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:1312.6361 · Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE

Data analysis of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm laboratory experiments

Hans A. De Raedt, F. Jin, K. Michielsen

Published Oct 1, 2013• 21 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Data sets produced by three different Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm (EPRB) experiments are tested against the hypothesis that the statistics of this data is described by quantum theory. Although these experiments generate data that violate Bell inequalities for suitable choices of the time-coincidence window, the analysis shows that it is highly unlikely that these data sets are compatible with the quantum theoretical description of the EPRB experiment, suggesting that the popular statements that EPRB experiments agree with quantum theory lack a solid scientific basis and that more precise experiments are called for.

DOI
10.1117/12.2021860

Related papers

Data analysis of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm laboratory experiments

Hans A. De Raedt, Fengping Jin, Kristel F. L. Michielsen

Data sets produced by three different Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm (EPRB) experiments are tested against the hypothesis that the statistics of this data is described by quantum theory. Although these experiments generate data that violate Bell inequalities for suitable choices of the time-coincidence window, the analysis shows that it is highly unlikely that these data sets are compatible with the quantum theoretical description of the EPRB experiment, suggesting that the popular statements that EPRB experiments agree with quantum theory lack a solid scientific basis and that more precise experiments are called for.

•Jan 1, 2013•23 citations

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm laboratory experiments: Data analysis and simulation

Hans A. De Raedt, Kristel F. L. Michielsen, Fengping Jin

Data produced by laboratory Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm (EPRB) experiments is tested against the hypothesis that the statistics of this data is given by quantum theory of this thought experiment. Statistical evidence is presented that the experimental data, while violating Bell inequalities, does not support this hypothesis. It is shown that an event-based simulation model, providing a cause-and-effect description of real EPRB experiments at a level of detail which is not covered by quantum theory, reproduces the results of quantum theory of this thought experiment, indicating that there is no fundamental obstacle for a real EPRB experiment to produce data that can be described by quantum theory.

arXiv:1112.2629•AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2012•30 citations

Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm experiments: A discrete data driven approach

Hans A. De Raedt, Mikhail I. Katsnelson, Manpreet Singh Jattana +5 more

We take the point of view that building a one-way bridge from experimental data to mathematical models instead of the other way around avoids running into controversies resulting from attaching meaning to the symbols used in the latter. In particular, we show that adopting this view offers new perspectives for constructing mathematical models for and interpreting the results of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm experiments. We first prove new Bell-type inequalities constraining the values of the four correlations obtained by performing Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm experiments under four different conditions. The proof is “model-free” in the sense that it does not refer to any mathematical model that one imagines to have produced the data. The constraints only depend on the number of quadruples obtained by reshuffling the data in the four data sets without changing the values of the correlations. These new inequalities reduce to model-free versions of the well-known Bell-type inequalities if the maximum fraction of quadruples is equal to one. Being model-free, a violation of the latter by experimental data implies that not all the data in the four data sets can be reshuffled to form quadruples. Furthermore, being model-free inequalities, a violation of the latter by experimental data only implies that any mathematical model assumed to produce this data does not apply. Starting from the data obtained by performing Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm experiments, we construct instead of postulate mathematical models that describe the main features of these data. The mathematical framework of plausible reasoning is applied to reproducible and robust data, yielding without using any concept of quantum theory, the expression of the correlation for a system of two spin-1/2 objects in the singlet state. Next, we apply Bell’s theorem to the Stern–Gerlach experiment and demonstrate how the requirement of separability leads to the quantum-theoretical description of the averages and correlations obtained from an Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm experiment. We analyze the data of an Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm experiment and debunk the popular statement that Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm experiments have vindicated quantum theory. We argue that it is not quantum theory but the processing of data from EPRB experiments that should be questioned. We perform Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm experiments on a superconducting quantum information processor to show that the event-by-event generation of discrete data can yield results that are in good agreement with the quantum-theoretical description of the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm thought experiment. We demonstrate that a stochastic and a subquantum model can also produce data that are in excellent agreement with the quantum-theoretical description of the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm thought experiment.

arXiv:2304.03962•Annals of Physics•Apr 14, 2023•12 citations

Kolmogorov’s Probability Spaces for “Entangled” Data-Subsets of EPRB Experiments: No Violation of Einstein’s Separation Principle

K. Hess

It is demonstrated that the use of Kolmogorov’s probability theory to describe results of quantum probability for EPRB (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm) experiments requires extreme care when different subsets of measurement outcomes are considered. J. S. Bell and his followers have committed critical inaccuracies related to spin-gauge and probability measures of such subsets, because they use exclusively a single probability space for all data sets and sub-sets of data. It is also shown that Bell and followers use far too stringent epistemological requirements for the consequences of space-like separation. Their requirements reach way beyond Einstein’s separation principle and cannot be met by the major existing physical theories including relativity and even classical mechanics. For example, the independent free will does not empower the experimenters to choose multiple independent spin-gauges in the two EPRB wings. It is demonstrated that the suggestion of instantaneous influences at a distance (supposedly “derived” from experiments with entangled quantum entities) is a consequence of said inaccuracies and takes back rank as soon as the Kolmogorov probability measures are related to a consistent global spin-gauge and permitted to be different for different data subsets: Using statistical interpretations and different probability spaces for certain subsets of outcomes instead of probability amplitudes related to single quantum entities, permits physical explanations without a violation of Einstein’s separation principle.

