The remaining alternative of Bell's theorem

摘要

There is hardly a second opinion an the issue that what Bell's theorem forbids is a quantum mechanics (QM) that is both causal and local. From this it tautologically follows that QM can be either causal and nonlocal or local but noncausal. Or, if worst comes to worst, noncausal and nonlocal. This last option is the one prevailing among physicists, with a minority gathered around Bohm and Vigier opting for the lesser evil, nonlocal but (at least) causal. But there is to my knowledge no theorist who has chosen the remaining alternative, namely that QM is noncausal but local. One wonders why this is so, because, the rest being equal, all three options are on the same logical footing. Of course, "the rest being equal" does nor apply since we have direct confirmation of nonlocal phenomena (Aspect), and hence, whatever the choice will be, must take this fact into account. I argue that this type of reasoning is absurdly circular and prejudges the issue before it is wen settled. The choice for nonlocality with (or without) determinism takes it for granted that QM is true in advance, whence, obviously, nonlocality must be included in the choice. And this is why the option of noncausality with locality is never adopted. But this is a hopelessly inappropriate move. One must first decide which of the three alternatives is the one entailed by the physical premises of QM and only then decide which experiments the one agreed upon matches. Hence, the alternatives must be evaluated independently of what is or is not experimentally the case. I do exactly that, limiting myself to strictly quantal premises, to conclude that, once closely examined, these premises uniquely entail the neglected alternative. QM is noncausal and local. And once this much is asserted nonlocal phenomena will prove not to confirm but to disconfirm QM. No wonder this is an alternative no-one wants to know about! [References: 29]