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

Il Nuovo cimento della Società italiana di fisica. B/Il Nuovo cimento B

Implications of a causality paradox related to Bell–s theorem

Roderick I. Sutherland

Published Jul 1, 1989• 3 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/bf02742823

Related papers

Implications of Local Friendliness Violation for Quantum Causality

Eric G. Cavalcanti, Howard M. Wiseman

We provide a new formulation of the Local Friendliness no-go theorem of Bong et al. [Nat. Phys. 16, 1199 (2020)] from fundamental causal principles, providing another perspective on how it puts strictly stronger bounds on quantum reality than Bell's theorem. In particular, quantum causal models have been proposed as a way to maintain a peaceful coexistence between quantum mechanics and relativistic causality while respecting Leibniz's methodological principle. This works for Bell's theorem but does not work for the Local Friendliness no-go theorem, which considers an extended Wigner's Friend scenario. More radical conceptual renewal is required; we suggest that cleaving to Leibniz's principle requires extending relativity to events themselves.

arXiv:2106.04065•Entropy•Jul 21, 2021•2 citations

On Bell's Theorem and Causality

Nathan Argaman

•Jul 15, 2008•4 citations

The Idealistic Implications of Bell’s Theorem

Theodore W. Schick

Idealistic Studies•Jan 1, 1989•1 citation

Local Causality and Completeness: Bell vs. Jarrett

Travis Norsen

J.S. Bell believed that his famous theorem entailed a deep and troubling conflict between the empirically verified predictions of quantum theory and the notion of local causality that is motivated by relativity theory. Yet many physicists continue to accept, usually on the reports of textbook writers and other commentators, that Bell's own view was wrong, and that, in fact, the theorem only brings out a conflict with determinism or the hidden-variables program or realism or some other such principle that (unlike local causality), allegedly, nobody should have believed anyway. (Moreover, typically such beliefs arise without the person in question even being aware that the view they are accepting differs so radically from Bell's own.) Here we try to shed some light on the situation by focusing on the concept of local causality that is the heart of Bell's theorem, and, in particular, by contrasting Bell's own understanding with the analysis of Jon Jarrett which has been the most influential source, in recent decades, for the kinds of claims mentioned previously. We point out a crucial difference between Jarrett's and Bell's own understanding of Bell's formulation of local causality, which turns out to be the basis for the erroneous claim, made by Jarrett and many others, that Bell misunderstood the implications of his own theorem.

•Aug 1, 2008•41 citations

Bell’s concept of local causality does not preclude Bell correlations in local realist field ontologies

Andrew Laidlaw

Introduction: Bell’s concept of local causality assumes more than local action. It also presumes an ontology of point particles. Bell correlations are feasible in nonlinear field ontologies with quantised interactions between suitably correlated participants. Materials and methods: Local causality is unsatisfactory for many reasons, not just Bell’s Theorem. The EPR paradox is due to metaphysical overcommitment to point models. An alternative, distributed concept of long-range interaction is appropriate for field ontologies. Inherently distributed field interaction quanta modify the causal structure of relations between observables. Results: Causal structure of Bell measurements in de Broglie–Bohm EPR experiments: Causal analysis of local realist field models violates Bell Inequalities without violating local action. Experimental Tests: Testable consequences include an observable range dependence of the coherence time of Bell states. Conclusions: Local realist field ontologies are not ruled out by the existence of Bell correlations in nature. The only “conflict” between quantum mechanics and relativity is because lightcone causal analysis effectively presumes a particle ontology.

Academia quantum.•Jun 26, 2026•0 citations

Philosophical implications of Bell's Theorem

Niall Shanks

•Jan 1, 1987•0 citations
We provide a new formulation of the Local Friendliness no-go theorem of Bong et al. [Nat. Phys. 16, 1199 (2020)] from fundamental causal principles, providing another perspective on how it puts strictly stronger bounds on quantum reality than Bell's theorem. In particular, quantum causal models have been proposed as a way to maintain a peaceful coexistence between quantum mechanics and relativistic causality while respecting Leibniz's methodological principle. This works for Bell's theorem but does not work for the Local Friendliness no-go theorem, which considers an extended Wigner's Friend scenario. More radical conceptual renewal is required; we suggest that cleaving to Leibniz's principle requires extending relativity to events themselves.
J.S. Bell believed that his famous theorem entailed a deep and troubling conflict between the empirically verified predictions of quantum theory and the notion of local causality that is motivated by relativity theory. Yet many physicists continue to accept, usually on the reports of textbook writers and other commentators, that Bell's own view was wrong, and that, in fact, the theorem only brings out a conflict with determinism or the hidden-variables program or realism or some other such principle that (unlike local causality), allegedly, nobody should have believed anyway. (Moreover, typically such beliefs arise without the person in question even being aware that the view they are accepting differs so radically from Bell's own.) Here we try to shed some light on the situation by focusing on the concept of local causality that is the heart of Bell's theorem, and, in particular, by contrasting Bell's own understanding with the analysis of Jon Jarrett which has been the most influential source, in recent decades, for the kinds of claims mentioned previously. We point out a crucial difference between Jarrett's and Bell's own understanding of Bell's formulation of local causality, which turns out to be the basis for the erroneous claim, made by Jarrett and many others, that Bell misunderstood the implications of his own theorem.
Introduction: Bell’s concept of local causality assumes more than local action. It also presumes an ontology of point particles. Bell correlations are feasible in nonlinear field ontologies with quantised interactions between suitably correlated participants. Materials and methods: Local causality is unsatisfactory for many reasons, not just Bell’s Theorem. The EPR paradox is due to metaphysical overcommitment to point models. An alternative, distributed concept of long-range interaction is appropriate for field ontologies. Inherently distributed field interaction quanta modify the causal structure of relations between observables. Results: Causal structure of Bell measurements in de Broglie–Bohm EPR experiments: Causal analysis of local realist field models violates Bell Inequalities without violating local action. Experimental Tests: Testable consequences include an observable range dependence of the coherence time of Bell states. Conclusions: Local realist field ontologies are not ruled out by the existence of Bell correlations in nature. The only “conflict” between quantum mechanics and relativity is because lightcone causal analysis effectively presumes a particle ontology.