On Determinism and Bell Test

TL;DR

This paper challenges the common interpretation of Bell test violations, suggesting that such violations do not necessarily prove non-locality if the mechanism's determinism cannot be ruled out, and argues that the locality loophole remains open.

Contribution

It offers a new explanation of Bell test results, emphasizing that violations may not imply non-locality if determinism cannot be excluded as a mechanism.

Findings

Bell test violations do not conclusively prove non-locality.

The locality loophole remains open according to the proposed explanation.

Weihs' experiment does not close the locality loophole.

Abstract

Many Bell test results violate Bell's inequality. The premise of Bell's inequality is local determinism. We propose that, it can't be proved that something's mechanism isn't deterministic; if loopholes are not the reason of violation of Bell's inequality, violation of Bell's inequality illustrates that the mechanism isn't local. We propose a new explanation of Bell test, and the explanation illustrates the locality loophole is not closed by Weihs' experiment.