Causality and local determinism versus quantum nonlocality

The entanglement and the violation of Bell and CHSH inequalities in spin polarization correlation experiments (SPCE) is considered to be one of the biggest mysteries of Nature and is called quantum nonlocality. In this paper we show once again that this conclusion is based on imprecise terminology and on the lack of understanding of probabilistic models used in various proofs of Bell and CHSH theorems. These models are inconsistent with experimental protocols used in SPCE. This is the only reason why Bell and CHSH inequalities are violated. A probabilistic non-signalling description of SPCE, consistent with quantum predictions, is possible and it depends explicitly on the context of each experiment. It is also deterministic in the sense that the outcome is determined by supplementary local parameters describing both physical signals and measuring instruments. The existence of such description gives additional arguments that quantum theory is emergent from some more detailed theory respecting causality and local determinism. If quantum theory is emergent then there exist perhaps some fine structures in time-series of experimental data which were not predicted by quantum theory. In this paper we explain how a systematic search for such fine structures can be done. If such reproducible fine structures were found it would show that quantum theory is not predictably complete, which would be a major discovery.

[1]  H. Jehle,et al.  Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. , 1951 .

[2]  W. Philipp,et al.  Bell's theorem and the problem of decidability between the views of Einstein and Bohr , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[3]  A. Shimony,et al.  Proposed Experiment to Test Local Hidden Variable Theories. , 1969 .

[4]  L. Accardi Topics in quantum probability , 1981 .

[5]  M. Kupczynski,et al.  On some important statistical tests , 1977 .

[6]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  Violation of Bell’s Inequality and non‐Kolmogorovness , 2009 .

[7]  M. Kupczyński,et al.  Pitovsky model and complementarity , 1987 .

[8]  G. Roger,et al.  Experimental Test of Bell's Inequalities Using Time- Varying Analyzers , 1982 .

[9]  Gwilym M. Jenkins,et al.  Time series analysis, forecasting and control , 1972 .

[10]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  Contextual Approach to Quantum Formalism , 2009 .

[11]  W. M. de Muynck,et al.  Interpretations of quantum mechanics, joint measurement of incompatible observables, and counterfactual definiteness , 1994 .

[12]  I. Pitowsky,et al.  George Boole's ‘Conditions of Possible Experience’ and the Quantum Puzzle , 1994, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[13]  M. Kupczyński,et al.  On some new tests of completeness of quantum mechanics , 1986 .

[14]  Itamar Pitowsky,et al.  Deterministic model of spin and statistics , 1983 .

[15]  F. Jin,et al.  Event-Based Corpuscular Model for Quantum Optics Experiments , 2010, 1006.1728.

[16]  George E. P. Box,et al.  Time Series Analysis: Box/Time Series Analysis , 2008 .

[17]  Possible violation of the optical theorem in LHC experiments , 2013, 1308.1447.

[18]  Luigi Accardi,et al.  Some loopholes to save quantum nonlocality , 2005 .

[19]  J. Bell,et al.  Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Preface to the first edition , 2004 .

[20]  R. B. Lindsay,et al.  Essays 1958-1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge , 1987 .

[21]  Marian Kupczynski Seventy Years of the EPR Paradox , 2006 .

[22]  Marian Kupczynski Time Series, Stochastic Processes and Completeness of Quantum Theory , 2011 .

[23]  Armen E. Allahverdyan,et al.  Understanding quantum measurement from the solution of dynamical models , 2011, 1107.2138.

[24]  M. Kupczynski,et al.  Entanglement and Bell Inequalities , 2004 .

[25]  Marian Kupczynski On the Completeness of Quantum Mechanics , 2002 .

[26]  T. Nieuwenhuizen,et al.  Is the Contextuality Loophole Fatal for the Derivation of Bell Inequalities? , 2011 .

[27]  M. Kupczynski Entanglement and quantum nonlocality demystified , 2012, 1205.4636.

[28]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  Ubiquitous Quantum Structure , 2010 .

[29]  A. Fine Hidden Variables, Joint Probability, and the Bell Inequalities , 1982 .

[30]  T. Nieuwenhuizen,et al.  Where Bell went wrong , 2008, 0812.3058.

[31]  Marian Kupczynski,et al.  Is quantum theory predictably complete? , 2008, 0810.1259.

[32]  Gwilym M. Jenkins,et al.  Time series analysis, forecasting and control , 1971 .

[33]  M. Kupczynski Is the Hilbert space language too rich? , 1974 .

[34]  A. Zeilinger,et al.  Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics , 1989 .

[35]  Luigi Accardi,et al.  Locality and Bell's inequality , 2000, quant-ph/0007005.

[36]  Dirk Aerts,et al.  A possible explanation for the probabilities of quantum mechanics , 1986 .

[37]  Andrei Khrennikov Bell's Inequality: Nonlocalty, “Death of Reality”, or Incompatibility of Random Variables? , 2007 .

[38]  H. Weinfurter,et al.  Violation of Bell's Inequality under Strict Einstein Locality Conditions , 1998, quant-ph/9810080.

[39]  Kristel Michielsen,et al.  Event-Based Simulation of Neutron Interferometry Experiments , 2012, 1208.2367.

[40]  J. Gajewski,et al.  Purity tests for π-d charge multiplicity distributions , 1979 .

[41]  Karl Hess,et al.  Extended Boole-Bell inequalities applicable to quantum theory , 2009, 0901.2546.

[42]  M. Kupczyński,et al.  Bertrand's paradox and Bell's inequalities , 1987 .

[43]  L. Ballentine Quantum mechanics : a modern development , 1998 .

[44]  Marian Kupczynski Operational approach to the entanglement , 2012 .

[45]  Karl Hess,et al.  Bell’s theorem: Critique of proofs with and without inequalities , 2005 .