I do agree with this, that this is the only extra hypothesis that you need and which can be used to "save" us potentially from the blunt rejection of locality as such.ttn said:It's pretty simple and, Patrick, I'm pretty sure you and I agree about this: the other premise that you need is the idea that for each photon pair in the experiments, the measurements on both sides *have definite outcomes*.
Well, except of course the other hypothesis, that QM is NOT valid and that the loopholes in all these experiments ARE conspiring to make us believe so, as says the LR crowd. But without any indication of *failure* of QM, I find this highly highly improbable and not a fruitful working hypothesis.
And I can tell you that I do not find it comfortable to reject this very reasonable hypothesis of the existence of the other measurement, but nevertheless I do ! Because I'm a d**khead and still refuse to let locality go as of now.
Where comes my d**kheadedness from ? (ok, my mom will say: from your dad, but that's not what I mean :rofl:). It comes from 2 points:
1) we already accepted the "not having definite values until you measure it" idea for the microworld, in a way. It is only because now we could (potentially) apply the same reasoning to the quantity "outcome seen by my remote friend" and not only to "position of the electron in the atom" that we start having problems with this ; maybe because suddenly what we were willing to accept in the microworld didn't struck us as so weird as when you apply it to your remote friend ; but that's just a matter of scale.
2) I hate to give up relativity ; the space-time concept. And you have to, when you screw up the locality condition. It simply works too well: all that requirement of the Lagrangian having to be a lorentz scalar and so on, it's hard to let this go.
However, I recognize that this is somehow a personal choice, and ttn has convinced me now that the Bohmian view is not so outlandish, after all. Nevertheless, I stick with my view, but I respect his.