Note to Wiseman & Cavalcanti (2015): All Bell Inequalities Are False; the Principle of Relativity is True and the World is Relativistically Local

Gordon Watson

Published Jul 1, 2020• 0 citations

Abstract

‘Experiments violating a Bell inequality [BI] thus leave [‘realists'] no option: the principle of relativity is false [sic]. The world is nonlocal [sic],' Wiseman & Cavalcanti (2015). But we show that even high-school math violates a BI; in fact, all BIs—being inadequate for experiments with highly correlated outcomes—are false. Moreover: under the principle of relativity, elementary math shows that wholistic mechanics (WM)—classical mechanics extended to include Planck's constant—also violates BIs. So, with 3 ways to violate a BI—experiment, high-school math, WM—true-realists find: Bellians are being rather silly, as Bell (1990) half-expected; quantum correlations are wholly explicable via WM in our relativistically local world; the principle of relativity is true, nonlocality false. Importantly: for STEM teachers, and against popular opinion-pieces about quantum nonlocality, our results require no knowledge of QM. Let's see.

Related papers

Wholistic Mechanics: Classical Mechanics Extended from Light-Speed to Planck's Constant.

Gordon Watson

Against Bell (1964c), and via classical analysis (including the principle of relativity): we make quantum correlations intelligible by completing the quantum mechanical account in a classical way. We find that Bell neglects a logical correlation that refutes his theorem, while a commutation relation and some easy algebra refute his inequality. So: for Einstein -- and against Bell's naive local realism; with certainty -- relativistic causality prevails. In this way we arrive at wholistic mechanics (WM): ie, classical mechanics extended from light-speed c to Planck's constant h. Importantly, for STEM students and teachers, and against popular opinion-pieces about quantum nonlocality, our results require no knowledge of quantum theory: for the quantum is here, to be found. Let's see.

Aug 1, 20200 citations

Lessons of Bell's Theorem: Nonlocality, Yes; Action at a Distance, Not Necessarily

Wayne C. Myrvold

Introduction Fifty years after the publication of Bell's theorem, there remains some controversy regarding what the theorem is telling us about quantum mechanics, and what the experimental violations of Bell inequalities are telling us about the world. This chapter represents my best attempt to be clear about what I think the lessons are. In brief: There is some sort of nonlocality inherent in any quantum theory, and, moreover, in any theory that reproduces, even approximately, the quantum probabilities for the outcomes of experiments. But not all forms of nonlocality are the same; there is a distinction to be made between action at a distance and other forms of nonlocality, and I will argue that the nonlocality needed to violate the Bell inequalities need not involve action at a distance. Furthermore, the distinction between forms of nonlocality makes a difference when it comes to compatibility with relativistic causal structure. The Bell locality condition is a condition which, if satisfied, renders possible a completely local account of the correlations between outcomes of spatially separated experiments. Bell's theorem tells us that the probabilities that we compute from quantum mechanics do not admit of such an account. Modulo auxiliary assumptions that, in my opinion, should be noncontroversial, this yields the conclusion that there must be something nonlocal about any theory that yields the quantum mechanical probabilities or anything close to them. One way to violate the Bell locality condition – and this is the way that any deterministic theory must do it – is via straightforward action at a distance. However, we should also consider the possibility of a stochastic theorywith probabilistic laws that involve irreducible correlations. The sort of nonlocality inherent in such a theory involves relations between events that are significantly different from causal relations as usually conceived. Perhaps surprisingly, such a theory, unlike its deterministic cousins, need not invoke a distinguished relation of distant simultaneity. This makes a difference for the situation of the two sorts of theories vis-a-vis relativity. Though a deterministic theory can achieve the appearance of being relativistic, at the level of observable phenomena, it can do so only by introducing a preferred foliation and with it a causal structure at odds with relativistic causal structures. Things are otherwise with dynamical collapse theories.

Cambridge University Press eBooksAug 31, 201615 citations

Principles of Physics and Violation of Bell Inequalities in Relativistic Experiments

Джадан Игорь Иванович

Abstract Examples of violations of Bell inequalities in Special relativity theory (SRT) have led to the need to look for the causes of violations outside of quantum mechanics (QM) and possibly outside of physics. The ability to derive Bell inequalities (BI) from set properties allows us to find the necessary condition for violations: the relativity of sets. At the same time, a necessary condition of a physical theory is the subjective independence (SI) of its propositions. This kind of objectivism, together with the principle of a priori maximum possible ignorance (AMPI), leads to the use of flat spaces in fundamental theories such as QM and SRT, where the principles of SI and AMPI can be implemented. In turn, the measurable quantities represented in spaces turn out to be relative. In this respect, SRT is not much different from QM. This proximity predetermines BI violation in both cases and in both cases the violation of BIs confirms the subject-independent nature of physics. In a classic Gedankenexperiment was demonstrated, that the violation of BI does not contradict the presence of hidden parameters if they are represented by relative quantities. However, the question arises: are relative properties and quantities indeed local?

Jun 30, 20260 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

An experiment that proves the absence of nonlocality in quantum mechanics

C. S. Unnikrishnan

I have been arguing that quantum nonlocality, deeply entrenched in the present formalism of quantum mechanics and widely believed as a reality by physicists, is in fact absent. Spooky nonlocal state reduction is the most, and perhaps the only irrational feature of present day physics. There are experimental results that reject nonlocal state reduction at a distance. Also, there are arguments that show that signal locality itself can be violated if there is true nonlocal collapse of the wavefunction. The Bell's inequalities, the violation of which polarized physicists in favour of nonlocality, arise not due to nonlocality, but due to ignoring prior information on correlations encoded in the phase of local probability amplitudes. Here I discuss an experiment involving particles entangled in energy and time variables that shows that there is no nonlocal state reduction during measurements on entangled particles. Quantum mechanics is inconsistent if it includes the concept of wavefunction collapse as a physical process for entangled multi-particle systems.

arXiv:quant-ph/0206190Jun 27, 20020 citations

Quantum nonlocality: no, yes, how and why

Alejandro A. Hnilo

The problem of the existence of nonlocal effects in Quantum Mechanics is discussed. The problem is divided in two: the first ('soft') one is to explain the violation of Bell's inequalities as a statistical magnitude. This can be achieved by a simple model within non-Boolean Locality and Realism. This result shows that quantum non-Locality as a consequence of the statistical violation of Bell's inequalities is inexistent. The second ('hard') problem is to explain the violation as it is calculated from series of detection outcomes. L.Sica has demonstrated that, in order to violate Bell's inequalities, the series recorded at (say) Bob when the setting at station Alice is alfa, can be different from the series that would have been recorded at Bob if that setting had been alfa'instead. Therefore, non-Locality in the series of detection outcomes does exist. It cannot be experimentally verified because of its counterfactual nature, but is observed in computer simulations. An appropriate computer code is based on the simple model mentioned plus a contextual instruction. It explains 'how' (Sica's) non-Locality arises, and solves the hard problem. 'Why' the contextual instruction exists is explained by Hellwig and Kraus' postulate of covariant quantum state collapse. In consequence, (Sica's) non-Locality is not in contradiction with Relativity but, quite the opposite, it is implied by Relativistic covariance.

quant-pharXiv:2603.09000Mar 11, 20260 citations