Journal of Modern Physics•Jan 1, 2020•5 citations

The Bell inequality cannot be validly applied to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm (EPRB) experiments

Donald A. Graft

Physics Essays•Nov 20, 2009•7 citations

Quantum theory as a description of robust experiments: application to Stern-Gerlach and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm experiments

Hans A. De Raedt, Mikhail I. Katsnelson, Hylke C. Donker +1 more

We propose and develop the thesis that the quantum theoretical description of experiments emerges from the desire to organize experimental data such that the description of the system under scrutiny and the one used to acquire the data are separated as much as possible. Application to the Stern-Gerlach and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm experiments are shown to support this thesis. General principles of logical inference which have been shown to lead to the Schrödinger and Pauli equation and the probabilistic descriptions of the Stern-Gerlach and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm experiments, are used to demonstrate that the condition for the separation procedure to yield the quantum theoretical description is intimately related to the assumptions that the observed events are independent and that the data generated by these experiments is robust with respect to small changes of the conditions under which the experiment is carried out.

arXiv:1506.03373•Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE•Sep 10, 2015•5 citations
Data sets produced by three different Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm (EPRB) experiments are tested against the hypothesis that the statistics of this data is described by quantum theory. Although these experiments generate data that violate Bell inequalities for suitable choices of the time-coincidence window, the analysis shows that it is highly unlikely that these data sets are compatible with the quantum theoretical description of the EPRB experiment, suggesting that the popular statements that EPRB experiments agree with quantum theory lack a solid scientific basis and that more precise experiments are called for.
Data sets produced by three different Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm (EPRB) experiments are tested against the hypothesis that the statistics of this data is described by quantum theory. Although these experiments generate data that violate Bell inequalities for suitable choices of the time-coincidence window, the analysis shows that it is highly unlikely that these data sets are compatible with the quantum theoretical description of the EPRB experiment, suggesting that the popular statements that EPRB experiments agree with quantum theory lack a solid scientific basis and that more precise experiments are called for.
Data produced by laboratory Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm (EPRB) experiments is tested against the hypothesis that the statistics of this data is given by quantum theory of this thought experiment. Statistical evidence is presented that the experimental data, while violating Bell inequalities, does not support this hypothesis. It is shown that an event-based simulation model, providing a cause-and-effect description of real EPRB experiments at a level of detail which is not covered by quantum theory, reproduces the results of quantum theory of this thought experiment, indicating that there is no fundamental obstacle for a real EPRB experiment to produce data that can be described by quantum theory.
We take the point of view that building a one-way bridge from experimental data to mathematical models instead of the other way around avoids running into controversies resulting from attaching meaning to the symbols used in the latter. In particular, we show that adopting this view offers new perspectives for constructing mathematical models for and interpreting the results of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm experiments. We first prove new Bell-type inequalities constraining the values of the four correlations obtained by performing Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm experiments under four different conditions. The proof is “model-free” in the sense that it does not refer to any mathematical model that one imagines to have produced the data. The constraints only depend on the number of quadruples obtained by reshuffling the data in the four data sets without changing the values of the correlations. These new inequalities reduce to model-free versions of the well-known Bell-type inequalities if the maximum fraction of quadruples is equal to one. Being model-free, a violation of the latter by experimental data implies that not all the data in the four data sets can be reshuffled to form quadruples. Furthermore, being model-free inequalities, a violation of the latter by experimental data only implies that any mathematical model assumed to produce this data does not apply. Starting from the data obtained by performing Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm experiments, we construct instead of postulate mathematical models that describe the main features of these data. The mathematical framework of plausible reasoning is applied to reproducible and robust data, yielding without using any concept of quantum theory, the expression of the correlation for a system of two spin-1/2 objects in the singlet state. Next, we apply Bell’s theorem to the Stern–Gerlach experiment and demonstrate how the requirement of separability leads to the quantum-theoretical description of the averages and correlations obtained from an Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm experiment. We analyze the data of an Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm experiment and debunk the popular statement that Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm experiments have vindicated quantum theory. We argue that it is not quantum theory but the processing of data from EPRB experiments that should be questioned. We perform Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm experiments on a superconducting quantum information processor to show that the event-by-event generation of discrete data can yield results that are in good agreement with the quantum-theoretical description of the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm thought experiment. We demonstrate that a stochastic and a subquantum model can also produce data that are in excellent agreement with the quantum-theoretical description of the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bohm thought experiment.
It is demonstrated that the use of Kolmogorov’s probability theory to describe results of quantum probability for EPRB (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm) experiments requires extreme care when different subsets of measurement outcomes are considered. J. S. Bell and his followers have committed critical inaccuracies related to spin-gauge and probability measures of such subsets, because they use exclusively a single probability space for all data sets and sub-sets of data. It is also shown that Bell and followers use far too stringent epistemological requirements for the consequences of space-like separation. Their requirements reach way beyond Einstein’s separation principle and cannot be met by the major existing physical theories including relativity and even classical mechanics. For example, the independent free will does not empower the experimenters to choose multiple independent spin-gauges in the two EPRB wings. It is demonstrated that the suggestion of instantaneous influences at a distance (supposedly “derived” from experiments with entangled quantum entities) is a consequence of said inaccuracies and takes back rank as soon as the Kolmogorov probability measures are related to a consistent global spin-gauge and permitted to be different for different data subsets: Using statistical interpretations and different probability spaces for certain subsets of outcomes instead of probability amplitudes related to single quantum entities, permits physical explanations without a violation of Einstein’s separation principle.
We propose and develop the thesis that the quantum theoretical description of experiments emerges from the desire to organize experimental data such that the description of the system under scrutiny and the one used to acquire the data are separated as much as possible. Application to the Stern-Gerlach and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm experiments are shown to support this thesis. General principles of logical inference which have been shown to lead to the Schrödinger and Pauli equation and the probabilistic descriptions of the Stern-Gerlach and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm experiments, are used to demonstrate that the condition for the separation procedure to yield the quantum theoretical description is intimately related to the assumptions that the observed events are independent and that the data generated by these experiments is robust with respect to small changes of the conditions under which the experiment is carried out.