Local realism is now revitalized as a fully viable causal explanation of physical reality including empirical Bell violations according to detailed arguments provided at the link below. Meanwhile, by denying local realism in its account of EPR experiments, quantum theory requires a physical causal signal that is physically discontinuous, leaping out of spacetime from one locality and landing in another, like a fish leaping out of water. Quantum theory thus invokes a physical domain outside spacetime through which its causal signal is logically required to travel -- unobservable, unstoppable, and at infinite speed. It might be tempting to conclude that such domains and such signals are some sort of magic, except that would be exactly wrong. Even magic obeys local realism. A master magician, however, can provide a compelling illusion to the contrary. The causally complete local realistic model given by the article below argues compellingly that the antilocality claims of quantum physics reduce to such illusions. Please see main article: ** http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0078 ** Local Realism Explains Bell Violations (author Andrew P. Yake) - Claims to demonstrate that all empirical evidence taken to support quantum theory over local realism plausibly does the reverse. The article comprises 8 pages, 4 figures, 6 equations, 32 references, 1 graph of testable predictions, and 2 paragraphs that purport to expose how the Bell inequality misrepresents the local realistic predictions for the EPR experiment. Thoughtful feedback appreciated (apyake@gmail.com).
Local realism is now revitalized as a fully viable causal explanation of physical reality including empirical Bell violations according to detailed arguments provided at the link below. Meanwhile, by denying local realism in its account of EPR experiments, quantum theory requires a physical causal signal that is physically discontinuous, leaping out of spacetime from one locality and landing in another, like a fish leaping out of water. Quantum theory thus invokes a physical domain outside spacetime through which its causal signal is logically required to travel -- unobservable, unstoppable, and at infinite speed. It might be tempting to conclude that such domains and such signals are some sort of magic, except that would be exactly wrong. Even magic obeys local realism. A master magician, however, can provide a compelling illusion to the contrary. The causally complete local realistic model given by the article below argues compellingly that the antilocality claims of quantum physics reduce to such illusions. Please see main article: ** http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0078 ** Local Realism Explains Bell Violations (author Andrew P. Yake) - Claims to demonstrate that all empirical evidence taken to support quantum theory over local realism plausibly does the reverse. The article comprises 8 pages, 4 figures, 6 equations, 32 references, 1 graph of testable predictions, and 2 paragraphs that purport to expose how the Bell inequality misrepresents the local realistic predictions for the EPR experiment. Thoughtful feedback appreciated (apyake@gmail.com).
Local realism must predict empirical Bell violations in a reasonable way to become a compelling causal explanation of reality. According to the paper at the link given below, it can now do that. On the other hand, theory, despite its wonderful statistical predictions, must transcend its infamous paradoxes to become a compelling causal explanation of anything. Unfortunately, paradoxes reduce to contradictions, and thus to nonsense. Take quantum superposition. Is this the simultaneous existence of mutually exclusive states or not? If it is, then we have a contradiction, and all further claims from theory fail to have meaningful interpretations. If superposition is something other than that contradiction, then what -- exactly -- is superposition? And let's take physical while we are at it. Defending theory as a causal explanation of reality requires that reality is not exclusively reality! Whoops. What -- exactly -- is so difficult about simply admitting when we have no sensible causal explanation for certain phenomena like Bell violations in EPR(B) experiments? In psychology, we know the answer to such questions. Our beliefs are evidence resistant. We thus predict that the rational threat from local realism to widespread beliefs -- its implication that reality might be mostly explained without appeal to antilocal mysticism -- will continue to be buried under reams of empirical observations stitched together by nonsense insinuations that that paradoxes are assets rather than contradictions. In any case, the paper below arguably formulates a theory of local realism that constitutes a causally valid description of reality. No nonsense required. Or, it could just be wrong. But it is waiting to be tested. Indeed, even existing data could bear on the empirical question if the theory is sound enough. See ** http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0078 ** Local Realism Explains Bell Violations (author Andrew P. Yake) - for a demonstration that all empirical evidence taken to support theory over local realism plausibly does the reverse. The article comprises 8 pages, 4 figures, 6 equations, 32 references, a graph of testable predictions, and two paragraphs that purport to expose how the Bell inequality misrepresents the local realistic predictions for the EPR experiment. Thoughtful feedback appreciated (apyake@gmail.com).
Local realism has been widely falsely discounted but is recently vindicated according to detailed arguments at the link below. Local realism is ordinary causal determinism. By contrast, quantum theory is mystical causation by indeterminacy. If this claim that quantum theory embeds mystical causation seems at odds with the modal signal in physics right now, we ought to ask why that should be so. In any case, it is a trivial point to establish from the quantum account of the EPR experiment. According to this account, two unmeasured particles at respective separate localities in spacetime have remarkable properties. (A) Neither has measurable properties prior to the first being measured. (B) The instant either is measured, both obtain perfectly correlated outcomes. So where do the physical properties that decide those outcomes come from? And how do they coordinate their instant perfect correlation across a spacetime interval, which requires violating Special Relativity? Enter the mystic. Or consider the compelling logic of a new formulation of local realism per below. http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0078 Local Realism Explains Bell Violations (author Andrew P. Yake) - Claims to demonstrate that all empirical evidence taken to support quantum theory over local realism plausibly does the reverse. The article comprises 8 pages, 4 figures, 6 equations, 32 references, 1 graph of testable predictions, and 2 paragraphs that purport to expose how the Bell inequality misrepresents the local realistic predictions for the EPR experiment. Thoughtful feedback appreciated (apyake@gmail.com).
