I don't mean wormholes. Space itself is the connection.

If space itself is the connection, then either:

- It (space) is transferring information between entangled particles at faster than the speed of light
- Space is connecting the particles in such a way as there is no distance between them (wormholes)

If the hidden variables have a non-local nature than the can collapse two entangled states, spatially separated, simultaneously, like a causal fork. No information runs between the two events. Only a direct causation of the non-local hidden variables, which could be the space in which they move. No wormholes involved.

What you are postulating is the transfer of information between two different localities through the means of non-local hidden variable. Despite you asserting no transfer of information, your theory does require the transfer of information.

That violates special relativity.

Which is why most non-local interpretations of quantum mechanics don't posit non-local hidden variable, but rather that out classical understanding of locality is wrong.

What you are postulating is the transfer of information between two different localities through the means of non-local hidden variable. — PhilosophyRunner

That's not what I'm postulating. I postulate no transfer of information between two localities. I postulate one simultaneous (in the rest frame) transfer at two locations towards the spins. Not between the locations.

That's not what I'm postulating. I postulate no transfer of information between two localities. I postulate one simultaneous (in the rest frame) transfer at two locations towards the spins. Not between the locations. — Haglund

That won't explain the Bell's test results. In your above example, Bell's inequality should hold.

"A non-local hidden variable theory would just say that there are hidden variables but they are non-local. Such a theory wouldn't get around Bell's inequality - it would claim that the inequality is correct and says that the laws of physics are non-local."

that the laws of physics are non-local. — Haglund

As per your quote (I don't know where you got that from), the laws of physics also have to be non-local. You can't simply have non-local hidden variables, you then have to also postulate the very concept of locality does not hold (not just for hidden variables).

That would very much be under "or our understanding of locality is incomplete" that I wrote earlier.

A non-local hidden variable pushing information one way to the two particles simultaneously would not violate Bell's inequality. But our experimental results do violate Bell's inequality

As per your quote (I don't know where you got that from), the laws of physics also have to be non-local. You can't simply have non-local hidden variables, you then have to also postulate the very concept of locality does not hold (not just for hidden variables). — PhilosophyRunner

Particles are local, and the variables behind their motion, the wavefunction guiding them, non-local.

As I notems to me that if you want to know yhe meaning of somet me that hingd, I just wanted to keep things simple. I think there are issues with non-physical causes that would muddy the waters of a discussion. — T Clark

But that is what I'm saying, there is no such thing as a "physical" cause. Your title doesnt make that distinction either. Do you want to know the meaning of "cause", which does exist or the meaming of something that does not exis? It seems to me that if you want to know the meaning of something then you need to include all instances of that something, and not cherry-pick your examples or else you would be muddying the waters instead acquiring a clearer picture of what it is youre talking about any explanation you come up with would never hope to explain what cause really means.

Particles are local, and the variables behind their motion, the wavefunction guiding them, non-local. — Haglund

This non-local waveform you postulate needs to be able to transfer information from one local particle to another, if it is to explain Bell's test results.

Or transfer information from the state of the equipment to the other particle

Which is why most theories focusing on non-locality are around our current understanding of locality being wrong.

Simply pushing information from a non-local variable to the two particles doesn't work.