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:1402.6177

On the meaning of an additional hypothesis in the Bell's inequalities

Alejandro Andrés Hnilo

Published Feb 25, 2014• 3 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The Bell's inequalities are derived from the hypotheses of Locality, Realism and (what is lesser known) the equality between the factual and the counterfactual time averages of the expectation values of observables. The necessity of a hypothesis additional to Local Realism opens a promising way out to the old controversy between Quantum Mechanics and Local Realism. For, it is possible to speculate that it is this additional hypothesis, and not Local Realism, what is disproved in the experiments reporting the violation of the Bell's inequalities. Yet, there are doubts on how the additional hypothesis may be violated in a physically reasonable process. A simple example showing that this is possible, the relationship between the validity of the additional hypothesis and the validity of the Bell's inequalities, and considerations on its physical meaning, are presented.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1402.6177

Related papers

Using Measured Values in Bell’s Inequalities Entails at Least One Hypothesis in Addition to Local Realism

Alejandro Andrés Hnilo

The recent loophole-free experiments have confirmed the violation of Bell’s inequalities in nature. Yet, in order to insert measured values in Bell’s inequalities, it is unavoidable to make a hypothesis similar to “ergodicity at the hidden variables level”. This possibility opens a promising way out from the old controversy between quantum mechanics and local realism. Here, I review the reason why such a hypothesis (actually, it is one of a set of related hypotheses) in addition to local realism is necessary, and present a simple example, related to Bell’s inequalities, where the hypothesis is violated. This example shows that the violation of the additional hypothesis is necessary, but not sufficient, to violate Bell’s inequalities without violating local realism. The example also provides some clues that may reveal the violation of the additional hypothesis in an experiment.

Entropy•Apr 22, 2017•5 citations

Time weakens the Bell's inequalities

Alejandro Andrés Hnilo

By taking into account that all real measurements are performed successively, during time, it is concluded that the violation of the Bell's inequalities in the Nature does not refute (even in an ideally perfect experiment) the theories holding to Local Realism, for an unavoidable additional assumption is involved. Yet, in order to be acceptable, such theories must predict different values for the factual and counterfactual time averages of probabilities or observables.

arXiv:1306.1383•Jun 6, 2013•2 citations

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

The EPR-B Paradox Resolution. Bell inequalities revisited.

Jaykov Foukzon, Менькова Елена Романовна, Alexander A Potapov

Abstract One of the Bell’s assumptions in the original derivation of his inequalities was the hypothesis of locality, i.e., the absence of the influence of two remote measuring instruments on one another. That is why violations of these inequalities observed in experiments are often interpreted as a manifestation of the nonlocal nature of quantum mechanics, or a refutation of a local realism. It is well known that the Bell’s inequality was derived in its traditional form, without resorting to the hypothesis of locality and without the introduction of hidden variables, the only assumption being that the probability distributions are nonnegative. This can therefore be regarded as a rigorous proof that the hypothesis of locality and the hypothesis of existence of the hidden variables not relevant to violations of Bell’s inequalities. The physical meaning of the obtained results is examined. Physical nature of the violation of the Bell inequalities is explained under new EPR-B nonlocality postulate. We show that the correlations of the observables involved in the Bohm–Bell type experiments can be expressed as correlations of classical random variables. The revisited Bell type inequality in canonical notatons reads 〈AB〉 + 〈A’B〉 + 〈AB’〉 − 〈A’B’〉 ⩽ 6.

Journal of Physics Conference Series•Nov 1, 2019•0 citations

On Bell Experiments and Quantum Entanglement

Guang-Liang Li

Bell inequalities are intended to formulate mathematically the argument of the thought-experiment proposed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) in the Einstein-Bohr Debate. Devised to test Bell inequalities against quantum mechanics for resolving the Einstein-Bohr debate, Bell experiments are purportedly modern versions of the EPR experiment. However, there exists a fatal logical flaw in Bell experiments. Because of the logical flaw, Bell experiments differ essentially from the EPR experiment, and quantum correlation in the EPR experiment is not "quantum entanglement" in Bell experiments; the latter is not physically meaningful. In addition to the logical flaw in Bell experiments, a physical constraint imposed on measuring individual quantum objects is violated by all Bell inequalities, which makes Bell inequalities physically meaningless. Unlike Bell experiments, the EPR experiment will not violate any physical constraint, and the EPR argument has no logical flaw. Consequently, the experimental invalidation of Bell inequalities is not evidence for falsifying the two fundamental hypotheses for scientific research, i.e., locality and realism, underlying the EPR experiment, and by no means can Bell experiments resolve the Einstein-Bohr debate. Stemming from abandoning either locality or realism or both, the so-called new applications of quantum mechanics, including various quantum information technologies, are all ineligible and doomed to failure, for they attempt to exploit physically meaningless "quantum superposition" or "quantum entanglement", treating them as physical resources "out there" in the real world.

