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:1501.04618 · Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical

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

Marek Żukowski, Časlav Brukner

Published Oct 9, 2014• 100 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

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.

DOI
10.1088/1751-8113/47/42/424009

Related papers

Lessons of Bell's Theorem: Nonlocality, Yes; Action at a Distance, Not Necessarily

Wayne C. Myrvold

Introduction Fifty years after the publication of Bell's theorem, there remains some controversy regarding what the theorem is telling us about quantum mechanics, and what the experimental violations of Bell inequalities are telling us about the world. This chapter represents my best attempt to be clear about what I think the lessons are. In brief: There is some sort of nonlocality inherent in any quantum theory, and, moreover, in any theory that reproduces, even approximately, the quantum probabilities for the outcomes of experiments. But not all forms of nonlocality are the same; there is a distinction to be made between action at a distance and other forms of nonlocality, and I will argue that the nonlocality needed to violate the Bell inequalities need not involve action at a distance. Furthermore, the distinction between forms of nonlocality makes a difference when it comes to compatibility with relativistic causal structure. The Bell locality condition is a condition which, if satisfied, renders possible a completely local account of the correlations between outcomes of spatially separated experiments. Bell's theorem tells us that the probabilities that we compute from quantum mechanics do not admit of such an account. Modulo auxiliary assumptions that, in my opinion, should be noncontroversial, this yields the conclusion that there must be something nonlocal about any theory that yields the quantum mechanical probabilities or anything close to them. One way to violate the Bell locality condition – and this is the way that any deterministic theory must do it – is via straightforward action at a distance. However, we should also consider the possibility of a stochastic theorywith probabilistic laws that involve irreducible correlations. The sort of nonlocality inherent in such a theory involves relations between events that are significantly different from causal relations as usually conceived. Perhaps surprisingly, such a theory, unlike its deterministic cousins, need not invoke a distinguished relation of distant simultaneity. This makes a difference for the situation of the two sorts of theories vis-a-vis relativity. Though a deterministic theory can achieve the appearance of being relativistic, at the level of observable phenomena, it can do so only by introducing a preferred foliation and with it a causal structure at odds with relativistic causal structures. Things are otherwise with dynamical collapse theories.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 31, 2016•15 citations

Extending Bell's Theorem: Nonlocality via Measurement Dependence

G. Bacciagaluppi, R. Hermens, G. Leegwater

Besides well-known conditions of locality or factorisability, deriving the Bell inequalities requires assuming that the distribution of hidden variables and Alice's and Bob's measurement settings be independent of each other. We show that (analogously to violations of locality due to action at a distance) certain violations of this Measurement Independence assumption can be associated with a notion of signalling in principle, thus making them also testable in principle, and spell out the appropriate conditions. Accordingly, we show that by imposing no-signalling one can prove a version of Bell's theorem that does not require the assumption of Measurement Independence. We discuss the "Schulman model" as an example, as well as lessons for "experimental metaphysics".

quant-pharXiv:2602.11300•Feb 13, 2026•0 citations

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

Aurélien Drezet

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.

arXiv:0909.4200•Sep 23, 2009•0 citations

The Empty Scope of Bell's Theorem

Horace P. Yuen

Bell inequality is violated in quantum mechanics and in experiments. Bell's theorem, on the other hand, concludes that quantum physics or nature is hence nonlocal. Bell's derivation of such a theorem comes in two versions, BT1 in which he started with determinism assumption in his 1964 original paper, and BT2 in his 1976 paper where he started with a "local causality" condition (LC). In this paper we show that (LC) does not follow from the physical concept of local causality except in the determinism limit. A local hidden variable model for the singlet pair is given that yields the correct quantum predictions for pair correlations. We also show determinism flagrantly violates quantum predictions. Thus Bell's theorem has no scope of applicability on possible hidden variable theory for quantum mechanics.

