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

Springer eBooks

Atom Based Tests of the Bell Inequalities — the Legacy of John Bell Continues ...

Edward S. Fry, Thomas Walther

Published Jan 1, 2002• 8 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/978-3-662-05032-3_8

Related papers

Symposium on quantum physics in memory of John Stewart Bell : Experimental Tests of Bell Inequalities

Alain Aspect

Symposium on quantum physics in memory of John Stewart Bell : Experimental Tests of Bell Inequalities. 0:00:00 Slide 1 0:07:44 Slide 2 0:15:27 Slide 3 0:23:10 Slide 4 0:30:54 Slide 5 0:38:37 Slide 6 0:46:20 Slide 7 0:54:04 Slide 8 1:01:47 Slide 9 1:09:30 Slide 10

•May 2, 1991•0 citations

Experimental Tests of Bell’s Inequalities in Atomic Physics

Alain Aspect

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1983•27 citations

Experimental tests of Bell's inequalities

Alain Aspect

Springer eBooks•Apr 6, 2008•10 citations

Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Is Incorrect

Guang-Liang Li, Victor O. K. Li

(A point-by-point response to a comment (quant-ph/0509130) on our paper (quant-ph/0509089) is added as Appendix C. We find the comment incorrect.) Einstein's criticism of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is an important part of his legacy. Although most physicists consider Einstein's criticism technically unfounded, we show that the Copenhagen interpretation is actually incorrect, since Born's probability explanation of the wave function is incorrect due to a false assumption on "continuous probabilities" in modern probability theory. "Continuous probability" means a "probability measure" that can take every value in a subinterval of the unit interval (0, 1). We prove that such "continuous probabilities" are invalid. Since Bell's inequality also assumes "continuous probabilities", the result of the experimental test of Bell's inequality is not evidence supporting the Copenhagen interpretation. Although successful applications of quantum mechanics and explanation of quantum phenomena do not necessarily rely on the Copenhagen interpretation, the question asked by Einstein 70 years ago, i.e., whether a complete description of reality exists, still remains open.

arXiv:quant-ph/0509089•Sep 13, 2005•0 citations

Tests of Bell inequalities

Lev Vaidman A

arXiv:quant-ph/0107057•Physics Letters A•Jul 1, 2001•33 citations

Loophole-free Bell inequality violations cannot disprove local realism

F. De Zela

For almost three decades in the twentieth century, the physics community believed that John von Neumann had proved the impossibility of completing quantum mechanics by a local realist, hidden-variables theory. Although Grete Hermann had raised strong objections to von Neumann's proof, she was largely ignored. This situation lasted, until John Bell rediscovered that von Neumann's proof was flawed: a \emph{sufficient} condition for local realism had been taken as a \emph{necessary} one. Bell subsequently established various constraints on hidden-variables theories, in the form of inequalities that can be submitted to experimental test. All performed tests to date have opened some loopholes. The quest to close them motivated great technical achievements and ongoing efforts to improve what has already been reached. There is, however, a rather ironic twist concerning Bell inequalities. On deriving them, Bell also took a sufficient condition for local-realism, as if it were a necessary one. As a consequence, even completely loophole-free Bell inequality violations would not disprove local realism. We argue that Bell inequalities cannot follow from local-realism alone. The proof is given by constructing three local-realist models that entail Bell inequality violations.

arXiv:2403.03780•Mar 6, 2024•0 citations
(A point-by-point response to a comment (quant-ph/0509130) on our paper (quant-ph/0509089) is added as Appendix C. We find the comment incorrect.) Einstein's criticism of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is an important part of his legacy. Although most physicists consider Einstein's criticism technically unfounded, we show that the Copenhagen interpretation is actually incorrect, since Born's probability explanation of the wave function is incorrect due to a false assumption on "continuous probabilities" in modern probability theory. "Continuous probability" means a "probability measure" that can take every value in a subinterval of the unit interval (0, 1). We prove that such "continuous probabilities" are invalid. Since Bell's inequality also assumes "continuous probabilities", the result of the experimental test of Bell's inequality is not evidence supporting the Copenhagen interpretation. Although successful applications of quantum mechanics and explanation of quantum phenomena do not necessarily rely on the Copenhagen interpretation, the question asked by Einstein 70 years ago, i.e., whether a complete description of reality exists, still remains open.
For almost three decades in the twentieth century, the physics community believed that John von Neumann had proved the impossibility of completing quantum mechanics by a local realist, hidden-variables theory. Although Grete Hermann had raised strong objections to von Neumann's proof, she was largely ignored. This situation lasted, until John Bell rediscovered that von Neumann's proof was flawed: a \emph{sufficient} condition for local realism had been taken as a \emph{necessary} one. Bell subsequently established various constraints on hidden-variables theories, in the form of inequalities that can be submitted to experimental test. All performed tests to date have opened some loopholes. The quest to close them motivated great technical achievements and ongoing efforts to improve what has already been reached. There is, however, a rather ironic twist concerning Bell inequalities. On deriving them, Bell also took a sufficient condition for local-realism, as if it were a necessary one. As a consequence, even completely loophole-free Bell inequality violations would not disprove local realism. We argue that Bell inequalities cannot follow from local-realism alone. The proof is given by constructing three local-realist models that entail Bell inequality violations.