On Questions of Non-Locality in our EPR Model

The Einstein-locality of our EPR model has been questioned. We show that our model obeys Einstein locality and that the questions are without basis. Questions have been raised whether our model for EPR experiments [1], [2], [3] contains violations of Einstein locality. We respond here to these questions by Myrvold [4] and by Gill, Weihs, Zeilinger and Zukovsky (GWZZ) [5], [6]. Their arguments are along similar lines and we therefore attempt to answer their questions together. We point to the fact that time-related parameters may be correlated over space-like distances without violating Einstein locality. This fact complicates the necessity to define Einstein locality in mathematical terms. A question of particular importance is whether joint distributions of random variables that characterize EPR models may depend on the settings of both stations when Einstein locality is postulated. Our answer is: definitely yes, they may, provided that certain conditions are fulfilled which can easily be met when timerelated parameters are involved. We assume that the reader is familiar with our previous work and notation [2] and just repeat briefly the most essential aspects of our EPR model. The basic assumption of our model is that time and setting dependencies of hidden instrument related variables are of the essence. It is claimed by GWZZ in references [5] and [6] that time is irrelevant. Thus, GWZZ need to show that time and time dependencies are of no concern in EPR experiments as they are currently implemented. To show this, they cite a thought experiment “repeating the measurement procedure....not as a sequence of successive repetitions at the same locations, but in a million laboratories all over the galaxy”. They state that they compare “potential outcomes under (sic) different settings at the same time”. Thus their thought experiment considers measurements all over the galaxy all at the same time. It is clear that such a thought experiment cannot have any relation to an actual experiment. Simultaneous measurements all over the galaxy are neither well defined from the viewpoint of the theory of relativity nor quantum mechanics. In addition, it has been enunciated by Peres [8] that a one shot experiment that leads to the Bell contradiction must be considered “sheer nonsense”. Even if a large number of certain experiments could