Einstein vs Bell? Bell's Inequality Refuted, Bell's Error Corrected.

Gordon Watson

Published Sep 1, 2019• 0 citations

Abstract

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.

Related papers

Bell's Theorem Refuted via True Local Realism

Gordon Watson

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.

Nov 1, 20200 citations

Bell's Inequality Refuted Via Elementary Algebra in Spacetime

Gordon Watson

Bell’s inequality is widely regarded as a profound impediment to any intuitive understanding of physical reality. We disagree. So here, via elementary algebra - backed by experiments; and thus with certainty - we refute his famous inequality, correct his key error, resolve his locality-dilemma: all in accord with the antiBellian true-local-realism that we’ve advanced since 1989. We thus restore commonsense/intuitive ideas to physics - thereby making physical reality more intelligible - by completing the quantum mechanical account of EPR-Bohm correlations via a wholistic/Einsteinian approach in spacetime.

Dec 1, 20180 citations

Einstein-Classicality Explains Aspect's Experiment and Refutes Bell's Theorem

Gordon Watson

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.

Jan 1, 20190 citations

Bell's Theorem Refuted; Commonsense Local Realism Defined

Gordon Watson

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.

Oct 1, 20160 citations

Bell's Dilemma Resolved, Nonlocality Negated, QM Demystified, Etc.

Gordon Watson

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.

Jul 1, 20170 citations

Local Realism Generalized, EPR Refined, Bell's Theorem Refuted

Gordon Watson

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.

Nov 1, 20160 citations