In short: we refute Bell's theorem and endorse Einstein's locally-causal Lorentz-invariant worldview.
This open letter challenges Annals of Physics' Editors and Bell's supporters on this front: in the context of Bell's theorem -- after AoP (2016:67) -- ‘it's a proven scientific fact that a violation of local realism has been demonstrated theoretically and experimentally.' We show that such claims under the Bellian canon are curtailed by its foundation on a naive realism that is known to be false; ie, under Bohr's old insight (in our terms), a test may disturb the tested system. Further: (i) We define a general all-embracing local realism -- CLR, commonsense local realism -- the union of local-causality (no causal influence propagates superluminally) and physical-realism (some physical properties change interactively). (ii) Under CLR, with EPR-based variables (and without QM), a thought-experiment delivers a local-realistic account of EPRB and GHZ in 3-space. (iii) Under EPR, mixing common-sense with undergrad math/physics in the classical way so favored by Einstein, we interpret QM locally and realistically. (iv) We find the flaw in Bell's theorem: Bell's 1964:(14a) ≠ Bell's 1964:(14b) under EPRB. (v) EPR (1935) famously argue that additional variables will bring locality and causality to QM's completion; we show that they are right. (vi) Even more famously, Bell (1964) cried ‘impossible' against such variables; we give the shortest possible refutation of his claim. (vii) Using Bell's (1988:88) moot gloss on a fragment of von Neumann's work, we conclude: ‘There's nothing to Bell's theorem -- nor Bellian variants like CHSH (1969), Mermin (1990), Peres (1995); nor Bellian endorsements like those by Bricmont, du Sautoy, Goldstein et al., Maudlin, Norsen, Shimony -- it's not just flawed, it's silly; its assumptions nonsense; it's not merely false but foolish' and misleading. (viii) Our results accord with common-sense, QM, Einstein's principles, EPR's belief and Bell's hopes and expectations.
Negating the classical/quantum divide in line with Bell's hidden-variable ideas, we resolve Bell's ‘action-at-a-distance' dilemma in accord with his hopes. We identify the resultant theory as clear local realism (CLR), the union of Bohr's ‘measurement' insight, Einstein locality and Bell beables. Our method follows: (i) consistent with Bohr's insight, we replace EPR's elements of physical reality with Bell's beables; (ii) we let Bell's beable λ denote a pristine particle's total angular momentum; (iii) validating Malus' Law in our quantum-compatible equivalence relations, we deliver the hopes of Bell and Einstein for a simple constructive model of EPRB; (iv) we then derive the correct results for CHSH and Mermin's version of GHZ; (v) we thus justify EPR's belief that additional variables would bring locality and causality to QM. In short, advancing Bell's ideas in line with his expectations: we amend EPR, resolve Bell's dilemma, negate nonlocality, endorse Einstein's locally-causal Lorentz-invariant worldview, demystify the classical/quantum divide, etc. CLR: clear via Bohr's insight, local via Einstein locality, realistic via Bell beables.
Eschewing naive realism, we define true (classical/quantum) realism:= some existents (ie, some Bell-beables) may change interactively. We then show that Bell's mathematical ideas re local causality—from his 1964:(1)-(2) to his 1990a:(6.9.3)—are valid under true realism. But we refute Bell's analyses (and his ‘local realism’), as we resolve his consequent ‘action-at-a-distance’ dilemma in favor of true locality:= no influence propagates superluminally. In short: defining beables by properties and values—and allowing that locally-causal interactions may yield new beables—we predict the probabilities of such interaction outcomes via equivalence-classes that are weaker (hence more general) than the corresponding classes in EPR/Bell. In this way delivering the same results as quantum theory and experiment—using EPRB, CHSH, GHZ and 3-space—we also advance QM's reconstruction in spacetime with a new vector-product for geometric algebra. True local realism thus supports local causality, resolves Bell's dilemma, negates nonlocality, demystifies QM, rejects naive realism, eliminates the quantum/classical divide (since observables are clearly beables; being or not being, prior to an interaction, but certainly existing thereafter), etc: all at the level of undergraduate math and logic, and all contra the analyses and impossibility-claims of Bell and many others. We also show that Bayes' Law and Malus' Law hold, undiminished, under true local realism and the quantum.
An open letter to Bellians and the Annals of Physics' Editors re -- it's a proven scientific fact: a violation of local realism has been demonstrated theoretically and experimentally -- after AoP (2016:67). EPR (1935) famously argue that additional variables will bring locality and causality to QM's completion; we show that they are right. Even more famously, Bell (1964) cried ‘impossible' against such variables; we give the shortest possible refutation of his claims. With EPR-based variables (and without QM), an old thought-experiment delivers a commonsensical locally-causal account of EPRB and GHZ in 3-space. We then name the flaw in Bell's theorem – Bell's error -- Bell's 1964:(14a) ≠ Bell's 1964:(14b) under EPRB. Thus, given Bell's (1988:88) gloss on a snippet of von Neumann's work, ‘There's nothing to Bell's theorem -- nor variants like CHSH (1969), Mermin (1990), Peres (1995) -- it's not just flawed, it's silly; not merely false but foolish.' In short, we show that the whole Bellian canon -- with its no-name brand of local realism -- is all of those, and misleading too. Under EPR, mixing common-sense with undergrad math/physics in the classical way so favored by Einstein, we interpret QM locally and realistically. We thus define a new brand of local realism -- CLR, commonsense local realism -- the union of local-causality (no causal influence propagates superluminally) and physical-realism (some physical properties change interactively). Long may EPR rule OK we say.
EPR (1935) famously argue that additional variables will bring locality and causality to QM's completion; we show that they are right. More famously, Bell (1964) cried 'impossible' against such variables; we give the shortest possible refutation of his theorem. With EPR-based variables -- and no QM -- a thought-experiment delivers common-sense locally-causal accounts of EPRB and GHZ in 3-space. We then find the flaw in Bell's theorem: Bell's 1964:(14a) does not equal Bell's 1964:(14b). Thus, at odds with EPR (and us), Bell's unrealistic theorem and its many variants (eg, Mermin, Peres) miss their mark. In short, mixing common-sense with undergrad math and physics in the classical way so favored by Einstein, we interpret QM locally and realistically. Long may EPR rule OK we say.