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:1402.0351 · Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical

The two Bellʼs theorems of John Bell

Howard M. Wiseman

Published Oct 9, 2014• 130 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Many of the heated arguments about the meaning of 'Bellʼs theorem' arise because this phrase can refer to two different theorems that John Bell proved, the first in 1964 and the second in 1976.His 1964 theorem is the incompatibility of quantum phenomena with the dual assumptions of locality and determinism.His 1976 theorem is the incompatibility of quantum phenomena with the unitary property of local causality.This is contrary to Bellʼs own later assertions, that his 1964 theorem began with that single, and indivisible, assumption of local causality (even if not by that name).While there are other forms of Bellʼs theorems-which I present to explain the relation between Jarrett-completeness, 'fragile locality', and EPR-completeness-I maintain that Bellʼs two versions are the essential ones.Although the two Bellʼs theorems are logically equivalent, their assumptions are not, and the different versions of the theorem suggest quite different conclusions, which are embraced by different communities.For realists, the notion of local causality, ruled out by Bellʼs 1976 theorem, is motivated implicitly by Reichenbachʼs principle of common cause and explicitly by the principle of relativistic causality, and it is the latter which must be forgone.Operationalists pay no heed to Reichenbachʼs principle, but wish to keep the principle of relativistic causality, which, bolstered by an implicit 'principle of agent-causation', implies their notion of locality.Thus for operationalists, Bellʼs theorem is the 1964 one, and implies that it is determinism that must be forgone.I discuss why the two 'camps' are drawn to these different conclusions, and what can be done to increase mutual understanding.

DOI
10.1088/1751-8113/47/42/424001

Related papers

John S. Bell’s concept of local causality

Travis Norsen

John Stewart Bell’s famous theorem is widely regarded as one of the most important developments in the foundations of physics. Yet even as we approach the 50th anniversary of Bell’s discovery, its meaning and implications remain controversial. Many workers assert that Bell’s theorem refutes the possibility suggested by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) of supplementing ordinary quantum theory with “hidden” variables that might restore determinism and/or some notion of an observer-independent reality. But Bell himself interpreted the theorem very differently—as establishing an “essential conflict” between the well-tested empirical predictions of quantum theory and relativistic local causality. Our goal is to make Bell’s own views more widely known and to explain Bell’s little-known formulation of the concept of relativistic local causality on which his theorem rests. We also show precisely how Bell’s formulation of local causality can be used to derive an empirically testable Bell-type inequality and to recapitulate the EPR argument.

arXiv:0707.0401•American Journal of Physics•Nov 29, 2011•148 citations

Are there really two different Bell's theorems?

Travis Norsen

This is a polemical response to Howard Wiseman's recent paper, "The two Bell's theorems of John Bell". Wiseman argues that, in 1964, Bell established a conflict between the quantum mechanical predictions and the joint assumptions of determinism and (what is now usually known as) "parameter independence". Only later, in 1976, did Bell, according to Wiseman, first establish a conflict between the quantum mechanical predictions and locality alone (in the specific form that Bell would sometimes call "local causality"). Thus, according to Wiseman, the long-standing disagreements about what, exactly, Bell's theorem does and does not prove can be understood largely as miscommunications resulting from the fact that there are really two quite distinct "Bell's theorems". My goal here is to lay out what Wiseman briefly describes as an "alternate reading" of Bell's 1964 paper, according to which (quoting Wiseman here) "the first paragraph of Bell's `Formulation' section [should be seen] as an essential part of his 1964 theorem, the first part of a two-part argument." I will argue in particular that this "alternate reading" is the correct way to understand Bell's 1964 paper and that Wiseman's reading is strongly inconsistent with the available evidence.

arXiv:1503.05017•International journal of quantum foundations•Mar 17, 2015•16 citations

