Stop making sense of Bell's theorem and nonlocality? A reply to Stephen Boughn

TL;DR

This paper refutes Stephen Boughn's claim that Bell's theorem does not imply nonlocality, clarifying misunderstandings about the theorem's foundational assumptions and emphasizing its nonlocal implications.

Contribution

It provides a critical rebuttal to Boughn's interpretation, reaffirming the nonlocality conclusion of Bell's theorem based on correct understanding of its assumptions.

Findings

Boughn's interpretation is based on a misreading of EPR and Bell assumptions

Bell's theorem still implies nonlocality when correctly understood

The paper clarifies foundational misunderstandings in quantum nonlocality debates

Abstract

In a recent paper [arXiv:1703.11003] on this journal Stephen Boughn argued that quantum mechanics does not require nonlocality of any kind and that the common interpretation of Bell theorem as a nonlocality result is based on a misunderstanding. In this note I argue that the Boughn arguments, that summarize views widespread in certain areas of the foundations of quantum mechanics, are based on an incorrect reading of the presuppositions of the EPR argument and the Bell theorem and, as a consequence, are totally unfounded.