Not only are the foundation theories mutually compatible, they are also compatible with local realism once this concept is properly formulated (without presuming atomism in addition to locality). Relativity Theory is reconstructed in the context of a preferred frame, but so as to secure the Relativity Principle in every experiment except the measurement of the preferred frame, defined by a null result for the dipole component of the Microwave Background Radiation (MBR). The 3D soliton approach to physical modelling is found to be consistent with both Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanical Nonlocality, exemplified by the EPR paradox.
Not only are the foundation theories mutually compatible, they are also compatible with local realism once this concept is properly formulated (without presuming atomism in addition to locality). Relativity Theory is reconstructed in the context of a preferred frame, but so as to secure the Relativity Principle in every experiment except the measurement of the preferred frame, defined by a null result for the dipole component of the Microwave Background Radiation (MBR). The 3D soliton approach to physical modelling is found to be consistent with both Special Relativity and Quantum Mechanical Nonlocality, exemplified by the EPR paradox.
Despite its remarkable success in describing microscopic phenomena, quantum mechanics continues to pose unresolved foundational questions concerning measurement, nonlocality, wavefunction collapse, and the nature of physical reality. These issues were highlighted by the EPR paradox1-2, in which Einstein and his co-authors examined the measurement of entangled particles in space-like separation. Quantum mechanics predicts that measuring one particle’s observable instantaneously determines the state of the other, seemingly violating special relativity’s prohibition of faster-than-light influences and suggesting an incomplete description of physical reality. However, Bell’s theorem3-5, along with the Bell-Kochen-Specker theorem6-10 and subsequent experiments, has largely ruled out local hidden variable theories. In this work, I apply the quantum decoherence framework11-13, pioneered by Zeh, Zurek, Joos and Leggett et al. to analyze an EPR-like system using system-environment interactions as a measurement model. I demonstrate that measurement on one entangled particle does not instantaneously collapse the system's wavefunction. Instead, the local wavefunctions of the measured particle and its environment evolve dynamically, while the remote particle’s wavefunction remains unchanged. Environment-induced decoherence selects pointer states and rapidly suppresses quantum correlations through local interactions, giving rise to the appearance of wavefunction collapse. These findings suggest that quantum mechanics can be reconciled with local realism if the wavefunction is treated as an ontic entity, offering a potential path toward a locally realistic quantum theory in alignment with Einstein’s vision.
Despite its remarkable success in describing microscopic phenomena, quantum mechanics continues to pose unresolved foundational questions concerning measurement, nonlocality, wavefunction collapse, and the nature of physical reality. These issues were highlighted by the EPR paradox. Quantum mechanics predicts that measuring one particle’s observable instantaneously determines the state of the other, seemingly violating special relativity’s prohibition of faster-than-light influences and suggesting an incomplete description of physical reality. However, Bell’s theorem has largely ruled out local hidden variable theories. In this paper, I critically examine the assumptions in deriving Bell’s theorem and demonstrate that the theorem does not apply strictly to quantum mechanics. By assuming measurement is always accompanied by uncontrollable environment interactions, I show that quantum theory can be local and realism with decoherence in EPR-like measurement. Specifically, I apply the quantum decoherence framework, pioneered by Zeh, Zurek and Leggett to analyze an EPR-like system using system-environment interactions as a measurement model. The results illustrate that measurement on one entangled particle does not instantaneously collapse the system's wavefunction. Instead, the local wavefunctions of the measured particle and its environment evolve dynamically, while the remote particle’s wavefunction remains unchanged. Environment-induced decoherence selects pointer states and rapidly suppresses quantum correlations through strictly local interactions, giving rise to the appearance of wavefunction collapse. These findings challenge the conventional interpretation of Bell’s theorem and suggest that quantum mechanics fundamentally respects locality and realism if the wavefunction is treated as an ontic entity. This work offers a potential path toward a locally realistic quantum theory in alignment with Einstein’s vision. It not only strengthens the conceptual foundations of quantum mechanics, but also carries tremendous implications for quantum information processing and computing.
I s it possible to bring experiments to bear on metaphysical theses such as realism? In recent developments in quantum mechanics particularly associated with the late John Bell it has been claimed that a certain type of realism, what is known as local realism, has indeed been refuted by a series of experiments, culminating in those carried out by Alain Aspect and his collaborators in Paris in 1982. Crudely local realism means in this context that atomic and subatomic entities, the subject matter of quantum mechanics, possess definite sharp values for all their attributes at all times, and, in addition, these attributes cannot be affected instantaneously by operations such as measurements performed on other microentities at different spatial locations from the one whose attributes are in question. In other words, realism is supplemented with a denial of the possibility of instantaneous action-at-a-distance. Now relativity theory, the other great pillar of modern theoretical physics, is standardly understood as committed to such a denial. So an experimental refutation of local realism would force us to give up either locality (the no-instantaneous-action-at-a-distance principle) or the realist thesis itself. The first horn of this dilemma is closed off by appeal to relativity theory, and so the conclusion of the argument would appear to be the refutation of 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.
It may well be that a relativistic version of the theory, while Lorentz invariant and local at the observational level, may be necessarily non-local and with a preferred frame (or aether) at the fundamental level. – John Bell [1] Introduction Bell's theorem establishes a contradiction between locality (and a few other assumptions) and certain predictions of quantum mechanics [2]. There have been two main issues surrounding the deep implications of this celebrated theorem. The first issue is basic, and it concerns whether the theorem really establishes that nonlocality is a necessary feature of any empirically viable theory and hence a feature of nature itself. One aspect of the issue concerns exactly what the underlying assumptions of Bell's theorem are. For example, some argue that these assumptions include the assumption of counterfactual definiteness [3–5], while others disagree [6–8]. The other aspect of the issue concerns which assumption should be dropped due to the resulting contradiction. Some believe that standard quantum mechanics may avoid nonlocality by denying counterfactual definiteness [3–5]. The second issue is much deeper, and it concerns how to make sense of the strange nonlocality when assuming that Bell's theorem establishes that our world is nonlocal. In particular, it has yet to be determined whether such quantum nonlocality is compatible with the theory of relativity, e.g., whether the nonlocality requires the existence of a preferred Lorentz frame [7, 9, 10]. It seems that “there is a preferred frame of reference, and in this preferred frame of reference things do go faster than light … Behind the apparent Lorentz invariance of the phenomena, there is a deeper level which is not Lorentz invariant” [11]. But it also seems possible that the existence of a preferred Lorentz frame is an illusion, since it cannot be detected according to standard quantum mechanics. A more subtle issue is whether quantum nonlocality permits superluminal signaling. It is widely thought that the answers to these questions will lead to a deeper understanding of Bell's theorem and quantum nonlocality. In this paper, we will present a new analysis of quantum nonlocality and its apparent incompatibility with relativity.