Local Causality and Completeness: Bell vs. Jarrett

Travis Norsen

J.S. Bell believed that his famous theorem entailed a deep and troubling conflict between the empirically verified predictions of quantum theory and the notion of local causality that is motivated by relativity theory. Yet many physicists continue to accept, usually on the reports of textbook writers and other commentators, that Bell's own view was wrong, and that, in fact, the theorem only brings out a conflict with determinism or the hidden-variables program or realism or some other such principle that (unlike local causality), allegedly, nobody should have believed anyway. (Moreover, typically such beliefs arise without the person in question even being aware that the view they are accepting differs so radically from Bell's own.) Here we try to shed some light on the situation by focusing on the concept of local causality that is the heart of Bell's theorem, and, in particular, by contrasting Bell's own understanding with the analysis of Jon Jarrett which has been the most influential source, in recent decades, for the kinds of claims mentioned previously. We point out a crucial difference between Jarrett's and Bell's own understanding of Bell's formulation of local causality, which turns out to be the basis for the erroneous claim, made by Jarrett and many others, that Bell misunderstood the implications of his own theorem.

•Aug 1, 2008•41 citations

Local Causality, Probability and Explanation

Richard Healey

In papers published in the 25 years following his famous 1964 proof, John Bell refined and reformulated his views on locality and causality. Although his formulations of local causality were in terms of probability, he had little to say about that notion. But assumptions about probability are implicit in his arguments and conclusions. Probability does not conform to these assumptions when quantum mechanics is applied to account for the particular correlations Bell argues are locally inexplicable. This account involves no superluminal action and there is even a sense in which it is local, but it is in tension with the requirement that the direct causes and effects of events be nearby. Introduction I never met John Bell, but his writings have supplied me with a continual source of new insights as I read and reread them over 40 years. As I worked toward a rather different understanding of quantum mechanics he was foremost in my mind as a severe but honest critic of such attempts. We all would love to know what Einstein would have made of Bell's theorem. I confess that the deep regret I feel that Bell cannot respond to this paper is sometimes assuaged by a sense of relief. Locality and Local Causality In his seminal 1964 paper [1], John Bell expressed locality as the requirement that the result of a measurement on one system be unaffected by operations on a distant system with which it has interacted in the past. [2, p. 14] This seems to require that the result of a measurement would have been the same, no matter what operations had been performed on such a distant system. But suppose the result of a measurement were the outcome of an indeterministic process. Then the result of the measurement might have been different even if exactly the same operations (if any) had been performed on that distant system. So can no indeterministic theory satisfy the locality requirement? Bell felt no need to address that awkward question in his 1964 paper [1], since he took the EPR argument to establish that any additional variables needed to restore locality and causalitywould have to determine a unique result of ameasurement.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 31, 2016•9 citations

Reply to Norsen's paper "Are there really two different Bell's theorems?"

Howard M. Wiseman, Eleanor Gilbert Rieffel

Yes. That is my polemical reply to the titular question in Travis Norsen's self-styled "polemical response to Howard Wiseman's recent paper." Less polemically, I am pleased to see that on two of my positions --- that Bell's 1964 theorem is different from Bell's 1976 theorem, and that the former does not include Bell's one-paragraph heuristic presentation of the EPR argument --- Norsen has made significant concessions. In his response, Norsen admits that "Bell's recapitulation of the EPR argument in [the relevant] paragraph leaves something to be desired," that it "disappoints" and is "problematic". Moreover, Norsen makes other statements that imply, on the face of it, that he should have no objections to the title of my recent paper ("The Two Bell's Theorems of John Bell"). My principle aim in writing that paper was to try to bridge the gap between two interpretational camps, whom I call 'operationalists' and 'realists', by pointing out that they use the phrase "Bell's theorem" to mean different things: his 1964 theorem (assuming locality and determinism) and his 1976 theorem (assuming local causality), respectively. Thus, it is heartening that at least one person from one side has taken one step on my bridge. That said, there are several issues of contention with Norsen, which we (the two authors) address after discussing the extent of our agreement with Norsen. The most significant issues are: the indefiniteness of the word 'locality' prior to 1964; and the assumptions Einstein made in the paper quoted by Bell in 1964 and their relation to Bell's theorem.

arXiv:1503.06978•International journal of quantum foundations•Mar 24, 2015•5 citations

