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:1903.10537

Bell Inequality Violation with Free Choice and Local Causality on the Invariant Set

T. N. Palmer

Published Mar 25, 2019• 2 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Bell's Theorem requires any theory which obeys the technical definitions of Free Choice and Local Causality to satisfy the Bell inequality. Invariant set theory is a finite theory of quantum physics which violates the Bell inequality exactly as does quantum theory: in it neither Free Choice nor Local Causality hold, consistent with Bell's Theorem. However, within the proposed theory, the mathematical expressions of both Free Choice and Local Causality involve states which, for number-theoretic reasons, cannot be ontic (cannot lie on the theory's fractal-like invariant set $I_U$ in state space). Weaker versions of Free Choice and Local Causality are proposed involving only the theory's ontic states. Conventional hidden-variable theories satisfying only these weaker definitions still obey the Bell inequality. However, invariant set theory, which violates the Bell inequality, satisfies these weaker definitions. It is argued that the weaker definitions are consistent with the physical meaning behind free choice and local causality as defined in space-time, and hence that Free Choice and Local Causality are physically too strong. It is concluded that the experimental violation of the Bell inequality may have less to do with free choice or local causality \emph{per se}, and more to do with the presence of a holistic but causal state-space geometry onto which quantum ontic states are constrained.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1903.10537

Related papers

Invariant Set Theory: Violating Measurement Independence without Fine Tuning, Conspiracy, Constraints on Free Will or Retrocausality

T. N. Palmer

Invariant Set (IS) theory is a locally causal ontic theory of physics based on the Cosmological Invariant Set postulate that the universe $U$ can be considered a deterministic dynamical system evolving precisely on a (suitably constructed) fractal dynamically invariant set in $U$'s state space. IS theory violates the Bell inequalities by violating Measurement Independence. Despite this, IS theory is not fine tuned, is not conspiratorial, does not constrain experimenter free will and does not invoke retrocausality. The reasons behind these claims are discussed in this paper. These arise from properties not found in conventional ontic models: the invariant set has zero measure in its Euclidean embedding space, has Cantor Set structure homeomorphic to the p-adic integers ($p \ggg 0$) and is non-computable. In particular, it is shown that the p-adic metric encapulates the physics of the Cosmological Invariant Set postulate, and provides the technical means to demonstrate no fine tuning or conspiracy. Quantum theory can be viewed as the singular limit of IS theory when when $p$ is set equal to infinity. Since it is based around a top-down constraint from cosmology, IS theory suggests that gravitational and quantum physics will be unified by a gravitational theory of the quantum, rather than a quantum theory of gravity. Some implications arising from such a perspective are discussed.

arXiv:1507.02117•Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science•Nov 4, 2015•0 citations

Bell's conspiracy, Schrödinger's black cat and global invariant sets

T. N. Palmer

A locally causal hidden-variable theory of quantum physics need not be constrained by the Bell inequalities if this theory also partially violates the measurement independence condition. However, such violation can appear unphysical, implying implausible conspiratorial correlations between the hidden variables of particles being measured and earlier determinants of instrumental settings. A novel physically plausible explanation for such correlations is proposed, based on the hypothesis that states of physical reality lie precisely on a non-computational measure-zero dynamically invariant set in the state space of the universe: the Cosmological Invariant Set Postulate. To illustrate the relevance of the concept of a global invariant set, a simple analogy is considered where a massive object is propelled into a black hole depending on the decay of a radioactive atom. It is claimed that a locally causal hidden-variable theory constrained by the Cosmological Invariant Set Postulate can violate the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequality without being conspiratorial, superdeterministic, fine-tuned or retrocausal, and the theory readily accommodates the classical compatibilist notion of (experimenter) free will.

arXiv:1502.06972•Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences•Jun 29, 2015•11 citations

Experimental Non-Violation of the Bell Inequality

T. Palmer

A finite non-classical framework for qubit physics is described that challenges the conclusion that the Bell Inequality has been shown to have been violated experimentally, even approximately. This framework postulates the primacy of a fractal-like ‘invariant set’ geometry I U in cosmological state space, on which the universe evolves deterministically and causally, and from which space-time and the laws of physics in space-time are emergent. Consistent with the assumed primacy of I U , a non-Euclidean (and hence non-classical) metric g p is defined in cosmological state space. Here, p is a large but finite integer (whose inverse may reflect the weakness of gravity). Points that do not lie on I U are necessarily g p -distant from points that do. g p is related to the p-adic metric of number theory. Using number-theoretic properties of spherical triangles, the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality, whose violation would rule out local realism, is shown to be undefined in this framework. Moreover, the CHSH-like inequalities violated experimentally are shown to be g p -distant from the CHSH inequality. This result fails in the singular limit p = ∞ , at which g p is Euclidean and the corresponding model classical. Although Invariant Set Theory is deterministic and locally causal, it is not conspiratorial and does not compromise experimenter free will. The relationship between Invariant Set Theory, Bohmian Theory, The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Theory and p-adic Quantum Theory is discussed.

arXiv:1709.01069•Entropy•May 10, 2018•5 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

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

Supermeasured: Violating Bell-Statistical Independence without violating physical statistical independence

Jonte R. Hance, S Hossenfelder, TN Palmer

Bell’s theorem is often said to imply that quantum mechanics violates local causality, and that local causality cannot be restored with a hidden-variables theory. This however is only correct if the hidden-variables theory fulfils an assumption called Statistical Independence. Violations of Statistical Independence are commonly interpreted as correlations between the measurement settings and the hidden variables (which determine the measurement outcomes). Such correlations have been discarded as “fine-tuning” or a “conspiracy”. We here point out that the common interpretation is at best physically ambiguous and at worst incorrect. The problem with the common interpretation is that Statistical Independence might be violated because of a non-trivial measure in state space, a possibility we propose to call “supermeasured”. We use Invariant Set Theory as an example of a supermeasured theory that violates the Statistical Independence assumption in Bell’s theorem without requiring correlations between hidden variables and measurement settings (physical statistical independence).

