The inconsistency of quantum nonlocality

[yoda jedi]

Phys. Scr. 82 065002, 2010.

Is quantum mechanics nonlocal?

A factual inconsistency of the nonlocality theory is demonstrated via a careful analysis of the conceptual and formal contents of Bell's theorem and the inequalities associated with it. The conceptual inconsistency of the theory follows from the consideration that it is, in principle, impossible to formulate quantum mechanics in terms of local hidden variables. The formal inconsistency of the nonlocality theory follows from the facts that: (i) nonlocality is not a physical property that can be represented by a function or an operator; (ii) it is impossible to derive Bell's inequality in a mathematically consistent way; and (iii) Bell's definition of locality is incorrect. Therefore, Bell's theorem cannot serve as the foundation for the introduction of the nonlocality notion in quantum mechanics.

 

[Q-reeus]

Phys. Scr. 82 065002, 2010.

Is quantum mechanics nonlocal?

A factual inconsistency of the nonlocality theory is demonstrated via a careful analysis of the conceptual and formal contents of Bell's theorem and the inequalities associated with it. The conceptual inconsistency of the theory follows from the consideration that it is, in principle, impossible to formulate quantum mechanics in terms of local hidden variables. The formal inconsistency of the nonlocality theory follows from the facts that: (i) nonlocality is not a physical property that can be represented by a function or an operator; (ii) it is impossible to derive Bell's inequality in a mathematically consistent way; and (iii) Bell's definition of locality is incorrect. Therefore, Bell's theorem cannot serve as the foundation for the introduction of the nonlocality notion in quantum mechanics.

I notice the author has withdrawn 'On the reality of EPR paradox' as mentioned here: http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Ruza_J/0/1/0/all/0/1"
Any opinions whether Joy Christian, who really has it in for Bell's theorem, has a solid case to make? http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Christian_J/0/1/0/all/0/1?skip=0&query_id=510870486b136afc"

 

[yoda jedi]

I notice the author has withdrawn 'On the reality of EPR paradox' as mentioned here: http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Ruza_J/0/1/0/all/0/1"
Any opinions whether Joy Christian, who really has it in for Bell's theorem, has a solid case to make? http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Christian_J/0/1/0/all/0/1?skip=0&query_id=510870486b136afc"

Interesting.

--------------
I think there is an inconsistency, i do not believe much in a post statistical justification,
besides, in some settings, while in others not.
apart quantum mechanics is not definitive, maybe will be replaced by other wider theory.

 

[DrChinese]

Any opinions whether Joy Christian, who really has it in for Bell's theorem, has a solid case to make? http://arxiv.org/find/quant-ph/1/au:+Christian_J/0/1/0/all/0/1?skip=0&query_id=510870486b136afc"

Yes, the scientific consensus is that Joy's argument makes no sense. You can locate some of the criticism in the archives. Please recall that Bell can be proven incorrect simply by providing a 3 setting dataset which is consistent with QM at angles at which the inequality is violated. That should convince you there is no disproof.