Local Causality, Probability and Explanation

Richard Healey

In papers published in the 25 years following his famous 1964 proof John Bell refined and reformulated his views on locality and causality. Although his formulations of local causality were in terms of probability, he had little to say about that notion. But assumptions about probability are implicit in his arguments and conclusions. Probability does not conform to these assumptions when quantum mechanics is applied to account for the particular correlations Bell argues are locally inexplicable. This account involves no superluminal action and there is even a sense in which it is local, but it is in tension with the requirement that the direct causes and effects of events are nearby.

arXiv:1601.00106•Jan 1, 2016•0 citations
Many of the heated arguments about the meaning of 'Bellʼs theorem' arise because this phrase can refer to two different theorems that John Bell proved, the first in 1964 and the second in 1976.His 1964 theorem is the incompatibility of quantum phenomena with the dual assumptions of locality and determinism.His 1976 theorem is the incompatibility of quantum phenomena with the unitary property of local causality.This is contrary to Bellʼs own later assertions, that his 1964 theorem began with that single, and indivisible, assumption of local causality (even if not by that name).While there are other forms of Bellʼs theorems-which I present to explain the relation between Jarrett-completeness, 'fragile locality', and EPR-completeness-I maintain that Bellʼs two versions are the essential ones.Although the two Bellʼs theorems are logically equivalent, their assumptions are not, and the different versions of the theorem suggest quite different conclusions, which are embraced by different communities.For realists, the notion of local causality, ruled out by Bellʼs 1976 theorem, is motivated implicitly by Reichenbachʼs principle of common cause and explicitly by the principle of relativistic causality, and it is the latter which must be forgone.Operationalists pay no heed to Reichenbachʼs principle, but wish to keep the principle of relativistic causality, which, bolstered by an implicit 'principle of agent-causation', implies their notion of locality.Thus for operationalists, Bellʼs theorem is the 1964 one, and implies that it is determinism that must be forgone.I discuss why the two 'camps' are drawn to these different conclusions, and what can be done to increase mutual understanding.
John Stewart Bell’s famous theorem is widely regarded as one of the most important developments in the foundations of physics. Yet even as we approach the 50th anniversary of Bell’s discovery, its meaning and implications remain controversial. Many workers assert that Bell’s theorem refutes the possibility suggested by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) of supplementing ordinary quantum theory with “hidden” variables that might restore determinism and/or some notion of an observer-independent reality. But Bell himself interpreted the theorem very differently—as establishing an “essential conflict” between the well-tested empirical predictions of quantum theory and relativistic local causality. Our goal is to make Bell’s own views more widely known and to explain Bell’s little-known formulation of the concept of relativistic local causality on which his theorem rests. We also show precisely how Bell’s formulation of local causality can be used to derive an empirically testable Bell-type inequality and to recapitulate the EPR argument.
This is a polemical response to Howard Wiseman's recent paper, "The two Bell's theorems of John Bell". Wiseman argues that, in 1964, Bell established a conflict between the quantum mechanical predictions and the joint assumptions of determinism and (what is now usually known as) "parameter independence". Only later, in 1976, did Bell, according to Wiseman, first establish a conflict between the quantum mechanical predictions and locality alone (in the specific form that Bell would sometimes call "local causality"). Thus, according to Wiseman, the long-standing disagreements about what, exactly, Bell's theorem does and does not prove can be understood largely as miscommunications resulting from the fact that there are really two quite distinct "Bell's theorems". My goal here is to lay out what Wiseman briefly describes as an "alternate reading" of Bell's 1964 paper, according to which (quoting Wiseman here) "the first paragraph of Bell's `Formulation' section [should be seen] as an essential part of his 1964 theorem, the first part of a two-part argument." I will argue in particular that this "alternate reading" is the correct way to understand Bell's 1964 paper and that Wiseman's reading is strongly inconsistent with the available evidence.
