On Determinism and Bell Test
Shoujiang Wang, Xiulan Wang

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.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsPhilosophy and History of Science · Complex Systems and Time Series Analysis
