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

Bell’s theorem and the different concepts of locality

Philippe H. Eberhard

Published Aug 1, 1978• 289 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1007/bf02728628

Related papers

John S. Bell’s concept of local causality

Travis Norsen

John Stewart Bell’s famous theorem is widely regarded as one of the most important developments in the foundations of physics. Yet even as we approach the 50th anniversary of Bell’s discovery, its meaning and implications remain controversial. Many workers assert that Bell’s theorem refutes the possibility suggested by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) of supplementing ordinary quantum theory with “hidden” variables that might restore determinism and/or some notion of an observer-independent reality. But Bell himself interpreted the theorem very differently—as establishing an “essential conflict” between the well-tested empirical predictions of quantum theory and relativistic local causality. Our goal is to make Bell’s own views more widely known and to explain Bell’s little-known formulation of the concept of relativistic local causality on which his theorem rests. We also show precisely how Bell’s formulation of local causality can be used to derive an empirically testable Bell-type inequality and to recapitulate the EPR argument.

arXiv:0707.0401•American Journal of Physics•Nov 29, 2011•148 citations

Bell’s Theorem: A Note on Locality

Karl Raimund Popper

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1988•5 citations

Against Bell's Theorem

Andrea Aiello

Bell's theorem supposedly demonstrates an irreconcilable conflict between quantum mechanics and local, realistic hidden variable theories. In this paper we show that all experiments that aim to prove Bell's theorem do not actually achieve this goal. Our conclusions are based on a straightforward statistical analysis of the outcomes of these experiments. The key tool in our study is probability theory and, in particular, the concept of sample space for the dichotomic random variables that quantifies the outcomes of such experiments. We also show that an experimental proof of Bell's theorem is not, in principle, impossible, but it would require a completely different experimental apparatus than those commonly used to allegedly achieve this objective. The main consequence of our work is that we cannot dismiss local realistic hidden variable theories on the basis of currently available experimental data.

arXiv:2406.03028•Jun 5, 2024•0 citations

Locality and Bell's Theorem

Willy De Baere, A. Mann, M. Revzen

Foundations of Physics•Jan 1, 1999•19 citations

Bell's theorem without the hypothesis of locality

Aleksandr V. Belinskii

Uspekhi Fizicheskih Nauk•Jan 1, 1994•4 citations

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
John Stewart Bell’s famous theorem is widely regarded as one of the most important developments in the foundations of physics. Yet even as we approach the 50th anniversary of Bell’s discovery, its meaning and implications remain controversial. Many workers assert that Bell’s theorem refutes the possibility suggested by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) of supplementing ordinary quantum theory with “hidden” variables that might restore determinism and/or some notion of an observer-independent reality. But Bell himself interpreted the theorem very differently—as establishing an “essential conflict” between the well-tested empirical predictions of quantum theory and relativistic local causality. Our goal is to make Bell’s own views more widely known and to explain Bell’s little-known formulation of the concept of relativistic local causality on which his theorem rests. We also show precisely how Bell’s formulation of local causality can be used to derive an empirically testable Bell-type inequality and to recapitulate the EPR argument.
Bell's theorem supposedly demonstrates an irreconcilable conflict between quantum mechanics and local, realistic hidden variable theories. In this paper we show that all experiments that aim to prove Bell's theorem do not actually achieve this goal. Our conclusions are based on a straightforward statistical analysis of the outcomes of these experiments. The key tool in our study is probability theory and, in particular, the concept of sample space for the dichotomic random variables that quantifies the outcomes of such experiments. We also show that an experimental proof of Bell's theorem is not, in principle, impossible, but it would require a completely different experimental apparatus than those commonly used to allegedly achieve this objective. The main consequence of our work is that we cannot dismiss local realistic hidden variable theories on the basis of currently available experimental data.
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.