No, there is no contradiction to us in this category. oQM, as we all agree, is not a theory which must satisfy Bell's Inequality. The reason is that oQM does not claim that Bell Reality holds. So there is no "retreat" here.ttn said:In short: the people who applaud Bell for snuffing out the hidden variables program, yet retreat to Orthodox QM as an acceptable theory, are engaged in a deadly contradiction. You can't have it both ways. If Bell Locality really is what relativity requires, then both OQM and hidden variable theories are going to have to be rejected as inconsistent with relativity (or, we'll have to junk relativity). On the other hand, if it's OK for orthodox QM to violate Bell Locality, then it's OK for hidden variable theories to violate it as well. In which case Bell's Theorem wouldn't rule out local hidden variable theories at all, and would cease to be interesting. All I'm suggesting is that we not tolerate double standards. Anyone who rejects (say) Bohm's theory because it violates Bell Locality, ought also to reject OQM on those same grounds. And vice versa, of course.
Any local realistic theory WILL meet the conditions that trigger the Bell Inequality requirement. That is because the local realist program requires it, and by this I mean in the spirit of EPR. So the question is: would Einstein (say) have agreed with the twin requirements of Bell Locality and Bell Reality. I think he would, as most local realists do. (In fact, I have never even heard a local realist deny these as applying - although I'm sure someone must have made that argument too).
I personally consider oQM to be a local non-realistic theory. That is because oQM respects the essential tenets of relativity . I know this drives you crazy, because Bell's Theorem defines locality such that oQM is non-local. But HELLO, that definition doesn't matter at all to oQM because oQM does not require Bell Reality anyway. So Bell's Inequality - and therefore Bell's Theorem - has no applicability for oQM.
I do reject Bohmian Mechanics on the grounds that it violates special relativity. I also reject it on the grounds it is an ad hoc theory. But it is a very mild rejection on both points. If, in the future, it is developed to a point that it can be experimentally segregated from the predictions of oQM, and its predictions are superior to oQM, then I will change my mind.