Mmfiore said,
If local reality exists it can be explained by “either hidden variables or otherwise "connecting" the space-like separated quanta in a manner that is not demonstrable”. So why are these interpretations, (not assumptions) not demonstrable?
Because there is no empirical evidence for hidden variables or faster-than-light connectivity. The empirical evidence from the proofs of Bell's Inequality indicates only the reality of the phenomenon known as nonlocality. Please be clear, I am not claiming that nonlocality is a
fundamental phenomenon. I am quite happy to entertain the notion that it is merely the spatio-temporal manifestation of an underlying causal phenomenon. I am just respectful enough toward science as an epistemological method that I don't consider such notions science. Not until they are empirically demonstrable. Nobody's done it yet. The Copenhagen Interpretation simply takes a hard line on this attitude, and that is healthy for practical science, while at the same time CI certainly has not deterred imaginative hypothesizing by theorists looking for causal foundations for QM.
Obviously something is happening that QM cannot explain.
QM models the behavior of quantum phenomena. It does not speculate about causation for such behavior. That is not its purview, given the nature of its formalism.
The results of the experiment clearly demonstrate that our definition for locality is in fact incorrect.
I don't see that clearly demonstrated at all. One can quite as readily state that what is clearly demonstrated is that the definition of locality is intact but that locality just doesn't apply. The choice seems to ride on whether to believe only in local realism or to believe in the possibility of nonlocality. Maintaining local realism requires resorting to explanations for the results that have no basis in currently established science. Nonlocality maintains consistency with science but requires a belief that space-time is capable of behavior beyond human experience to verify. As someone respectful of science and having no difficulties considering the current limits of human experience, I choose a nonlocal explanation.
Obviously in certain special situations a connectedness exists between spatially separated objects.
No, obviously in certain special situations a
correlation exists between spatially separated objects.
Through this connectedness there must exist a superluminal connection where entangled particles are concerned.
Your use of the word "must" has no basis. There are several equally plausible speculations for the correlation of entangled particles that do not rely on superluminal connectivity.
Bell’s Theorem says that if there are hidden local variables driving the statistical outcome then the results of such an experiment support the Copenhagen interpretation, (not explanation).
No, Bell's Theorem doesn't stipulate (or speculate on) the reason for QM's increased odds for correlation over the odds of sheer chance as being due to hidden variables. Moreover, nothing about Bell's Theorem implies any aspect of the Copenhagen Interpretation. CI, in this context, is nothing but a decision to take EPR results at face value and work from there.
TheCopenhagen interpretation rules say the wave function "collapses" at the time of measurement, so there must be action at a distance (entanglement) or the object must know more than it's supposed to (hidden variables). This interpretation says there must be action at a distance and somehow that happens faster than light.
CI believes the wave function is a mathematical abstraction. The light-speed limit has no bearing on abstract mathematical behavior. In recent decades, most CI proponents implicitly agree with Feynman's interpretation that wave function collapse is merely the cataloguing of a relationship between quanta and a measuring device.
It is generally believed that any theory which violates causality would also be internally inconsistent, and thus deeply unsatisfactory.
I've never read of anyone finding QM "internally inconsistent" for not addressing causation. That's like saying Newton's F=ma is inconsistent because Newton does not define force (F) then defines mass (m) in terms of this undefined force. I think you should be looking for another word besides "inconsistent."
Therefore obviously there must exist some sort of hidden reality or undiscovered theory of nature to which Quantum Mechanics acts as a kind of statistical approximation (an admittedly very successful one for predicting sub atomic particle interaction).
That QM acts as a statistical approximation is correct. That reality may have hidden variables providing causation for QM behavior is outside of QM's purview. So your use of the words "Therefore obviously" and "must" are unwarranted.
In reality all QM is, is an approximation of reality with no physical explanation.
Yes, that's correct. Such systematic approximations go by the name of "scientific theories." That it has no physical explanation--i.e., it does not rest upon more general theory--implies only that it is a relatively
fundamental theory.
That’s what EPR points out. The reluctance of the scientific community to acknowledge that is where the problem is.
No, the reluctance of the scientific community to acknowledge that QM is anything but a scientific theory is the practice of good science. I acknowledge that some scientists and many commentators allow their positivist-styled sensibilities to get carried away and "ontologize" QM, leaving the public thinking that QM is the true
nature of reality, rather than just a description of its behavior. I acknowledge that CI is conducive to this attitude though CI itself does not ontologize QM. I personally think that ontologizing QM is very unfortunate and speaks a great deal toward the poor state of science education of the public.
But since there are plenty of initiatives to hypothesize causality underlying QM, I don't see any reason to fear that science is giving up on seeking for a hidden reality in which to ground QM. When one of these hypotheses can suggest a testable experiment and be confirmed thereby, then we'll have a new theory, not before.
So let me propose an experiment which could settle this once and for all. My idea is that there is a physical explanation for the superluminal connection. The superluminal connection must be composed of a material object whose properties are modified in the special case of phase correlated pairs (twins). Normally the mediator does not allow faster than light speed electromagnetic wave. The correlation key is in the creation of the twin pair. Concentrate on this next statement. Something happens in their creation that physically entangles them and until that entanglement is disturbed they remain physically connected. They are spatially separated yet their locality remains intact. I believe that the twin pair are connected through a physical medium. That medium is the mediator of the physical connection. Therefore if that medium does physically exist we should be able to disturb the connection in a way that Quantum mechanics does not predict. Uh oh! If I am correct QM is in trouble. All that is needed is to have the two detectors as normally done for the EPR experiment. We now place in the path of one of the photons about midway between the source and the detector an electronically controlled polarizer or some other type of filter that would break the physical connection. We run the experiment as normal without activating the interference device. We will get results the QM predict. In phase 2 we change one thing. We activate the interference filter after the photon passes by not before. QM predicts this should have no effect. But if it is like I say, the activation of the interference filter after the particle passes by will break the entanglement connection allowing a result to match what classical physics predicts. This will validate that in fact a superluminal connection does exist and in one fell swoop it will prove that both QM and standard classical theory are lacking in a deep explanation for how reality works.
For the sake of discussion, I'll take your word for it that your proposed experiment has not been attempted before, since I don't know any better. Most importantly, you state that QM predicts that the introduction of your proposed interference filter into the path of one of the correlated photons will have no effect on the result. You will have to cite your source for this claim, as I don't buy it. In accord with what I know of EPR experimentation, the deployment of your proposed interference filter seems to me to constitute the introduction of a macroscopic (and therefore deterministic) device into the experimental setup, fundamentally changing the experiment into something other than what you intend. I would therefore expect the results to be consistent with chance (and classical physics) as you expect, but such results would have no more significance than the classically-consistent results of the delayed-choice double-slit experiment, for almost identical reasons.