Can we close the Bohr-Einstein quantum debate?

Abstract

Recent experiments allowed concluding that Bell-type inequalities are indeed violated thus it is important to understand what it means and how can we explain the existence of strong correlations between outcomes of distant measurements. Do we have to announce that: Einstein was wrong, Nature is nonlocal and nonlocal correlations are produced due to the quantum magic and emerge, somehow, from outside space time? Fortunately such conclusions are unfounded because if supplementary parameters describing measuring instruments are correctly incorporated in a theoretical model then Bell-type inequalities may not be proven .We construct a simple probabilistic model explaining these correlations in a locally causal way. In our model measurement outcomes are neither predetermined nor produced in irreducibly random way. We explain in detail why, contrary to the general belief; an introduction of setting dependent parameters does not restrict experimenters' freedom of choice. Since the violation of Bell-type inequalities does not allow concluding that Nature is nonlocal and that quantum theory is complete thus the Bohr-Einstein quantum debate may not be closed. The continuation of this debate is not only important for a better understanding of Nature but also for various practical applications of quantum phenomena.

23 pages, 15 formulas, 94 references. This is a fourth version of the paper. Section 3 was extended.3 formulas and 2 references are added and remaining misprints were corrected. Paper is accepted for publication and will be published soon

References in corpus (11)

• Significant-loophole-free test of Bell's theorem with entangled photons
• Testing spooky action at a distance
• Local deterministic model of singlet state correlations based on relaxing measurement independence
• Relaxed Bell inequalities and Kochen-Specker theorems
• Is the Fair Sampling Assumption supported by EPR Experiments?
• Quantum non-locality - It ain't necessarily so...
• The contextuality loophole is fatal for Bell inequalities: Reply to a comment by I. Schmelzer
• EPR Paradox, Quantum Nonlocality and Physical Reality
• Seventy Years of the EPR Paradox
• Relational causality and classical probability: Grounding quantum phenomenology in a superclassical theory
• Classical probability model for Bell inequality

Cited by in corpus (15)

• Bohm-Bell type experiments: Classical probability approach to (no-)signaling and applications to quantum physics and psychology
• Quantum versus classical entanglement: eliminating the issue of quantum nonlocality
• Is the Moon there if nobody looks: Bell Inequalities and Physical Reality
• Two faced Janus of quantum nonlocality
• Understanding quantum mechanics: a review and synthesis in precise language
• Is Einsteinian no-signalling violated in Bell Tests?
• Contextuality-by-Default description of Bell tests: Contextuality as the rule not as an exception
• Contextuality or nonlocality; what would John Bell choose today?
• Quantum Mechanics and modelling of physical reality
• Quantum Nonlocality: how does Nature do it?
• Evaluating the Maximal Violation of the Original Bell Inequality by Two-Qudit States Exhibiting Perfect Correlations/Anticorrelations
• Discrete-event simulation of an extended Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm experiment
• Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm experiments: a discrete data driven approach
• Can foreign exchange rates violate Bell inequalities?
• Contextuality and correlation loopholes are equivalent