gill1109 wrote:I don't disagree. I have no problems with this approach. I just have a problem with the idea that this somehow "explains" violation of Bell inequalities. But that "problem" of miunbe depends on what I mean by "explain". You have a different understanding of "explanation" from mine. We agree that it is a fact that there is no *local realist* explanation. (Contrarily to Joy Christian's point of view, which is supported by Fred Diether, who is our host on this forum).
BTW here is a new publication with a new *simple* explanation of Bell inequalities. I think I have seen it before. It does not work for me but maybe others find it useful:
https://ben6993.wordpress.com/2019/08/18/a-comparison-of-bells-theorem-and-maluss-law-action-at-a-distance-is-not-required-in-order-to-explain-results-of-bells-theorem-experiments/
http://vixra.org/pdf/1908.0348v1.pdf
Indeed, while you can try to hide some subtle assumptions for violating Bell/CHSH inequalities, this Pr(A=B) + Pr(A=C) + Pr(B=C) >= 1 Mermin's inequality is just "tossing 3 coins, at least 2 give equal result" - intuitively impossible to violate ... but QM formalism (or MERW) allows for that - wanting to understand the problem of "local realism", this is the best inequality to focus on.
I also agree with the paper that the Malus law is a crucial hint here - it is for electromagnetism, which is time-symmetric theory, Lagrangian mechanics - having 3 equivalent formulations: Euler-Lagrange to evolve forward, or backward by just switching sign of time, or equivalently time-symmetric formulation: fixing states in the past and future, we get action optimizing history between them.
General relativity is another example of (time-symmetric) Lagrangian mechanics: equivalently optimizing Einsten-Hilbert action ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein% ... ert_action ) - allowing to imagine spacetime as "4D jello" optimizing tension given this way, with Einstein's equation as equilibrium condition for the present moment: between past and future in this 4D jello.
Anyway, while incorrect "local realism" is time-asymmetric: hidden variables are only in the past, all these theories are time-symmetric (or CPT for QFT), allowing to imagine that present moment is in equilibrium between past and future (including their hidden variables).
Beside action optimization or such past-future equilibrium condition, as paths are the basic objects in spacetime, another approach for time-symmetric models are path ensembles: like Feynman's equivalent with QM, or educationally the simplest one: uniform path ensemble (MERW) - already catching some crucial properties with simple intuitions, like Anderson localization (e.g. rho ~ sin^2 density for [0,1] infinite well), Born rules directly from time-symmetry, or resulting Bell violation.
And this Lagrangian mechanics below has mathematically equivalent forward in time E-L evolution, but to use it we need this "superdeterminism" philosophy - that all hidden variables are already set for future Born rules - because of being chosen accordingly to fundamental time/CPT-symmetry of our physics.
If you disagree with such resolution of the "local realism" problem - that it incorrectly enforces time asymmetry to symmetric physics having "4D locality" instead, with which one do you disagree: locality - continuity, or realism - objectivity of physics?