Bell's theorem tells us NOT what quantum mechanics IS, but what quantum mechanics IS NOT

TL;DR

Bell's theorem clarifies what quantum mechanics is not, emphasizing that non-locality is not an inherent trait but rather depends on interpretations like realism, and aligns with Bohr's principle of complementarity.

Contribution

The paper critically analyzes Bell's theorem, arguing it does not imply inherent non-locality but is consistent with complementarity, challenging common interpretations in quantum foundations.

Findings

Bell's theorem does not necessarily imply non-locality.

Violation of Bell inequalities aligns with Bohr's complementarity.

Non-locality depends on adopting realism or hidden variables.

Abstract

Non-locality, or quantum-non-locality, are buzzwords in the community of quantum foundation and information scientists, which purportedly describe the implications of Bell's theorem. When such phrases are treated seriously, that is it is claimed that Bell's theorem reveals non-locality as an inherent trait of the quantum description of the micro-world, this leads to logical contradictions, which will be discussed here. In fact, Bell's theorem, understood as violation of Bell inequalities by quantum predictions, is consistent with Bohr's notion of complementarity. Thus, if it points to anything, then it is rather the significance of the principle of Bohr, but even this is not a clear implication. Non-locality is a necessary consequence of Bell's theorem only if we reject complementarity by adopting some form of realism, be it additional hidden variables, additional hidden causes, etc., or counterfactual definiteness. The essay contains two largely independent parts. The first one is addressed to any reader interested in the topic. The second, discussing the notion of local causality, is addressed to people working in the field.