discussion

A defense of realism

The violation of Bell's inequality can be understood as a conflict between the two principles we need to prove Bell's inequality — on one hand, realism in the sense of EPR and Bell, on the other hand, Einstein causality and relativistic symmetry in general.

As an introduction into the problem posed by the violation of Bell's inequality, we suggest to consider a simple game. As well, you can consider the formal proof.

The position of the mainstream of modern physics is the rejection of realism in favour of relativity. The aim of these pages is to argue against this choice. There is no good reason to give up realism. We consider refutations for some popular defenses of relativity – one quite general idea of refutation of various arguments which I have named the FTL phone argument, and a rejection of the argument that violations of Bell's inequality cannot be used to transfer information.

But, given the seriousness of the problem, it seems reasonable to consider it from a more general point of view. Thus, we consider some metaprinciples or criteria for choice between physical principles and apply them to this particular conflict:

Consequences

The consequence of preserving realism is very nontrivial: If we do not give up realism, the violation of Bell's inequality for arbitrary pairs of events allows to derive the existence of some hidden absolute contemporaneity.

But does it help? Are there realistic theories which allow to replace current relativistic and quantum theories? There are.

Where I agree with the mainstream and where not

Here I agree with the mainstream:

Thus, realism needs to be non-Einstein-local.

That realism, therefore, needs a preferred frame, is not questioned. It is a quite natural consequence.

The disagreement is about the following: The mainstream rejects realism. I propose to accept realism, and, as a consequence, to accept the existence of a (hidden) preferred frame.

Support for Bell's theorem

Let's note that I support explicitly the mainstream position against defenders of "local realism" (more accurate would be Einstein-local realism) and claims about the existence of "loopholes" in Bell's theorem. So I have already published three papers rejecting various published "refutations" of Bell's theorem: