The purpose of Bell’s inequality was to show that any local hidden variable theory which allows for any kind of independent disturbance of the quantum system, from outside the system, must imply a failure of quantum mechanics. Freedman [1], Aspect [2], and others, have proved experimental violations of Bell’s inequality. These kinds of results show that if there are hidden variables involved with quantum activities, that they must be nonlocal.

P. H. Eberhard, in Nuovo Cimento 46B, 392 (1978), showed that if there were a nonlocal EPR connection between particles, that any signals which relied on correlations of these particles could not occur, because EPR correlations alone, do not make possible the transmission of signals of any kind, including superluminal signals. Thus, quantum nonlocality will not allow a signal to be transmitted faster than light, by means of the statistical measurements which are common to quantum theory in its conventional interpretation. If we accept these results, then any observed superluminal information transfers must be due to some other cause.

Other violations of Bell’s inequality have come from the experimental results of Jahn, Radin, Dean, et. al. [3] at Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research, which show independent disturbances of nonlinear, random, and chaotic systems, from outside the systems, by the vehicles of the attention, intention, and the emotional states of the human being. These results imply that local hidden variables exist. Localized information transfers do not appear to require that EPR-type correlations must exist, prior to the information transfer. Thus, it is possible that both local, and nonlocal, hidden variables are constantly influencing the behaviors of quantum systems.

In 1999, this writer suggested that quantum tunneling could occur due to a process which had the electron vanish from existence when it encountered a barrier, while the information about that electron continued along the same path the electron was already on. In other words, the electron would vanish from observable existence, at the barrier, only to reform on the other side of the barrier. What was missing from this explanation, was the mechanism whereby the electron managed to reform when the information about all the attributes of that electron had passed through the barrier. Now it is clear that the information, in the situation of tunneling events, is carried by subquantum entities of the same variety which form the electron in the first place. Thereby the electron simply reforms out of its constituent sub-particles, based on the information about the electron’s attributes which is carried by the sub-particles. (This model of the electron is similar in some regards to the vortex model of the electron, as postulated by Tony Smith [4], where the electron is comprised of an organized circulation of particles much smaller than the electron.) If these subquantum entities are allowed to propagate at any velocity, from a zero velocity, to an infinite velocity, then many obtuse phenomena could be explained by them.

It also appears that the magnetic vector potential may be involved in this process in some regard, as the magnetic vector potential carries vast quantities of information, and is in some regards, inherent to the electron. Later, this writer suggested that the magnetic vector potential may actually be a hydrodynamic streaming of subquantum entities, which act as the vehicles which carry the information contained in the magnetic vector potential from one point to the next, along the path of the magnetic vector potential. >From this, the question arises, can it be experimentally demonstrated that the magnetic vector potential can convey information at superluminal velocities?

The results of Modanese and Podkletnov [5] regarding observations of a superluminal propagation of a gravitation-like beam, proceeding from the application of pulsed discharges of high voltage and current to a superconducting disk are relevant here. The writer suggested to Podkletnov, based on the theory of vacuum compensation, that there should observed a time delay between the gravitational beam, and the back-acting counter-beam which was also observed to proceed from the superconducting disk. In fact, such a delay had been observed, but the observation had not been considered significant by the experimenters, until the delay was predicted by the theory of vacuum compensation. (Vacuum compensation is just an extension of Newton’s third law, which expresses that any force whatsoever that is applied to the vacuum, is compensated by an equal and oppositely directed force, which originates from the vacuum media itself, which may involve a delay in time between action and reaction.)