•Jul 19, 2022•0 citations
Bell's Theorem requires any theory which obeys the technical definitions of Free Choice and Local Causality to satisfy the Bell inequality. Invariant set theory is a finite theory of quantum physics which violates the Bell inequality exactly as does quantum theory: in it neither Free Choice nor Local Causality hold, consistent with Bell's Theorem. However, within the proposed theory, the mathematical expressions of both Free Choice and Local Causality involve states which, for number-theoretic reasons, cannot be ontic (cannot lie on the theory's fractal-like invariant set IUI_UIU​ in state space). Weaker versions of Free Choice and Local Causality are proposed involving only the theory's ontic states. Conventional hidden-variable theories satisfying only these weaker definitions still obey the Bell inequality. However, invariant set theory, which violates the Bell inequality, satisfies these weaker definitions. It is argued that the weaker definitions are consistent with the physical meaning behind free choice and local causality as defined in space-time, and hence that Free Choice and Local Causality are physically too strong. It is concluded that the experimental violation of the Bell inequality may have less to do with free choice or local causality \emph{per se}, and more to do with the presence of a holistic but causal state-space geometry onto which quantum ontic states are constrained.
Invariant Set (IS) theory is a locally causal ontic theory of physics based on the Cosmological Invariant Set postulate that the universe UUU can be considered a deterministic dynamical system evolving precisely on a (suitably constructed) fractal dynamically invariant set in UUU's state space. IS theory violates the Bell inequalities by violating Measurement Independence. Despite this, IS theory is not fine tuned, is not conspiratorial, does not constrain experimenter free will and does not invoke retrocausality. The reasons behind these claims are discussed in this paper. These arise from properties not found in conventional ontic models: the invariant set has zero measure in its Euclidean embedding space, has Cantor Set structure homeomorphic to the p-adic integers (p⋙0p \ggg 0p⋙0) and is non-computable. In particular, it is shown that the p-adic metric encapulates the physics of the Cosmological Invariant Set postulate, and provides the technical means to demonstrate no fine tuning or conspiracy. Quantum theory can be viewed as the singular limit of IS theory when when ppp is set equal to infinity. Since it is based around a top-down constraint from cosmology, IS theory suggests that gravitational and quantum physics will be unified by a gravitational theory of the quantum, rather than a quantum theory of gravity. Some implications arising from such a perspective are discussed.
A locally causal hidden-variable theory of quantum physics need not be constrained by the Bell inequalities if this theory also partially violates the measurement independence condition. However, such violation can appear unphysical, implying implausible conspiratorial correlations between the hidden variables of particles being measured and earlier determinants of instrumental settings. A novel physically plausible explanation for such correlations is proposed, based on the hypothesis that states of physical reality lie precisely on a non-computational measure-zero dynamically invariant set in the state space of the universe: the Cosmological Invariant Set Postulate. To illustrate the relevance of the concept of a global invariant set, a simple analogy is considered where a massive object is propelled into a black hole depending on the decay of a radioactive atom. It is claimed that a locally causal hidden-variable theory constrained by the Cosmological Invariant Set Postulate can violate the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt inequality without being conspiratorial, superdeterministic, fine-tuned or retrocausal, and the theory readily accommodates the classical compatibilist notion of (experimenter) free will.
A finite non-classical framework for qubit physics is described that challenges the conclusion that the Bell Inequality has been shown to have been violated experimentally, even approximately. This framework postulates the primacy of a fractal-like ‘invariant set’ geometry I U in cosmological state space, on which the universe evolves deterministically and causally, and from which space-time and the laws of physics in space-time are emergent. Consistent with the assumed primacy of I U , a non-Euclidean (and hence non-classical) metric g p is defined in cosmological state space. Here, p is a large but finite integer (whose inverse may reflect the weakness of gravity). Points that do not lie on I U are necessarily g p -distant from points that do. g p is related to the p-adic metric of number theory. Using number-theoretic properties of spherical triangles, the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality, whose violation would rule out local realism, is shown to be undefined in this framework. Moreover, the CHSH-like inequalities violated experimentally are shown to be g p -distant from the CHSH inequality. This result fails in the singular limit p = ∞ , at which g p is Euclidean and the corresponding model classical. Although Invariant Set Theory is deterministic and locally causal, it is not conspiratorial and does not compromise experimenter free will. The relationship between Invariant Set Theory, Bohmian Theory, The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Theory and p-adic Quantum Theory is discussed.
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.
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.
Bell’s theorem is often said to imply that quantum mechanics violates local causality, and that local causality cannot be restored with a hidden-variables theory. This however is only correct if the hidden-variables theory fulfils an assumption called Statistical Independence. Violations of Statistical Independence are commonly interpreted as correlations between the measurement settings and the hidden variables (which determine the measurement outcomes). Such correlations have been discarded as “fine-tuning” or a “conspiracy”. We here point out that the common interpretation is at best physically ambiguous and at worst incorrect. The problem with the common interpretation is that Statistical Independence might be violated because of a non-trivial measure in state space, a possibility we propose to call “supermeasured”. We use Invariant Set Theory as an example of a supermeasured theory that violates the Statistical Independence assumption in Bell’s theorem without requiring correlations between hidden variables and measurement settings (physical statistical independence).