Bell vs Bell: a ding-dong battle over quantum incompleteness (2406.19426v3)

Abstract: Does determinism (or even the incompleteness of quantum mechanics) follow from locality and perfect correlations? In a 1964 paper John Bell gave the first demonstration that quantum mechanics is incompatible with local hidden variables. Since then a vigorous debate has rung out over whether he relied on an assumption of determinism or instead, as he later claimed in a 1981 paper, derived determinism from assumptions of locality and perfect correlation. This paper aims to bring clarity to the debate via simple examples and rigorous results. It is first recalled, via quantum and classical counterexamples, that the weakest statistical form of locality consistent with Bell's 1964 paper (parameter independence) is insufficient for the derivation of determinism. Attention is then turned to critically assess Bell's appealing to the Einstein-Rosen-Podolsky (EPR) incompleteness argument to support his claim. It is shown this argument is itself incomplete, via counterexamples that expose two logical gaps. Closing these gaps via a strong "counterfactual" reality criterion enables a rigorous derivation of both determinism and parameter independence, and in this sense justifies Bell's claim. Conversely, however, it is noted that whereas the EPR argument requires a weaker "measurement choice" assumption than Bell's demonstration, it nevertheless leads to a similar incompatibility with quantum predictions rather than to quantum incompleteness.