Bell's theorem admits several interpretations or 'solutions', the standard interpretation being 'indeterminism', a next one 'nonlocality'. In this article two further solutions are investigated, termed here 'superdeterminism' and 'supercorrelation'. The former is especially interesting for philosophical reasons, if only because it is always rejected on the basis of extra-physical arguments. The latter, supercorrelation, will be studied here by investigating model systems that can mimic it, namely spin lattices. It is shown that in these systems the Bell inequality can be violated, even if they are local according to usual definitions. Violation of the Bell inequality is retraced to violation of 'measurement independence'. These results emphasize the importance of studying the premises of the Bell inequality in realistic systems.
Introduction.Arguably no physical theorem highlights the peculiarities of quantum mechanics with more clarity than Bell's theorem [1][2][3]. Bell succeeded in deriving an experimentally testable criterion that would eliminate at least one of a few utterly fundamental hypotheses of physics. Despite the mathematical simplicity of Bell's original article, its interpretation -the meaning of the premises and consequences of the theorem, the 'solutions' left -has given rise to a vast secondary literature. Bell's premises and conclusions can be given various formulations, of which it is not immediately obvious that they are equivalent to the original phrasing; several types of 'Bell theorems' can be proven within different mathematical assumptions. As a consequence, after more than 40 years of research, there is no real consensus on several interpretational questions.In the present article we will argue that at least two solutions to Bell's theorem have been unduly neglected by the physics and quantum philosophy communities. To make a self-contained discussion, we will start (Section 2) by succinctly reviewing the precise premises on which the Bell inequality (BI) is based. In the case of the deterministic variant of Bell's theorem these premises comprise locality and 'measurement independence' (MI); for the stochastic variant they are MI, 'outcome independence' (OI) and 'parameter independence' [4][5][6]. Rejecting one of these premises corresponds to a possible solution or interpretation of Bell's theorem -if it is physically sound. In Section 3 we will succinctly review well-known positions, which can be termed 'indeterminism' (the 2 orthodox position) and 'nonlocality' (in Bell's strong sense), and give essential arguments in favor and against them. We believe this is not a luxury, since it seems that quite some confusion exists in the literature: popular slogans such as 'the world is nonlocal', 'local realism is dead', 'the quantum world is indeterministic' are not proven consequences of a physical theory, but metaphysical conjectures among others -or even misnomers. It is therefore useful to clearly distinguish what is proven within a physics theory, and what is metaphysical, i.e. what is ...