It doesn't mean anything to "bypass the Uncertainty Principle".
The principle is often misunderstood as a limitation on our observations of a system that really has properties like "exact momentum" and "precise location" - just like the observer effect in classical mechanics. Indeed it is sometimes explained this way in high school or in pop science books. That's not what's going on! The Uncertainty Principle actually says that these properties _do not exist_ not that we have some trouble measuring them. We can do experiments which prove that either an electron does not actually _have_ a specific position when its momentum is known or else that position is somehow a hidden property of the entire universe and not amenable to our pitiable attempts to discover it in the locale of the actual electron. The Uncertainty Principle says that the former is the more plausible explanation (and certainly the only one that's consistent with the remainder of our understanding about how the universe "works").
Posted Nov 29, 2012 18:02 UTC (Thu) by davidescott (guest, #58580)
[Link]
AFAIK no experiment has shown that a non-local hidden variable theory is inconsistent with experimental evidence.
For a descriptive theory I would personally prefer determinism and non-locality. For a predictive theory non-determinism and locality are clearly better.