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

AIP conference proceedings

Anti-Bell - Refutation of Bell's theorem

Ilija Barukčić

Published Jan 1, 2012• 15 citations
Publisher

Abstract

In general, Albert Einstein as one of "the founding fathers of quantum mechanics" had some problems to accept especially the Copenhagen dominated interpretation of quantum mechanics. Einstein's dissatisfaction with Copenhagen's interpretation of quantum mechanics, the absence of locality and causality within the Copenhagen dominated quantum mechanics lead to the well known Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen thought experiment. According to Einstein et al., the Copenhagen dominated quantum mechanics cannot be regarded as a complete physical theory. The Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen thought experiment was the origin of J. S. Bell's publication in 1964; known as Bell's theorem. Meanwhile, some dramatic violations of Bell's inequality (by so called Bell test experiments) have been reported which is taken as an empirical evidence against local realism and causality at quantum level and as positive evidence in favor of the Copenhagen dominated quantum mechanics. Thus far, Quantum mechanics is still regarded as a "strictly" non-local theory. The purpose of this publication is to refute Bell's original theorem. Thus far, if we accept Bell's theorem as correct, we must accept that +0> = +1. We can derive a logical contradiction out of Bell's theorem, Bell's theorem is refuted.

DOI
10.1063/1.4773147

Related papers

Bell's Theorem Refuted via True Local Realism

Gordon Watson

Bell's theorem has been described as the most profound discovery of science; one of the few essential discoveries of 20th Century physics; indecipherable to non-mathematicians. However, taking elementary analysis to be an adequate logic here, we refute Bell's theorem, correct his inequality and identify his error. Further, we do this under the principle of true local realism, the union of true locality (or relativistic causality: no influence propagates superluminally) and true realism (or non-naive realism: some existents change interactively). We thus lay the foundation for a more complete physical theory: one in line with Einstein's ideas and Bell's hopes. Let's see.

•Nov 1, 2020•0 citations

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

On Bell Experiments and Quantum Entanglement

Guang-Liang Li

Bell inequalities are intended to formulate mathematically the argument of the thought-experiment proposed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) in the Einstein-Bohr Debate. Devised to test Bell inequalities against quantum mechanics for resolving the Einstein-Bohr debate, Bell experiments are purportedly modern versions of the EPR experiment. However, there exists a fatal logical flaw in Bell experiments. Because of the logical flaw, Bell experiments differ essentially from the EPR experiment, and quantum correlation in the EPR experiment is not "quantum entanglement" in Bell experiments; the latter is not physically meaningful. In addition to the logical flaw in Bell experiments, a physical constraint imposed on measuring individual quantum objects is violated by all Bell inequalities, which makes Bell inequalities physically meaningless. Unlike Bell experiments, the EPR experiment will not violate any physical constraint, and the EPR argument has no logical flaw. Consequently, the experimental invalidation of Bell inequalities is not evidence for falsifying the two fundamental hypotheses for scientific research, i.e., locality and realism, underlying the EPR experiment, and by no means can Bell experiments resolve the Einstein-Bohr debate. Stemming from abandoning either locality or realism or both, the so-called new applications of quantum mechanics, including various quantum information technologies, are all ineligible and doomed to failure, for they attempt to exploit physically meaningless "quantum superposition" or "quantum entanglement", treating them as physical resources "out there" in the real world.

Qeios•Sep 4, 2023•3 citations

Bell's Theorem Refuted in Our Locally-Causal Lorentz-Invariant World

Gordon Watson

Adjusting EPR (to accord with Bohr's insight), and accepting Bell's principles (but not his false inferences), we:— (i) complete the QM account of EPR correlations in a classical way; (ii) deliver Bell's hope for a simple constructive model of EPRB; (iii) justify EPR's belief that additional variables would bring locality and causality to QM's completion; (iv) refute key claims that such variables are impossible — including CHSH, Mermin's three-particle always-vs-never variant of GHZ, and this: in the context of Bell's theorem ‘it's a proven scientific fact that a violation of local realism has been demonstrated theoretically and experimentally,' (Annals of Physics Editors, 2016). In short: we refute Bell's theorem and endorse Einstein's locally-causal Lorentz-invariant worldview.

•Mar 1, 2017•0 citations

Breakdown of Bell's Theorem for incompatible measurements

K. Hess

Bell's theorem contains the proposition that the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) theory (hypothesis) of the existence of elements of reality together with Einstein locality permits a mathematical description of EPR experiments by functions that are all defined on one common probability space. This proposition leads in turn to restrictions for possible experimental outcomes that Bell expressed in terms of his well known inequalities and that Vorob'ev and others had investigated before Bell. Summarizing several previous publications and adding new material, the above proposition is refuted by Einstein-local counterexamples from classical physics and shown to involve additional assumptions that can not be justified for mutually exclusive (incompatible) measurements and experiments. Moreover, criticism of our work by Mermin who invoked "standard sampling arguments" is shown to be false.