•Jan 1, 2019•0 citations

From locality to factorizability: a novel escape from Bell's theorem

G. S. Ciepielewski, E. Okon

While initial versions of Bell's theorem captured the notion of locality with the assumption of factorizability, in later presentations, Bell argued that factorizability could be derived from the more fundamental principle of local causality. Here we show that, contrary to what is commonly assumed, in order to derive factorizability from the principle of local causality, a non-trivial assumption, similar but strictly independent of settings independence, is required. Loosely speaking, such an extra assumption demands independence between the states of the measurement apparatuses. We conclude that it is possible to construct a model, satisfying both the principle of local causality and settings independence, but that, in virtue of violating this additional assumption--and thus factorizability--is able to break Bell's inequality.

arXiv:2204.05162•Apr 11, 2022•0 citations

Bell on Bell's Theorem: The Changing Face of Nonlocality

Harvey R. Brown, Christopher G. Timpson

Between 1964 and 1990, the notion of nonlocality in Bell's papers underwent a profound change as his nonlocality theorem gradually became detached from quantum mechanics, and referred to wider probabilistic theories involving correlations between separated beables. The proposition that standard quantum mechanics is itself nonlocal (more precisely, that it violates ‘local causality’) became divorced from the Bell theorem per se from 1976 on, although this important point is widely overlooked in the literature. In 1990, the year of his death, Bell would express serious misgivings about themathematical form of the local causality condition and leave ill-defined the issue of the consistency between special relativity and violation of the Bell-type inequality. In our view, the significance of the Bell theorem, in both its deterministic and stochastic forms, can only be fully understood by taking into account the fact that a fully Lorentz covariant version of quantum theory, free of action at a distance, can be articulated in the Everett interpretation. Introduction John S. Bell's last word on his celebrated nonlocality theorem and its interpretation appeared in his 1990 paper ‘La nouvelle cuisine’, first published in the year of his untimely death. Bell was careful here to distinguish between the issue of ‘no superluminal signalling’ in quantum theory (both quantum field theory and quantum mechanics) and a principle he first introduced explicitly in 1976 and called ‘local causality’ [1]. In relation to the former, Bell expressed concerns that amplify doubts he had already expressed in 1976. These concerns touch on what is now widely known as the no-signalling theorem in quantum mechanics, and ultimately have to do with Bell's distaste for what he saw as an anthropocentric element in orthodox quantum thinking. In relation to local causality, Bell emphasised that his famous factorizability (no-correlations) condition is not to be seen ‘as the formulation of local causality, but as a consequence thereof’ and stressed how difficult he found it to articulate this consequence. He left the question of any strict inconsistency between violation of factorizability and special relativity theory unresolved, a not insignificant shift from his thinking up to the early 1980s.

