With Bell's inequality refuted and his error identified [see References], we now explain Aspect's experiment and refute Bell's theorem via what we call Einstein-classicality: the union of true locality (no influence propagates superluminally) and true realism (some beables change interactively). We also remedy many of Aspect's pro-Bell comments; eg, inability to picture in 3-space, hopeless searching, vindicated nonlocality.
With Bell's inequality refuted and his error identified [see References], we now explain Aspect's experiment and refute Bell's theorem via what we call Einstein-classicality: the union of true locality (no influence propagates superluminally) and true realism (some beables change interactively). We also remedy many of Aspect's pro-Bell comments; eg, inability to picture in 3-space, hopeless searching, vindicated nonlocality.
Bell's theorem has been described as the most profound discovery of science; one of the few essential discoveries of 20th Century physics; indecipherable to non-mathematicians. However, taking elementary analysis to be an adequate logic here, we refute Bell's theorem, correct his inequality and identify his error. Further, we do this under the principle of true local realism, the union of true locality (or relativistic causality: no influence propagates superluminally) and true realism (or non-naive realism: some existents change interactively). We thus lay the foundation for a more complete physical theory: one in line with Einstein's ideas and Bell's hopes. Let's see.
Bell's inequality is widely regarded as a profound proof that nature is nonlocal, not Einstein-local. Against this, and supporting Einstein, we refute Bell's inequality and correct his error. We thus advance the principle of true-local-realism (TLR); the union of true-locality (no beables move superluminally, after Einstein) and true-realism (some beables change interactively, after Bohr). Importantly, for STEM teachers: we believe our commonsense results require no knowledge of quantum mechanics. Let us see.
Rebooting Einstein's ideas about local-causality, an engineer brings local-causality to quantum theory via operators and variables in 3-space. Taking realism to be the view that external reality exists and has definite properties, his core principle is common-sense local realism (CLR): the union of local-causality (no causal influence propagates superluminally) and physical-realism (some physical properties change interactively). Endorsing Einstein-separability — system X is independent of what is done with system Y that is spatially separated from X — Bell's famous mission is advanced. That is, by means of parameters λ, a more complete specification of EPRB's physics is successful. A consequent locally-causal refutation of Bell's theorem allows EPRB correlations to be explained in a classical way, in line with Einstein's ideas, without reference to Hilbert space, quantum states, etc. Conclusion: Bell's theorem is based on a mathematical error; an error in reduction is inconsistent with Bell's opening assumptions.
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.
With Bell (1964) and his EPR-based mathematics contradicted by experiments, at least one step in his supposedly commonsense theorem must be false. Defining commonsense local realism as the fusion of local-causality (no causal influence propagates superluminally) and physical-realism (some physical properties change interactively), we eliminate all such contradictions and make EPR correlations intelligible by completing the quantum mechanical account in a classical way. Thus refuting the famous inequality at the heart of Bell's mathematics, we show that Bell's theorem is limited by Bell's use of naive realism. Validating the classical mantra that correlated tests on correlated things produce correlated results without mystery, we conclude that Bell's theorem and related experiments negate naive realism, not commonsense local realism.
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.