Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:0909.4200

Concerning an old (but still quite alive) rebuttal of the theorem of John Bell

Aurélien Drezet

Published Sep 23, 2009• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In a old paper by G. Lochak, it is claimed that the Bell definition of a hidden variable is in conflict with the formalism of quantum mechanics. This result implies that it is not necessary to invoke non locality to explain the violation of the Bell inequality. A careful analysis of the concept of probability for hidden variables, as defined differently by Bell and Lochak, show that the reasoning and main conclusions of are not correct.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.0909.4200

Related papers

Quantum non-locality—it ainʼt necessarily so...

Marek Żukowski, Časlav Brukner

Bell's theorem is 50 years old. Still there is a controversy about its implications. Much of it has its roots in confusion regarding the premises from which the theorem can be derived. Some claim that a derivation of Bell's inequalities requires just locality assumption, and nothing more. Violations of the inequalities are then interpreted as ``nonlocality'' or ``quantum nonlocality''. We show that such claims are unfounded and that every derivation of Bell's inequalities requires a premise -- in addition to locality and freedom of choice -- which is either assumed tacitly, or unconsciously, or is embedded in a single compound condition (like Bell's ``local causality''). The premise is equivalent to the assumption of existence of additional variables which do not appear in the quantum formalism (in form of determinism, or joint probability for outcomes of all conceivable measurements, or ``additional causes`'', or ``hidden variables'', ``complete description of the state'' or counterfactual definiteness, etc.). A certain irony is that perhaps the main message of violation of Bell's inequalities is that our notion of locality should be based on an operationally well-defined no-signalling condition, rather than on local causality.

arXiv:1501.04618•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Oct 9, 2014•100 citations

A Reexamination on Bell's Theorem

Tan Tian-rong

It is proved that Bell's inequality can be traced back to a classical probabilistic formula that is invalid clearly, while the spin correlation formula in quantum mechanics to a formula that has confirmed both by facts and quantum mechanics. Two misunderstandings about Bell's theorem are pointed out: Firstly, the hidden variable theory Bell's used is a special one, but it is regarded as a general form of such theories. Secondly, there are two outcomes obtainable from Bell's hypotheses: one is compatible with quantum mechanics and the other leads to Bell's inequality. Unfortunately, the former is regarded as a property of local hidden variable theory, while the latter as self-evident. G. Lochak has revealed the first misunderstanding, and thereby he pointed out that Bell's inequality has nothing to do with locality, but he did not find the second one, so that he still analyzed this problem starting from hidden variable theory, which is actually irrelative to Bell's inequality. (The Journal of American Science. 2005;1(2):42-50).

•Jan 1, 2005•0 citations

Against Bell's Theorem

Andrea Aiello

Bell's theorem supposedly demonstrates an irreconcilable conflict between quantum mechanics and local, realistic hidden variable theories. In this paper we show that all experiments that aim to prove Bell's theorem do not actually achieve this goal. Our conclusions are based on a straightforward statistical analysis of the outcomes of these experiments. The key tool in our study is probability theory and, in particular, the concept of sample space for the dichotomic random variables that quantifies the outcomes of such experiments. We also show that an experimental proof of Bell's theorem is not, in principle, impossible, but it would require a completely different experimental apparatus than those commonly used to allegedly achieve this objective. The main consequence of our work is that we cannot dismiss local realistic hidden variable theories on the basis of currently available experimental data.

arXiv:2406.03028•Jun 5, 2024•0 citations

Is quantum mechanics nonlocal?

Jānis Ruža

A factual inconsistency of the nonlocality theory is demonstrated via a careful analysis of the conceptual and formal contents of Bell's theorem and the inequalities associated with it. The conceptual inconsistency of the theory follows from the consideration that it is, in principle, impossible to formulate quantum mechanics in terms of local hidden variables. The formal inconsistency of the nonlocality theory follows from the facts that: (i) nonlocality is not a physical property that can be represented by a function or an operator; (ii) it is impossible to derive Bell's inequality in a mathematically consistent way; and (iii) Bell's definition of locality is incorrect. Therefore, Bell's theorem cannot serve as the foundation for the introduction of the nonlocality notion in quantum mechanics.

Physica Scripta•Nov 4, 2010•0 citations

Probabilities and Spin Correlation

Tan Tian-rong

Bell’s inequality can be traced back to a classical probabilistic formula that is invalid clearly, while spin correlation formula in quantum mechanics to a formula that has confirmed both by facts and quantum mechanics. Bell’s two misunderstandings about Bell’s theorem are pointed out: Firstly, the hidden variable theory Bell’s used, which is a special form of such theories, is regarded as a general one. Secondly, there are two theses obtainable from Bell’s hypotheses; one is compatible with quantum mechanics, the other leads to Bell's inequality. Unfortunately, the former is regarded as a property of local hidden variable theory, while the latter as self-evident. G.Lochak has revealed the first thesis, and thereby he pointed out that Bell’s inequality has nothing to do with locality, but he did not find the second one, so that he still analyzed this problem starting from hidden variable theory, which is actually without regard to Bell’s inequality.

