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:1704.03856

What exactly is proved by the violation of Bell's inequality?

Gerold Gründler

Published Apr 11, 2017• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Bell's inequality has been derived several times from quite different basic assumptions, which imply different conclusions. This resulted into widespread confusion regarding the exact implications of the experimental violations of the inequality. In this article, the structures of Bell's and of Peres' derivations are analyzed, and the title question is explicitly answered.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1704.03856

Related papers

Assumptions underlying Bell s inequalities

Angel G Valdenebro

There are several versions of Bell's inequalities (BI), proved in different contexts, using different sets of assumptions. The discussions of their experimental violation often disregard some required assumptions and loosely use formulations of others. The issue, to judge from recent publications, continues to cause misunderstandings. We present a very simple but general proof of BI, identifying explicitly the complete set of assumptions required.

arXiv:quant-ph/0208161•European Journal of Physics•Sep 1, 2002•22 citations

The Violation of Bell-CHSH Inequalities Leads to Different Conclusions Depending on the Description Used

Aldo F. G. Solis-Labastida, Melina Gastélum Vargas, Jorge G. Hirsch

Since the experimental observation of the violation of the Bell-CHSH inequalities, much has been said about the non-local and contextual character of the underlying system. However, the hypothesis from which Bell's inequalities are derived differ according to the probability space used to write them. The violation of Bell's inequalities can, alternatively, be explained by assuming that the hidden variables do not exist at all, that they exist but their values cannot be simultaneously assigned, that the values can be assigned but joint probabilities cannot be properly defined, or that averages taken in different contexts cannot be combined. All of the above are valid options, selected by different communities to provide support to their particular research program.

arXiv:2107.02808•Entropy•Jul 8, 2021•3 citations

EPR and Bell: Mathematical Foundations, Experimental Evidence, and the Limits of Physical Conclusions

Eduardo Piza

This article presents a systematic account of the EPR argument and Bell tests, focusing on rigorously established mathematical results and experimental evidence published up to the cut-off date of October 28, 2026. The assumptions of local factorization and measurement-setting independence are stated explicitly. The CHSH bound of 2 is proved, and the quantum bound of $2√2$ is derived using operator methods and semidefinite certificates. The joint outcome probabilities for the singlet state are derived, and the no-signalling theorem is proved for completely positive, trace-preserving local operations. Separability is shown to imply Bell locality, and entanglement is carefully distinguished from the violation of a particular Bell inequality. For noisy two-qubit states, spin measurements are explicitly distinguished from binary strategies that allow constant outcomes. The account also includes explicit constructions of local distributions, Fine’s theorem, and self-testing bounds. Experimental evidence is examined together with the statistical assumptions underlying its analysis; historical interpretations and unconfirmed proposals are clearly identified as such. The 1930 photon box is also analysed, with a distinction drawn between a semiclassical reconstruction of the apparatus and an exact relation between energy and time evolution. These results do not, in themselves, constitute particle detections, enable superluminal communication, or single out a unique ontology.

•Oct 28, 2026•0 citations

What Bell did

Tim Maudlin

On the 50th anniversary of Bell's monumental 1964 paper, there is still widespread misunderstanding about exactly what Bell proved. This misunderstanding derives in turn from a failure to appreciate the earlier argument of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. I retrace the history and logical structure of these arguments in order to clarify the proper conclusion, namely that any world that displays violations of Bell's inequality for experiments done far from one another must be non-local. Since the world we happen to live in displays such violations, actual physics is non-local. This article is part of a special issue of Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical devoted to '50 years of Bell's theorem'.

arXiv:1408.1826•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Oct 9, 2014•162 citations

Bell's Inequality Refuted on Bell's Own Terms

Gordon Watson

Bell's famous inequality contradicts ours. But ours holds algebraically, experimentally, classically and quantum-mechanically: Bell's does not. So Bell's inequality is refuted on Bell's terms as we identify his naively-realistic error and correct it.

•Jul 1, 2018•0 citations

The experimental violation of Bell's inequality [as predicted by quantum mechanics]: A contribution to the study of its meaning

Bertrand Hespel

•Jan 1, 2001•0 citations
Bell's inequality has been derived several times from quite different basic assumptions, which imply different conclusions. This resulted into widespread confusion regarding the exact implications of the experimental violations of the inequality. In this article, the structures of Bell's and of Peres' derivations are analyzed, and the title question is explicitly answered.
Since the experimental observation of the violation of the Bell-CHSH inequalities, much has been said about the non-local and contextual character of the underlying system. However, the hypothesis from which Bell's inequalities are derived differ according to the probability space used to write them. The violation of Bell's inequalities can, alternatively, be explained by assuming that the hidden variables do not exist at all, that they exist but their values cannot be simultaneously assigned, that the values can be assigned but joint probabilities cannot be properly defined, or that averages taken in different contexts cannot be combined. All of the above are valid options, selected by different communities to provide support to their particular research program.
This article presents a systematic account of the EPR argument and Bell tests, focusing on rigorously established mathematical results and experimental evidence published up to the cut-off date of October 28, 2026. The assumptions of local factorization and measurement-setting independence are stated explicitly. The CHSH bound of 2 is proved, and the quantum bound of 2√22√22√2 is derived using operator methods and semidefinite certificates. The joint outcome probabilities for the singlet state are derived, and the no-signalling theorem is proved for completely positive, trace-preserving local operations. Separability is shown to imply Bell locality, and entanglement is carefully distinguished from the violation of a particular Bell inequality. For noisy two-qubit states, spin measurements are explicitly distinguished from binary strategies that allow constant outcomes. The account also includes explicit constructions of local distributions, Fine’s theorem, and self-testing bounds. Experimental evidence is examined together with the statistical assumptions underlying its analysis; historical interpretations and unconfirmed proposals are clearly identified as such. The 1930 photon box is also analysed, with a distinction drawn between a semiclassical reconstruction of the apparatus and an exact relation between energy and time evolution. These results do not, in themselves, constitute particle detections, enable superluminal communication, or single out a unique ontology.
On the 50th anniversary of Bell's monumental 1964 paper, there is still widespread misunderstanding about exactly what Bell proved. This misunderstanding derives in turn from a failure to appreciate the earlier argument of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. I retrace the history and logical structure of these arguments in order to clarify the proper conclusion, namely that any world that displays violations of Bell's inequality for experiments done far from one another must be non-local. Since the world we happen to live in displays such violations, actual physics is non-local. This article is part of a special issue of Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical devoted to '50 years of Bell's theorem'.