Qeios•Sep 4, 2023•3 citations

Violations of Locality Beyond Bell's Theorem

Zeng‐Bing Chen, Sixia Yu, Zhang, Yong-De

Locality and realism are two main assumptions in deriving Bell's inequalities. Though the experimentally demonstrated violations of Bell's inequalities rule out local realism, it is, however, not clear what role each of the two assumptions solely plays in the observed violations. Here we show that two testable inequalities for the statistical predictions of two-qubit systems can be derived by assuming either locality or realism. It turns out that quantum mechanics respects a nonlocal classical realism, and it is locality that is incompatible with experimental observations and quantum mechanics.

arXiv:quant-ph/0307143•Jul 20, 2003•1 citation
The Bell's inequalities are derived from the hypotheses of Locality, Realism and (what is lesser known) the equality between the factual and the counterfactual time averages of the expectation values of observables. The necessity of a hypothesis additional to Local Realism opens a promising way out to the old controversy between Quantum Mechanics and Local Realism. For, it is possible to speculate that it is this additional hypothesis, and not Local Realism, what is disproved in the experiments reporting the violation of the Bell's inequalities. Yet, there are doubts on how the additional hypothesis may be violated in a physically reasonable process. A simple example showing that this is possible, the relationship between the validity of the additional hypothesis and the validity of the Bell's inequalities, and considerations on its physical meaning, are presented.
The recent loophole-free experiments have confirmed the violation of Bell’s inequalities in nature. Yet, in order to insert measured values in Bell’s inequalities, it is unavoidable to make a hypothesis similar to “ergodicity at the hidden variables level”. This possibility opens a promising way out from the old controversy between quantum mechanics and local realism. Here, I review the reason why such a hypothesis (actually, it is one of a set of related hypotheses) in addition to local realism is necessary, and present a simple example, related to Bell’s inequalities, where the hypothesis is violated. This example shows that the violation of the additional hypothesis is necessary, but not sufficient, to violate Bell’s inequalities without violating local realism. The example also provides some clues that may reveal the violation of the additional hypothesis in an experiment.
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.
Abstract One of the Bell’s assumptions in the original derivation of his inequalities was the hypothesis of locality, i.e., the absence of the influence of two remote measuring instruments on one another. That is why violations of these inequalities observed in experiments are often interpreted as a manifestation of the nonlocal nature of quantum mechanics, or a refutation of a local realism. It is well known that the Bell’s inequality was derived in its traditional form, without resorting to the hypothesis of locality and without the introduction of hidden variables, the only assumption being that the probability distributions are nonnegative. This can therefore be regarded as a rigorous proof that the hypothesis of locality and the hypothesis of existence of the hidden variables not relevant to violations of Bell’s inequalities. The physical meaning of the obtained results is examined. Physical nature of the violation of the Bell inequalities is explained under new EPR-B nonlocality postulate. We show that the correlations of the observables involved in the Bohm–Bell type experiments can be expressed as correlations of classical random variables. The revisited Bell type inequality in canonical notatons reads 〈AB〉 + 〈A’B〉 + 〈AB’〉 − 〈A’B’〉 ⩽ 6.
Bell inequalities are intended to formulate mathematically the argument of the thought-experiment proposed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) in the Einstein-Bohr Debate. Devised to test Bell inequalities against quantum mechanics for resolving the Einstein-Bohr debate, Bell experiments are purportedly modern versions of the EPR experiment. However, there exists a fatal logical flaw in Bell experiments. Because of the logical flaw, Bell experiments differ essentially from the EPR experiment, and quantum correlation in the EPR experiment is not "quantum entanglement" in Bell experiments; the latter is not physically meaningful. In addition to the logical flaw in Bell experiments, a physical constraint imposed on measuring individual quantum objects is violated by all Bell inequalities, which makes Bell inequalities physically meaningless. Unlike Bell experiments, the EPR experiment will not violate any physical constraint, and the EPR argument has no logical flaw. Consequently, the experimental invalidation of Bell inequalities is not evidence for falsifying the two fundamental hypotheses for scientific research, i.e., locality and realism, underlying the EPR experiment, and by no means can Bell experiments resolve the Einstein-Bohr debate. Stemming from abandoning either locality or realism or both, the so-called new applications of quantum mechanics, including various quantum information technologies, are all ineligible and doomed to failure, for they attempt to exploit physically meaningless "quantum superposition" or "quantum entanglement", treating them as physical resources "out there" in the real world.
Locality and realism are two main assumptions in deriving Bell's inequalities. Though the experimentally demonstrated violations of Bell's inequalities rule out local realism, it is, however, not clear what role each of the two assumptions solely plays in the observed violations. Here we show that two testable inequalities for the statistical predictions of two-qubit systems can be derived by assuming either locality or realism. It turns out that quantum mechanics respects a nonlocal classical realism, and it is locality that is incompatible with experimental observations and quantum mechanics.