arXiv:1501.03521•Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 31, 2016•21 citations
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.
Introduction Fifty years after the publication of Bell's theorem, there remains some controversy regarding what the theorem is telling us about quantum mechanics, and what the experimental violations of Bell inequalities are telling us about the world. This chapter represents my best attempt to be clear about what I think the lessons are. In brief: There is some sort of nonlocality inherent in any quantum theory, and, moreover, in any theory that reproduces, even approximately, the quantum probabilities for the outcomes of experiments. But not all forms of nonlocality are the same; there is a distinction to be made between action at a distance and other forms of nonlocality, and I will argue that the nonlocality needed to violate the Bell inequalities need not involve action at a distance. Furthermore, the distinction between forms of nonlocality makes a difference when it comes to compatibility with relativistic causal structure. The Bell locality condition is a condition which, if satisfied, renders possible a completely local account of the correlations between outcomes of spatially separated experiments. Bell's theorem tells us that the probabilities that we compute from quantum mechanics do not admit of such an account. Modulo auxiliary assumptions that, in my opinion, should be noncontroversial, this yields the conclusion that there must be something nonlocal about any theory that yields the quantum mechanical probabilities or anything close to them. One way to violate the Bell locality condition – and this is the way that any deterministic theory must do it – is via straightforward action at a distance. However, we should also consider the possibility of a stochastic theorywith probabilistic laws that involve irreducible correlations. The sort of nonlocality inherent in such a theory involves relations between events that are significantly different from causal relations as usually conceived. Perhaps surprisingly, such a theory, unlike its deterministic cousins, need not invoke a distinguished relation of distant simultaneity. This makes a difference for the situation of the two sorts of theories vis-a-vis relativity. Though a deterministic theory can achieve the appearance of being relativistic, at the level of observable phenomena, it can do so only by introducing a preferred foliation and with it a causal structure at odds with relativistic causal structures. Things are otherwise with dynamical collapse theories.
Besides well-known conditions of locality or factorisability, deriving the Bell inequalities requires assuming that the distribution of hidden variables and Alice's and Bob's measurement settings be independent of each other. We show that (analogously to violations of locality due to action at a distance) certain violations of this Measurement Independence assumption can be associated with a notion of signalling in principle, thus making them also testable in principle, and spell out the appropriate conditions. Accordingly, we show that by imposing no-signalling one can prove a version of Bell's theorem that does not require the assumption of Measurement Independence. We discuss the "Schulman model" as an example, as well as lessons for "experimental metaphysics".
Bell inequality is violated in quantum mechanics and in experiments. Bell's theorem, on the other hand, concludes that quantum physics or nature is hence nonlocal. Bell's derivation of such a theorem comes in two versions, BT1 in which he started with determinism assumption in his 1964 original paper, and BT2 in his 1976 paper where he started with a "local causality" condition (LC). In this paper we show that (LC) does not follow from the physical concept of local causality except in the determinism limit. A local hidden variable model for the singlet pair is given that yields the correct quantum predictions for pair correlations. We also show determinism flagrantly violates quantum predictions. Thus Bell's theorem has no scope of applicability on possible hidden variable theory for quantum mechanics.
While initial versions of Bell's theorem captured the notion of locality with the assumption of factorizability, in later presentations, Bell argued that factorizability could be derived from the more fundamental principle of local causality. Here we show that, contrary to what is commonly assumed, in order to derive factorizability from the principle of local causality, a non-trivial assumption, similar but strictly independent of settings independence, is required. Loosely speaking, such an extra assumption demands independence between the states of the measurement apparatuses. We conclude that it is possible to construct a model, satisfying both the principle of local causality and settings independence, but that, in virtue of violating this additional assumption--and thus factorizability--is able to break Bell's inequality.
Between 1964 and 1990, the notion of nonlocality in Bell's papers underwent a profound change as his nonlocality theorem gradually became detached from quantum mechanics, and referred to wider probabilistic theories involving correlations between separated beables. The proposition that standard quantum mechanics is itself nonlocal (more precisely, that it violates ‘local causality’) became divorced from the Bell theorem per se from 1976 on, although this important point is widely overlooked in the literature. In 1990, the year of his death, Bell would express serious misgivings about themathematical form of the local causality condition and leave ill-defined the issue of the consistency between special relativity and violation of the Bell-type inequality. In our view, the significance of the Bell theorem, in both its deterministic and stochastic forms, can only be fully understood by taking into account the fact that a fully Lorentz covariant version of quantum theory, free of action at a distance, can be articulated in the Everett interpretation. Introduction John S. Bell's last word on his celebrated nonlocality theorem and its interpretation appeared in his 1990 paper ‘La nouvelle cuisine’, first published in the year of his untimely death. Bell was careful here to distinguish between the issue of ‘no superluminal signalling’ in quantum theory (both quantum field theory and quantum mechanics) and a principle he first introduced explicitly in 1976 and called ‘local causality’ [1]. In relation to the former, Bell expressed concerns that amplify doubts he had already expressed in 1976. These concerns touch on what is now widely known as the no-signalling theorem in quantum mechanics, and ultimately have to do with Bell's distaste for what he saw as an anthropocentric element in orthodox quantum thinking. In relation to local causality, Bell emphasised that his famous factorizability (no-correlations) condition is not to be seen ‘as the formulation of local causality, but as a consequence thereof’ and stressed how difficult he found it to articulate this consequence. He left the question of any strict inconsistency between violation of factorizability and special relativity theory unresolved, a not insignificant shift from his thinking up to the early 1980s.