In this work, we show that Bell's inequality violation of arise from the fact that the condition imposed upon the development of inequality is not respected when it is applied in the idealized experiment. Such a condition is that the quantities taken by probability must be non negative, and such a condition is represented by $|\cal{P(w)}|=\cal{P(w)}$ . We will also show that, when trying to define the values of the joint probabilities of $ (Z_1, Z_2, Z_3) $, through the values obtained from the $ (Z_j, Z_k) $ pairs, we find that these values are negative, so not Kolmogorov's axiom is respected: $\cal{P(w)}\geq0$ in cases where Bell's inequality is violated, and we also show that only such violation is possible if Wigner's inequality, in a certain arrangement, is violated, and that both violations are related to the violation of one of Kolmogorov's axioms. At the end of the paper, we suggest a new interpretation of the probabilities involved, in order to avoid the situation of negative probabilities and the violation of Bell's inequality and, consequently, Wigner's inequality.In this work, we show that Bell's inequality violation of arise from the fact that the condition imposed upon the development of inequality is not respected when it is applied in the idealized experiment. Such a condition is that the quantities taken by probability must be non negative, and such a condition is represented by $|\cal{P(w)}|=\cal{P(w)}$. We will also show that, when trying to define the values of the joint probabilities of $ (Z_1, Z_2, Z_3) $, through the values obtained from the $ (Z_j, Z_k) $ pairs, we find that these values are negative, so not Kolmogorov's axiom is respected: $\cal{P(w)}\geq0$ in cases where Bell's inequality is violated, and we also show that only such violation is possible if Wigner's inequality, in a certain arrangement, is violated, and that both violations are related to the violation of one of Kolmogorov's axioms. At the end of the paper, we suggest a new interpretation of the probabilities involved, in order to avoid the situation of negative probabilities and the violation of Bell's inequality and, consequently, Wigner's inequality.

arXiv:2006.08066Jun 15, 20200 citations

Bell’s Inequalities

Andrey Anatoljevich Grib, Waldyr A. Rodrigues

Springer eBooksJan 1, 19990 citations

BELL’S INEQUALITIES

Karl Gustafson

Solvay Conference on PhysicsAug 1, 20035 citations

What in Fact Proves the Violation of the Bell-Type Inequalities?

Sofia Wechsler

A. Peres constructed an example of particles entangled in the state of spin singlet. He claimed to have obtained the CHSH inequality and concluded that the violation of this inequality shows that in a measurement in which some variables are tested, other variables, not tested, have no defined value. In the present paper is proved that the correct conclusion of the violation of the CHSH inequality is different. It is proved that the classical calculus of probabilities of test results, obeying the Kolmogorov axioms, is unfit for the quantum formalism, dominated by probability amplitudes.A. Peres constructed an example of particles entangled in the state of spin singlet. He claimed to have obtained the CHSH inequality and concluded that the violation of this inequality shows that in a measurement in which some variables are tested, other variables, not tested, have no defined value. In the present paper is proved that the correct conclusion of the violation of the CHSH inequality is different. It is proved that the classical calculus of probabilities of test results, obeying the Kolmogorov axioms, is unfit for the quantum formalism, dominated by probability amplitudes.

arXiv:2303.08821Journal of Quantum Information ScienceJan 1, 20230 citations

Breakdown of Bell's theorem for certain objective local parameter spaces

K. Hess, Walter Philipp

We show that the known proofs of Bell's inequalities contain algebraic manipulations that are not appropriate within the syntax of Kolmogorov's axioms for probability theory without detailed justification. Such justification can be achieved by a variant of the techniques used in Bell-type proofs but only for a subclass of objective local parameter spaces. It cannot be achieved for an extended parameter space that is still objective local and that includes instrument parameters correlated by both time and setting dependencies.We show that the known proofs of Bell's inequalities contain algebraic manipulations that are not appropriate within the syntax of Kolmogorov's axioms for probability theory without detailed justification. Such justification can be achieved by a variant of the techniques used in Bell-type proofs but only for a subclass of objective local parameter spaces. It cannot be achieved for an extended parameter space that is still objective local and that includes instrument parameters correlated by both time and setting dependencies.

Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesJan 22, 200440 citations

New ways with Bell's inequalities

John Maddox

NatureSep 1, 19885 citations

|\cal{P(w)}|=\cal{P(w)}

. We will also show that, when trying to define the values of the joint probabilities of $ (Z_1, Z_2, Z_3) $, through the values obtained from the $ (Z_j, Z_k) $ pairs, we find that these values are negative, so not Kolmogorov's axiom is respected:

\cal{P(w)}\geq0

in cases where Bell's inequality is violated, and we also show that only such violation is possible if Wigner's inequality, in a certain arrangement, is violated, and that both violations are related to the violation of one of Kolmogorov's axioms. At the end of the paper, we suggest a new interpretation of the probabilities involved, in order to avoid the situation of negative probabilities and the violation of Bell's inequality and, consequently, Wigner's inequality.