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

European Journal of Physics

Bell's inequality and 'ghost-like action-at-a-distance' in quantum mechanics

R. D. Mattuck

Published Apr 1, 1982• 1 citation
Publisher

Abstract

The phenomenon of nonlocality in quantum mechanics is one of its most fundamental features and is most strikingly exemplified in the discussion of the Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) type of experiment. The generality of Bell's inequality and the results of experiments done up to now show that local hidden-variable theories are ruled out as a means to resolve the famous EPR paradox. What remains for further consideration are the nonlocal and the Einstein-separable hidden-variable models. Finally, an alternative and possibly successful approach in trying to 'explain' nonlocality might involve ideas of backward causation.

DOI
10.1088/0143-0807/3/2/011

Related papers

Ghost-like action-at-a-distance in quantum mechanics: an elementary introduction to the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen paradox

R. D. Mattuck

The remarkable quantum phenomenon of 'non-locality' discovered by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) is the centre of considerable experimental and theoretical activity these days. Nevertheless, many (perhaps most) physicists do not feel the phenomenon is especially paradoxical, or even worthy of interest. This article attempts to reveal, in a simple way, just where the fascination of the EPR paradox lies, and to answer some of the arguments invoked by critics to 'explain away' the paradox.

European Journal of Physics•Apr 1, 1982•3 citations

The EPR paradox, Bell’s inequality, and the question of locality

Guy Blaylock

Most physicists agree that the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bell paradox exemplifies much of the strange behavior of quantum mechanics, but argument persists about what assumptions underlie the paradox. To clarify what the debate is about, we employ a simple and well-known thought experiment involving two correlated photons to help us focus on the logical assumptions needed to construct the EPR and Bell arguments. The view presented in this paper is that the minimal assumptions behind Bell’s inequality are locality and counterfactual definiteness but not scientific realism, determinism, or hidden variables as are often suggested. We further examine the resulting constraints on physical theory with an illustration from the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics—an interpretation that we argue is deterministic, local, and realist but that nonetheless violates the Bell inequality.

arXiv:0902.3827•American Journal of Physics•Dec 14, 2009•59 citations

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and Bell’s inequalities

Jan Schütz

Considering the Gedankenexperiment of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen as example the nonlocal character of quantum mechanics is discussed. The attempt to complement quantum mechanics by a supplementary, local causal theory of ’hidden-variables’ and the fundamental incompatibility of both theories due to Bell’s inequalities is shown. Some experiments clearly favouring quantum mechanics are outlined.

•Jan 1, 2005•0 citations

EPR Paradox and Local Hidden Variable Theories

K.A. Siddiqui A. Raza

After a brief summary of mathematical formalism of quantum theory and double slit experiment, the famous Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox has been described. Bell’s inequalities have been derived and tests has been discussed. It is concluded that local hidden variable theories are wrong.

•Jan 1, 1988•0 citations

Bell’s Inequality

David K. Ferry

In the early 1960s, John Bell decided to look once again at the hidden variable problem in quantum mechanics, through an examination of the A. Einstein, with B. Podolsky and N. Rosen (EPR) paradox. Proposals for proofs against the possibility of hidden variables had been advanced both before and after EPR. Bell developed both a “theorem” and an inequality, but this may be overstating the case. Most interpretations are that Bell is ruling out any “action-at-a-distance” type of interactions or variables, but would accept that such forces could violate the inequality. By triple of random variables, mentioned by A. Yu. Krennikov, one has to think once again about the experiment suggested by the Bell inequality. Bell has assumed that the set of hidden variables, and more importantly the probability function of the hidden variables, is unchanging. K. Hess and Walter Philipp began to worry about this assumption, because it has some implicit assumptions of its own.