arXiv:0804.0884•Apr 6, 2008•2 citations

What Bell did

Tim Maudlin

On the 50th anniversary of Bell's monumental 1964 paper, there is still widespread misunderstanding about exactly what Bell proved. This misunderstanding derives in turn from a failure to appreciate the earlier argument of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. I retrace the history and logical structure of these arguments in order to clarify the proper conclusion, namely that any world that displays violations of Bell's inequality for experiments done far from one another must be non-local. Since the world we happen to live in displays such violations, actual physics is non-local. This article is part of a special issue of Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical devoted to '50 years of Bell's theorem'.

arXiv:1408.1826•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Oct 9, 2014•162 citations
In general, Albert Einstein as one of "the founding fathers of quantum mechanics" had some problems to accept especially the Copenhagen dominated interpretation of quantum mechanics. Einstein's dissatisfaction with Copenhagen's interpretation of quantum mechanics, the absence of locality and causality within the Copenhagen dominated quantum mechanics lead to the well known Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen thought experiment. According to Einstein et al., the Copenhagen dominated quantum mechanics cannot be regarded as a complete physical theory. The Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen thought experiment was the origin of J. S. Bell's publication in 1964; known as Bell's theorem. Meanwhile, some dramatic violations of Bell's inequality (by so called Bell test experiments) have been reported which is taken as an empirical evidence against local realism and causality at quantum level and as positive evidence in favor of the Copenhagen dominated quantum mechanics. Thus far, Quantum mechanics is still regarded as a "strictly" non-local theory. The purpose of this publication is to refute Bell's original theorem. Thus far, if we accept Bell's theorem as correct, we must accept that +0> = +1. We can derive a logical contradiction out of Bell's theorem, Bell's theorem is refuted.
Bell's theorem has been described as the most profound discovery of science; one of the few essential discoveries of 20th Century physics; indecipherable to non-mathematicians. However, taking elementary analysis to be an adequate logic here, we refute Bell's theorem, correct his inequality and identify his error. Further, we do this under the principle of true local realism, the union of true locality (or relativistic causality: no influence propagates superluminally) and true realism (or non-naive realism: some existents change interactively). We thus lay the foundation for a more complete physical theory: one in line with Einstein's ideas and Bell's hopes. Let's see.
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 inequalities are intended to formulate mathematically the argument of the thought-experiment proposed by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) in the Einstein-Bohr Debate. Devised to test Bell inequalities against quantum mechanics for resolving the Einstein-Bohr debate, Bell experiments are purportedly modern versions of the EPR experiment. However, there exists a fatal logical flaw in Bell experiments. Because of the logical flaw, Bell experiments differ essentially from the EPR experiment, and quantum correlation in the EPR experiment is not "quantum entanglement" in Bell experiments; the latter is not physically meaningful. In addition to the logical flaw in Bell experiments, a physical constraint imposed on measuring individual quantum objects is violated by all Bell inequalities, which makes Bell inequalities physically meaningless. Unlike Bell experiments, the EPR experiment will not violate any physical constraint, and the EPR argument has no logical flaw. Consequently, the experimental invalidation of Bell inequalities is not evidence for falsifying the two fundamental hypotheses for scientific research, i.e., locality and realism, underlying the EPR experiment, and by no means can Bell experiments resolve the Einstein-Bohr debate. Stemming from abandoning either locality or realism or both, the so-called new applications of quantum mechanics, including various quantum information technologies, are all ineligible and doomed to failure, for they attempt to exploit physically meaningless "quantum superposition" or "quantum entanglement", treating them as physical resources "out there" in the real world.
Adjusting EPR (to accord with Bohr's insight), and accepting Bell's principles (but not his false inferences), we:— (i) complete the QM account of EPR correlations in a classical way; (ii) deliver Bell's hope for a simple constructive model of EPRB; (iii) justify EPR's belief that additional variables would bring locality and causality to QM's completion; (iv) refute key claims that such variables are impossible — including CHSH, Mermin's three-particle always-vs-never variant of GHZ, and this: in the context of Bell's theorem ‘it's a proven scientific fact that a violation of local realism has been demonstrated theoretically and experimentally,' (Annals of Physics Editors, 2016). In short: we refute Bell's theorem and endorse Einstein's locally-causal Lorentz-invariant worldview.
Bell's theorem contains the proposition that the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) theory (hypothesis) of the existence of elements of reality together with Einstein locality permits a mathematical description of EPR experiments by functions that are all defined on one common probability space. This proposition leads in turn to restrictions for possible experimental outcomes that Bell expressed in terms of his well known inequalities and that Vorob'ev and others had investigated before Bell. Summarizing several previous publications and adding new material, the above proposition is refuted by Einstein-local counterexamples from classical physics and shown to involve additional assumptions that can not be justified for mutually exclusive (incompatible) measurements and experiments. Moreover, criticism of our work by Mermin who invoked "standard sampling arguments" is shown to be false.
On the 50th anniversary of Bell's monumental 1964 paper, there is still widespread misunderstanding about exactly what Bell proved. This misunderstanding derives in turn from a failure to appreciate the earlier argument of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. I retrace the history and logical structure of these arguments in order to clarify the proper conclusion, namely that any world that displays violations of Bell's inequality for experiments done far from one another must be non-local. Since the world we happen to live in displays such violations, actual physics is non-local. This article is part of a special issue of Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical devoted to '50 years of Bell's theorem'.