I am no expert on the nuances of assumptions of various formulations of Bell theorem(s), but wonder if the following model is adequate to explain the correlations without any non-local features. If this is a known, flawed, approach, a pointer to its refutation (or an explanation) would be appreciated.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

Consider a model that any state vector implicitly includes a 'true random' seed. In Copenhagen type interpretations, when a measurement is made, this seed feeds a universal pseudo-random number generator to produce the result. Then, entangled particles simply have the feature that each one's state vector share the same 'true random seed' that is 'generated' at preparation time.

If this works, the only causal relation is between each measurement and the preparation, and there is no influence at all between spacelike separated measurements.

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# I A computational model of Bell correlations

Have something to add?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

Loading...

Similar Threads - computational model Bell | Date |
---|---|

What is Leakage in terms of quantum computing? | Feb 26, 2018 |

Model of the universe/quantum computing | Sep 5, 2012 |

Is there a quantum computing model that allows you to add different states? | Apr 29, 2012 |

Quantum computers and modelling a quantum computer on a classical computer | Oct 30, 2011 |

Would a real Quantum Computer falsify de Broglie/Bohm model? | Jun 6, 2011 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**