•Jan 1, 2005•0 citations

Expectation Value in Bell's Theorem

Zheng-Chuan Wang

We will demonstrate in this paper that Bell's theorem (Bell's inequality) does not really conflict with quantum mechanics, the controversy between them originates from the different definitions for the expectation value using the probability distribution in Bell's inequality and the expectation value in quantum mechanics. We can not use quantum mechanical expectation value measured in experiments to show the violation of Bell's inequality and then further deny the local hidden-variables theory. Considering the difference of their expectation values, a generalized Bell's inequality is presented, which is coincided with the prediction of quantum mechanics.

arXiv:quant-ph/0604194•Apr 26, 2006•0 citations
In a old paper by G. Lochak, it is claimed that the Bell definition of a hidden variable is in conflict with the formalism of quantum mechanics. This result implies that it is not necessary to invoke non locality to explain the violation of the Bell inequality. A careful analysis of the concept of probability for hidden variables, as defined differently by Bell and Lochak, show that the reasoning and main conclusions of are not correct.
Bell's theorem is 50 years old. Still there is a controversy about its implications. Much of it has its roots in confusion regarding the premises from which the theorem can be derived. Some claim that a derivation of Bell's inequalities requires just locality assumption, and nothing more. Violations of the inequalities are then interpreted as ``nonlocality'' or ``quantum nonlocality''. We show that such claims are unfounded and that every derivation of Bell's inequalities requires a premise -- in addition to locality and freedom of choice -- which is either assumed tacitly, or unconsciously, or is embedded in a single compound condition (like Bell's ``local causality''). The premise is equivalent to the assumption of existence of additional variables which do not appear in the quantum formalism (in form of determinism, or joint probability for outcomes of all conceivable measurements, or ``additional causes`'', or ``hidden variables'', ``complete description of the state'' or counterfactual definiteness, etc.). A certain irony is that perhaps the main message of violation of Bell's inequalities is that our notion of locality should be based on an operationally well-defined no-signalling condition, rather than on local causality.
It is proved that Bell's inequality can be traced back to a classical probabilistic formula that is invalid clearly, while the spin correlation formula in quantum mechanics to a formula that has confirmed both by facts and quantum mechanics. Two misunderstandings about Bell's theorem are pointed out: Firstly, the hidden variable theory Bell's used is a special one, but it is regarded as a general form of such theories. Secondly, there are two outcomes obtainable from Bell's hypotheses: one is compatible with quantum mechanics and the other leads to Bell's inequality. Unfortunately, the former is regarded as a property of local hidden variable theory, while the latter as self-evident. G. Lochak has revealed the first misunderstanding, and thereby he pointed out that Bell's inequality has nothing to do with locality, but he did not find the second one, so that he still analyzed this problem starting from hidden variable theory, which is actually irrelative to Bell's inequality. (The Journal of American Science. 2005;1(2):42-50).
Bell's theorem supposedly demonstrates an irreconcilable conflict between quantum mechanics and local, realistic hidden variable theories. In this paper we show that all experiments that aim to prove Bell's theorem do not actually achieve this goal. Our conclusions are based on a straightforward statistical analysis of the outcomes of these experiments. The key tool in our study is probability theory and, in particular, the concept of sample space for the dichotomic random variables that quantifies the outcomes of such experiments. We also show that an experimental proof of Bell's theorem is not, in principle, impossible, but it would require a completely different experimental apparatus than those commonly used to allegedly achieve this objective. The main consequence of our work is that we cannot dismiss local realistic hidden variable theories on the basis of currently available experimental data.
A factual inconsistency of the nonlocality theory is demonstrated via a careful analysis of the conceptual and formal contents of Bell's theorem and the inequalities associated with it. The conceptual inconsistency of the theory follows from the consideration that it is, in principle, impossible to formulate quantum mechanics in terms of local hidden variables. The formal inconsistency of the nonlocality theory follows from the facts that: (i) nonlocality is not a physical property that can be represented by a function or an operator; (ii) it is impossible to derive Bell's inequality in a mathematically consistent way; and (iii) Bell's definition of locality is incorrect. Therefore, Bell's theorem cannot serve as the foundation for the introduction of the nonlocality notion in quantum mechanics.
Bell’s inequality can be traced back to a classical probabilistic formula that is invalid clearly, while spin correlation formula in quantum mechanics to a formula that has confirmed both by facts and quantum mechanics. Bell’s two misunderstandings about Bell’s theorem are pointed out: Firstly, the hidden variable theory Bell’s used, which is a special form of such theories, is regarded as a general one. Secondly, there are two theses obtainable from Bell’s hypotheses; one is compatible with quantum mechanics, the other leads to Bell's inequality. Unfortunately, the former is regarded as a property of local hidden variable theory, while the latter as self-evident. G.Lochak has revealed the first thesis, and thereby he pointed out that Bell’s inequality has nothing to do with locality, but he did not find the second one, so that he still analyzed this problem starting from hidden variable theory, which is actually without regard to Bell’s inequality.
We will demonstrate in this paper that Bell's theorem (Bell's inequality) does not really conflict with quantum mechanics, the controversy between them originates from the different definitions for the expectation value using the probability distribution in Bell's inequality and the expectation value in quantum mechanics. We can not use quantum mechanical expectation value measured in experiments to show the violation of Bell's inequality and then further deny the local hidden-variables theory. Considering the difference of their expectation values, a generalized Bell's inequality is presented, which is coincided with the prediction of quantum mechanics.