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:2204.05162

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

G. S. Ciepielewski, E. Okon

Published Apr 11, 2022• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

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.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2204.05162

Related papers

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

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

Bell's Theorem: a new Derivation that Preserves Heisenberg and Locality

M. R. Clover

By implicitly assuming that all measurements occur simultaneously, Bell's Theorem only applied to local theories that violated Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. By explicitly introducing time into our derivation of Bell's theorem, an extra term related to the time-ordering of actual measurements is found to augment (i.e. weaken) the upper bound of the inequality. Since the same locality assumptions hold for this rederivation as for the original, we conclude that only {\em classical} measurement-order independent local hidden variable theories are constrained by Bell's inequality; time dependent, non-classical local theories (i.e. theories respecting Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) can satisfy this new bound while exceeding Bell's limit. Unconditional nonlocality is only expected to occur with Bell parameters between $2\sqrt{2}$ and 4. This weakening of Bell's inequality is seen for the quantum Bell operator (squared) as an extra term involving the commutators of {\em local} measurement operators. We note that a factorizable second-quantized wavefunction can reproduce experimental measurements; because such wavefunctions allow local de Broglie-Bohm hidden variable modelling, we have another indication that violation of {\em Bell's} inequality does not require an acceptance of non-locality.

arXiv:quant-ph/0409058•Sep 10, 2004•8 citations

On some assumption of Bell's theorem

Czerniawski, Jan

Any proof of Bell’s theorem reduces to a derivation of one of Bell’s inequalities. The key role in such derivations is played by the condition of factorizability of the joint conditional probability, which may be obtained as a consequence of two other conditions, known as parameter independence and outcome independence. The former is a quite obvious consequence of locality, whereas the la$er is controversial. However, since it is a particularization of the condition of screening off of the principle of common cause, its undermining entails questioning the la$er condition as well. If successful, any effective proof of Bell’s theorem would demand deriving some of Bell’s inequality without making use of any particularization of screening off. A direction of search for a model breaking this condition is suggested.

•Jan 1, 2016•0 citations

Bell's Theorem: A Critique

M. R. Clover

By implicitly assuming that all possible Bell-measurements occur simultaneously, all proofs of Bell's Theorem violate Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. This assumption is made in the original form of Bell's inequality, in Wigner's probability inequalities, and in the ``nonlocality without inequalities'' arguments. The introduction of time into derivations of these variants of Bell's theorem results in extra terms related to the time order of the measurements used in constructing correlation coefficients. Since the same locality assumptions are made in the Heisenberg-compliant derivations of this paper, only time-independent classical local hidden variable theories are forbidden by violations of the original Bell inequalities; time-dependent quantum local hidden variable theories can satisfy this new bound and agree with experiment. We further point out that factorizable wavefunctions have been used to describe some EPR experiments and can be used to describe others. These will generate local de Broglie-Bohm trajectories in the description of the data. This second, independent, line of argument also shows that violation of Bell's inequality is only evidence that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle cannot be ignored.

arXiv:quant-ph/0502016•Feb 1, 2005•9 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
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.
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'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.
By implicitly assuming that all measurements occur simultaneously, Bell's Theorem only applied to local theories that violated Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. By explicitly introducing time into our derivation of Bell's theorem, an extra term related to the time-ordering of actual measurements is found to augment (i.e. weaken) the upper bound of the inequality. Since the same locality assumptions hold for this rederivation as for the original, we conclude that only {\em classical} measurement-order independent local hidden variable theories are constrained by Bell's inequality; time dependent, non-classical local theories (i.e. theories respecting Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) can satisfy this new bound while exceeding Bell's limit. Unconditional nonlocality is only expected to occur with Bell parameters between 222\sqrt{2}22​ and 4. This weakening of Bell's inequality is seen for the quantum Bell operator (squared) as an extra term involving the commutators of {\em local} measurement operators. We note that a factorizable second-quantized wavefunction can reproduce experimental measurements; because such wavefunctions allow local de Broglie-Bohm hidden variable modelling, we have another indication that violation of {\em Bell's} inequality does not require an acceptance of non-locality.
Any proof of Bell’s theorem reduces to a derivation of one of Bell’s inequalities. The key role in such derivations is played by the condition of factorizability of the joint conditional probability, which may be obtained as a consequence of two other conditions, known as parameter independence and outcome independence. The former is a quite obvious consequence of locality, whereas the laeriscontroversial.However,sinceitisaparticularizationoftheconditionofscreeningoffoftheprincipleofcommoncause,itsunderminingentailsquestioningthelaer is controversial. However, since it is a particularization of the condition of screening off of the principle of common cause, its undermining entails questioning the laeriscontroversial.However,sinceitisaparticularizationoftheconditionofscreeningoffoftheprincipleofcommoncause,itsunderminingentailsquestioningthelaer condition as well. If successful, any effective proof of Bell’s theorem would demand deriving some of Bell’s inequality without making use of any particularization of screening off. A direction of search for a model breaking this condition is suggested.
By implicitly assuming that all possible Bell-measurements occur simultaneously, all proofs of Bell's Theorem violate Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. This assumption is made in the original form of Bell's inequality, in Wigner's probability inequalities, and in the ``nonlocality without inequalities'' arguments. The introduction of time into derivations of these variants of Bell's theorem results in extra terms related to the time order of the measurements used in constructing correlation coefficients. Since the same locality assumptions are made in the Heisenberg-compliant derivations of this paper, only time-independent classical local hidden variable theories are forbidden by violations of the original Bell inequalities; time-dependent quantum local hidden variable theories can satisfy this new bound and agree with experiment. We further point out that factorizable wavefunctions have been used to describe some EPR experiments and can be used to describe others. These will generate local de Broglie-Bohm trajectories in the description of the data. This second, independent, line of argument also shows that violation of Bell's inequality is only evidence that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle cannot be ignored.
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.