Local realism reduces to the proposition that every physical effect arises exclusively at the spacetime locality where the determinate properties of physical reality determine that it be so. The causal model of quantum theory, however, and thus all prospects for quantum computers, require that local realism is false. The essential argument favoring quantum beliefs is that local realism cannot explain empirical Bell violations, whereas quantum theory can. By contrast, the article cited below offers compelling evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, such alleged refutations of local realism are predicated on an interpretation of the Bell inequality that many researchers reject (the cited article provides specific references). Meanwhile, the causal model of quantum theory reduces to the quantum formalism itself, which distributes outcomes across separate localities without providing enough information to determine what those outcomes are. More specifically, depending on subtleties of interpretation, the quantum formalism requires either: (A) There exists a bit of physical information such that this bit exists as mutually exclusive states, or (B) there exists a bit of physical information such that this bit is not physically informed. They are both contradictions. Pick your poison. Or reconsider local realism. See ** http://vixra.org/abs/1704.0078 ** Local Realism Explains Bell Violations (author Andrew P. Yake) - for a demonstration that all empirical evidence taken to support quantum theory over local realism plausibly does the reverse. The article comprises 8 pages, 4 figures, 6 equations, 32 references, 1 graph of testable predictions, and 2 paragraphs that purport to expose how the Bell inequality misrepresents the local realistic predictions for the EPR experiment. Thoughtful feedback appreciated (apyake@gmail.com).
Local realism is causation by ordinary causal signals. What we mean by ordinary is this. First, these signals have fully determinate properties, whether measured or not. Second, they can only cause effects precisely at the spacetime locality of their physical existence. By contrast, as Einstein famously observed, quantum causal signals are spooky because they can cause effects where they do not in fact exist. Indeed, the only evidence that quantum causal signals possess any physical existence at all is that they seem to explain every effect you could ever measure. Unless you think about it. Take the simplest case: One photon, one spin measurement, up or down. The quantum explanation is essentially that we draw the answer from a bag that contains no answers such that physical reality obtains precisely from its own absence. This is known as the problem. But the problem is obviously not measurement. The problem is that quantum theory has literally no explanation for any specific measurement result. On the other hand, local realism does. Spin Up and Spin Down for photons must, at the end of the day, be analogous to Heads Up and Heads Down for ordinary fair coins. The quantum counterclaim, here, is that there is no compelling solution set of local hidden variables that makes this analogy work for an EPR experiment. Furthermore, many claim that the Bell inequality rules out any such solution set. On the other hand, anyone who thinks that the Bell inequality has some single uncontested meaning has not been reading the literature. The paper noted below claims both to provide local hidden variables that constitute a compelling local realistic solution for an EPR experiment and to explain how such solutions have been falsely denied. See viXra:1704.0078 - Local Realism Explains Bell Violations - for a demonstration that all empirical evidence taken to support quantum theory over local realism plausibly does the reverse. The article comprises 8 pages, 4 figures, 6 equations, 32 references, a graph of testable predictions, and two paragraphs that purport to expose how the Bell inequality misrepresents the local realistic predictions for the EPR experiment. Thoughtful feedback appreciated (apyake@gmail.com).
Local realism is essentially the premise that physical reality is already physically real and that causal influence propagates through spacetime in a mechanistic way like a chain of toppling dominoes. However, local realism has been replaced by quantum theory as the scientific model of physical reality. Causal signal propagation under quantum theory is like starting with an arbitrarily long chain of dominoes, then removing all the dominoes in the middle and claiming that the first can topple the last instantly anyways -- just because we don't have any better ideas. The argument for replacing local realism with quantum theory requires that the Bell inequality is an accurate description of the predictions of local realism in an EPR experiment. However, many researchers conclude otherwise. Strangely, this substantial countersignal seems to promote fierce defensiveness rather than rational doubt among quantum believers. One begins to worry that the ongoing rejection of local realism is predicated upon motivated beliefs rather than upon motivated inquiry. Keywords: Local Realism. Local real dominoes. Quantum Dominoes. EPR. Bell inequality. Causal signal propagation. In any case, a concise paper posed as a local realistic puzzle representing an EPR experiment now claims to show that local realism explains Bell violations & thus plausibly all physical reality. The necessary logical flaw in the Bell inequality is claimed exposed in two paragraphs! See viXra:1704.0078 - Local Realism Explains Bell Violations (author Andrew P. Yake): 8 pages complete with figures, equations, a graph of testable predictions, and 32 references. Thoughtful feedback appreciated (apyake@gmail.com).
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.