J.S. Bell believed that his famous theorem entailed a deep and troubling conflict between the empirically verified predictions of quantum theory and the notion of local causality that is motivated by relativity theory. Yet many physicists continue to accept, usually on the reports of textbook writers and other commentators, that Bell's own view was wrong, and that, in fact, the theorem only brings out a conflict with determinism or the hidden-variables program or realism or some other such principle that (unlike local causality), allegedly, nobody should have believed anyway. (Moreover, typically such beliefs arise without the person in question even being aware that the view they are accepting differs so radically from Bell's own.) Here we try to shed some light on the situation by focusing on the concept of local causality that is the heart of Bell's theorem, and, in particular, by contrasting Bell's own understanding with the analysis of Jon Jarrett which has been the most influential source, in recent decades, for the kinds of claims mentioned previously. We point out a crucial difference between Jarrett's and Bell's own understanding of Bell's formulation of local causality, which turns out to be the basis for the erroneous claim, made by Jarrett and many others, that Bell misunderstood the implications of his own theorem.
In papers published in the 25 years following his famous 1964 proof, John Bell refined and reformulated his views on locality and causality. Although his formulations of local causality were in terms of probability, he had little to say about that notion. But assumptions about probability are implicit in his arguments and conclusions. Probability does not conform to these assumptions when quantum mechanics is applied to account for the particular correlations Bell argues are locally inexplicable. This account involves no superluminal action and there is even a sense in which it is local, but it is in tension with the requirement that the direct causes and effects of events be nearby. Introduction I never met John Bell, but his writings have supplied me with a continual source of new insights as I read and reread them over 40 years. As I worked toward a rather different understanding of quantum mechanics he was foremost in my mind as a severe but honest critic of such attempts. We all would love to know what Einstein would have made of Bell's theorem. I confess that the deep regret I feel that Bell cannot respond to this paper is sometimes assuaged by a sense of relief. Locality and Local Causality In his seminal 1964 paper [1], John Bell expressed locality as the requirement that the result of a measurement on one system be unaffected by operations on a distant system with which it has interacted in the past. [2, p. 14] This seems to require that the result of a measurement would have been the same, no matter what operations had been performed on such a distant system. But suppose the result of a measurement were the outcome of an indeterministic process. Then the result of the measurement might have been different even if exactly the same operations (if any) had been performed on that distant system. So can no indeterministic theory satisfy the locality requirement? Bell felt no need to address that awkward question in his 1964 paper [1], since he took the EPR argument to establish that any additional variables needed to restore locality and causalitywould have to determine a unique result of ameasurement.
Yes. That is my polemical reply to the titular question in Travis Norsen's self-styled "polemical response to Howard Wiseman's recent paper." Less polemically, I am pleased to see that on two of my positions --- that Bell's 1964 theorem is different from Bell's 1976 theorem, and that the former does not include Bell's one-paragraph heuristic presentation of the EPR argument --- Norsen has made significant concessions. In his response, Norsen admits that "Bell's recapitulation of the EPR argument in [the relevant] paragraph leaves something to be desired," that it "disappoints" and is "problematic". Moreover, Norsen makes other statements that imply, on the face of it, that he should have no objections to the title of my recent paper ("The Two Bell's Theorems of John Bell"). My principle aim in writing that paper was to try to bridge the gap between two interpretational camps, whom I call 'operationalists' and 'realists', by pointing out that they use the phrase "Bell's theorem" to mean different things: his 1964 theorem (assuming locality and determinism) and his 1976 theorem (assuming local causality), respectively. Thus, it is heartening that at least one person from one side has taken one step on my bridge. That said, there are several issues of contention with Norsen, which we (the two authors) address after discussing the extent of our agreement with Norsen. The most significant issues are: the indefiniteness of the word 'locality' prior to 1964; and the assumptions Einstein made in the paper quoted by Bell in 1964 and their relation to Bell's theorem.
In papers published in the 25 years following his famous 1964 proof John Bell refined and reformulated his views on locality and causality. Although his formulations of local causality were in terms of probability, he had little to say about that notion. But assumptions about probability are implicit in his arguments and conclusions. Probability does not conform to these assumptions when quantum mechanics is applied to account for the particular correlations Bell argues are locally inexplicable. This account involves no superluminal action and there is even a sense in which it is local, but it is in tension with the requirement that the direct causes and effects of events are nearby.