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.
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.
‘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.
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.
‘... 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.
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.
In our terms, this is Bell's 1964 theorem, ‘No local hidden-variable theory can reproduce exactly the quantum mechanical predictions.' Against this, and bound by what Bell takes to be Einstein's definition of locality, we refute Bell's theorem and reveal his error. We show that Einstein was right: the physical world is local; and we advance Einstein's quest to make quantum mechanics intelligible in a classical way. With respect to understanding, and taking mathematics to be the best logic, the author is as close as an email: eprb@me.com