From gravity to electromagnetism, apparent action at a distance has always been resolved by deeper, local explanations. Yet today, Bell's theorem is widely interpreted as the death knell for local reality. In this chapter, I present the theorem in accessible terms, examine the three main strategies that attempt to preserve hidden variables, and argue that they share a common defect: the attempt to explain the quantum from the classical rather than the other way around. When quantum mechanics is applied universally, classicality itself is given a quantum account; and when the Bell scenario is formulated in the Heisenberg picture, a strictly local explanation emerges. This chapter serves as a non-technical front-end to Explaining Bell Locally (Proc. R. Soc. A).
Journal reference
Bédard CA. Another Triumph of Locality: Colliding Histories Skew Handshakes. In: Chipkin L, editor. Bold Conjectures, Volume II: Essays Across Physics. Conjecture Institute; 2026. ISBN: 979-8994621233
From gravity to electromagnetism, apparent action at a distance has always been resolved by deeper, local explanations. Yet today, Bell's theorem is widely interpreted as the death knell for local reality. In this chapter, I present the theorem in accessible terms, examine the three main strategies that attempt to preserve hidden variables, and argue that they share a common defect: the attempt to explain the quantum from the classical rather than the other way around. When quantum mechanics is applied universally, classicality itself is given a quantum account; and when the Bell scenario is formulated in the Heisenberg picture, a strictly local explanation emerges. This chapter serves as a non-technical front-end to Explaining Bell Locally (Proc. R. Soc. A).
Bell theorems show how to experimentally falsify local realism. Conclusive falsification is highly desirable as it would provide support for the most profoundly counterintuitive feature of quantum theory—nonlocality. Despite the preponderance of evidence for quantum mechanics, practical limits on detector efficiency and the difficulty of coordinating space-like separated measurements have provided loopholes for a classical worldview; these loopholes have never been simultaneously closed. A number of new experiments have recently been proposed to close both loopholes at once. We show these novel designs fail in the most basic way, by not ruling out local hidden variable models, and we provide an explicit classical model to demonstrate this. These experiments share a common flaw, which reveals a basic misunderstanding of how nonlocality proofs work. Given the time and resources now being devoted to such experiments, theoretical clarity is essential. Our explanation is presented in terms of simple logic and should serve to correct misconceptions and avoid future mistakes.
The strongest attack against quantum mechanics came in 1935 in the form of a paper by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. It was argued that the theory of quantum mechanics could not be called a complete theory of Nature, for every element of reality is not represented in the formalism as such. The authors then put forth a proposition: we must search for a theory where, upon knowing everything about the system, including possible hidden variables, one could make precise predictions concerning elements of reality. This project was ultimatly doomed in 1964 with the work of Bell Bell, who showed that the most general local hidden variable theory could not reproduce correlations that arise in quantum mechanics. There exist mainly three forms of no-go theorems for local hidden variable theories. Although almost every physicist knows the consequences of these no-go theorems, not every physicist is aware of the distinctions between the three or even their exact definitions. Thus we will discuss here the three principal forms of no-go theorems for local hidden variable theories of Nature. We will define Bell theorems, Bell theorems without inequalities and pseudo-telepathy. A discussion of the similarities and differences will follow. 1
Quantum mechanics makes surprising predictions that defy our classical understanding of the world.Experiments done on entangled particles-particles with linked properties-prove that actions on one particle can affect the other one no matter the distance.In response, physicists came up with local hidden variable theories in an attempt to understand this quantum phenomena through a classical lens.John Bell formulated a way to test whether nature is dictated by local hidden variable theories or quantum mechanics, and since then it has been the goal of numerous physicists to experimentally test the theorem and improve upon the results.This paper describes the history of these experiments, their pros and cons, their advancements, and the potential applications that they will enable.
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.
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.
The strongest attack against quantum mechanics came in 1935 in the form of a paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen. It was argued that the theory of quantum mechanics could not be called a complete theory of Nature, for every element of reality is not represented in the formalism as such. The authors then put forth a proposition: we must search for a theory where, upon knowing everything about the system, including possible hidden variables, one could make precise predictions concerning elements of reality. This project was ultimately doomed in 1964 with the work of Bell, who showed that the most general local hidden variable theory could not reproduce correlations that arise in quantum mechanics. There exist mainly three forms of no-go theorems for local hidden variable theories. Although almost every physicist knows the consequences of these no-go theorems, not every physicist is aware of the distinctions between the three or even their exact definitions. Thus, we will discuss here the three principal forms of no-go theorems for local hidden variable theories of Nature. We will define Bell theorems, Bell theorems without inequalities, and pseudo-telepathy. A discussion of the similarities and differences will follow. PACS Nos.: 03.65.–w, 03.65.Ud, 03.65.Ta