A problem with Bell-type Inequalities, the origin of the quantum non-locality, and a full/empty waves model for entanglements

TL;DR

This paper critiques Bell inequalities by proposing a full/empty waves hidden variables model that reproduces quantum predictions and explains non-locality through joint amplitudes, highlighting issues with local hidden variable theories.

Contribution

It introduces a novel hidden variables model based on wave amplitudes, challenging the assumptions behind Bell inequalities and offering an alternative explanation for quantum non-locality.

Findings

The model reproduces quantum experiment results.

Joint amplitudes handle distant particles as a single entity.

Full/empty waves hypothesis faces limitations with moving observers.

Abstract

Whether the quantum mechanics (QM) is non-local is an issue disputed for a long time. The violation of the Bell-type inequalities was considered as proving this non-locality. However, these inequalities are constructed on a class of local hidden variables, which obey the calculus with positive probabilities. Such a calculus is rather suitable for billiard balls while the QM deals with wave-packets of complex amplitudes. There is no wonder that a calculus with positive numbers does not match a calculus with complex numbers. The present text describes a different model of hidden variables for entanglements, model that reproduces the quantum predictions in different experiments, and also explains why the QM is nonlocal. The model deals with waves, some of them full and the others empty, and the hidden variables mark which waves are full. The basic physical concept with which the model operates is joint amplitudes of probability, and not probabilities. The latter are a secondary concept, the probability of a combination of results being equal to the absolute square of sum of all the contributing joint amplitudes. Thus the non-locality appears: a) a joint amplitude ignores distance, it handles distant particles as if they were one single particle at one single place, b) joint amplitudes are complex numbers and the sum of several contributions may vanish, blocking the respective combination of wave-packets and therefore of results. Although showing the success of the model, this text does not advocate for full/empty waves. It is shown that this hypothesis works only as long as one does not consider moving observers, and does not compare their conclusions. The real purpose here is to point to a severe impasse: assuming the existence of a preferred frame contradicts the theory of relativity, while refuting the full/empty waves idea one runs into other insurmountable difficulties.