Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Foundations
Bell’s concept of local causality does not preclude Bell correlations in local realist field ontologies
Crossref
Authors: Andrew Laidlaw
Year
2026
Paper ID
71821
Status
Peer-reviewed
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
163
Citations
N/A
Abstract
Introduction: Bell’s concept of local causality assumes more than local action. It also presumes an ontology of point particles. Bell correlations are feasible in nonlinear field ontologies with quantised interactions between suitably correlated participants. Materials and methods: Local causality is unsatisfactory for many reasons, not just Bell’s Theorem. The EPR paradox is due to metaphysical overcommitment to point models. An alternative, distributed concept of long-range interaction is appropriate for field ontologies. Inherently distributed field interaction quanta modify the causal structure of relations between observables. Results: Causal structure of Bell measurements in de Broglie–Bohm EPR experiments: Causal analysis of local realist field models violates Bell Inequalities without violating local action. Experimental Tests: Testable consequences include an observable range dependence of the coherence time of Bell states. Conclusions: Local realist field ontologies are not ruled out by the existence of Bell correlations in nature. The only “conflict” between quantum mechanics and relativity is because lightcone causal analysis effectively presumes a particle ontology.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Quantum Foundations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2026 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- Introduction: Bell’s concept of local causality assumes more than local action.
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.