•Jan 2, 2019•0 citations

Quantum mechanics versus local realism : the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox

F. Selleri

1 History of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox.- 2 Are Faster-Than-Light Influences Necessary?.- 3 All the Inequalities of Einstein Locality.- 4 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Experiments Using the Decays of ?c or J/? into ??? ? ?-?p?+p?.- Chapter5 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox for the K0-K?0 and B0-B?0 Systems.- 6 Even Local Probabilities Lead to the Paradox.- 7 The Experimental Investigation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Question and Bell's Inequality.- 8 Rapisarda's Experiment: Testing Quantum Mechanics versus Local Hidden-Variable Theories with Dichotomic Analyzers.- 9 Nonlocality and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Experiment as Understood through the Quantum-Potential Approach.- 10 Interpretation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Effect in Terms of a Generalized Causality.- 11 Quantum Action-at-a-Distance: The Mystery of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Correlations.- 12 Particle Trajectories and Quantum Correlations.- 13 Bell's Inequality and the Nonergodic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.- 14 An Extended-Probability Response to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument.- 15 The Search for Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics.- 16 Variable Detection Probability Models for Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Type Experiments.- 17 Stochastic Electrodynamics and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument.- 18 Explicit Calculations with a Hidden-Variable Spin Model.- 19 Symmetric and Asymmetric Models for Atomic Cascade Experiments.

Plenum Press eBooks•Jan 1, 1988•64 citations
The phenomenon of nonlocality in quantum mechanics is one of its most fundamental features and is most strikingly exemplified in the discussion of the Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) type of experiment. The generality of Bell's inequality and the results of experiments done up to now show that local hidden-variable theories are ruled out as a means to resolve the famous EPR paradox. What remains for further consideration are the nonlocal and the Einstein-separable hidden-variable models. Finally, an alternative and possibly successful approach in trying to 'explain' nonlocality might involve ideas of backward causation.
The remarkable quantum phenomenon of 'non-locality' discovered by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) is the centre of considerable experimental and theoretical activity these days. Nevertheless, many (perhaps most) physicists do not feel the phenomenon is especially paradoxical, or even worthy of interest. This article attempts to reveal, in a simple way, just where the fascination of the EPR paradox lies, and to answer some of the arguments invoked by critics to 'explain away' the paradox.
Most physicists agree that the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bell paradox exemplifies much of the strange behavior of quantum mechanics, but argument persists about what assumptions underlie the paradox. To clarify what the debate is about, we employ a simple and well-known thought experiment involving two correlated photons to help us focus on the logical assumptions needed to construct the EPR and Bell arguments. The view presented in this paper is that the minimal assumptions behind Bell’s inequality are locality and counterfactual definiteness but not scientific realism, determinism, or hidden variables as are often suggested. We further examine the resulting constraints on physical theory with an illustration from the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics—an interpretation that we argue is deterministic, local, and realist but that nonetheless violates the Bell inequality.
In the early 1960s, John Bell decided to look once again at the hidden variable problem in quantum mechanics, through an examination of the A. Einstein, with B. Podolsky and N. Rosen (EPR) paradox. Proposals for proofs against the possibility of hidden variables had been advanced both before and after EPR. Bell developed both a “theorem” and an inequality, but this may be overstating the case. Most interpretations are that Bell is ruling out any “action-at-a-distance” type of interactions or variables, but would accept that such forces could violate the inequality. By triple of random variables, mentioned by A. Yu. Krennikov, one has to think once again about the experiment suggested by the Bell inequality. Bell has assumed that the set of hidden variables, and more importantly the probability function of the hidden variables, is unchanging. K. Hess and Walter Philipp began to worry about this assumption, because it has some implicit assumptions of its own.
1 History of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox.- 2 Are Faster-Than-Light Influences Necessary?.- 3 All the Inequalities of Einstein Locality.- 4 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Experiments Using the Decays of ?c or J/? into ??? ? ?-?p?+p?.- Chapter5 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox for the K0-K?0 and B0-B?0 Systems.- 6 Even Local Probabilities Lead to the Paradox.- 7 The Experimental Investigation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Question and Bell's Inequality.- 8 Rapisarda's Experiment: Testing Quantum Mechanics versus Local Hidden-Variable Theories with Dichotomic Analyzers.- 9 Nonlocality and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Experiment as Understood through the Quantum-Potential Approach.- 10 Interpretation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Effect in Terms of a Generalized Causality.- 11 Quantum Action-at-a-Distance: The Mystery of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Correlations.- 12 Particle Trajectories and Quantum Correlations.- 13 Bell's Inequality and the Nonergodic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.- 14 An Extended-Probability Response to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument.- 15 The Search for Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics.- 16 Variable Detection Probability Models for Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Type Experiments.- 17 Stochastic Electrodynamics and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument.- 18 Explicit Calculations with a Hidden-Variable Spin Model.- 19 Symmetric and Asymmetric Models for Atomic Cascade Experiments.