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

International Journal of Quantum Information

COMMENT ON "ON THE ROLE OF LOCALITY CONDITION IN BELL'S THEOREM"

Tomasz Paterek

Published Aug 30, 2004• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

In his paper,1 Razmi derives a Bell-like inequality without imposing the locality condition. Then he shows violation of this inequality by certain quantum predictions. Here we point at a loophole in Razmi's proof, which invalidates his inequality.
DOI
10.1142/s0219749904000353

Related papers

ON THE ROLE OF LOCALITY CONDITION IN BELL'S THEOREM

H. Razmi

For a special stochastic realistic model in certain spin-correlation experiments and without imposing the locality condition, an inequality is found. Then, it is shown that quantum theory is able (is possible) to violate this inequality. This shows that, irrespective of the locality condition, the quantum entanglement of the spin singlet-state is the reason for the violation of Bell's inequality in Bell's theorem.

arXiv:quant-ph/0301008•International Journal of Quantum Information•Mar 1, 2003•1 citation

A Prediction Loophole in Bell's Theorem

John R. Dixon

We consider the Bell’s Theorem setup of Gill et. al. (2002). We present a “proof of concept” that if the source emitting the particles can predict the settings of the detectors with sufficiently large probability, then there is a scenario consistent with local realism that violates the Bell inequality for the setup.

•Mar 1, 2011•1 citation

Quantum non-locality—it ainʼt necessarily so...

Marek Żukowski, Časlav Brukner

Bell's theorem is 50 years old. Still there is a controversy about its implications. Much of it has its roots in confusion regarding the premises from which the theorem can be derived. Some claim that a derivation of Bell's inequalities requires just locality assumption, and nothing more. Violations of the inequalities are then interpreted as ``nonlocality'' or ``quantum nonlocality''. We show that such claims are unfounded and that every derivation of Bell's inequalities requires a premise -- in addition to locality and freedom of choice -- which is either assumed tacitly, or unconsciously, or is embedded in a single compound condition (like Bell's ``local causality''). The premise is equivalent to the assumption of existence of additional variables which do not appear in the quantum formalism (in form of determinism, or joint probability for outcomes of all conceivable measurements, or ``additional causes`'', or ``hidden variables'', ``complete description of the state'' or counterfactual definiteness, etc.). A certain irony is that perhaps the main message of violation of Bell's inequalities is that our notion of locality should be based on an operationally well-defined no-signalling condition, rather than on local causality.

arXiv:1501.04618•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Oct 9, 2014•100 citations

A loophole in Cabello's proof to Bell's theorem without inequalities

W. LiMing, Z. L. Tang, Liao, C.

Cabello proved Bell's theorem without using inequalities. A loophole of Cabello's proof is pointed out in this work.

arXiv:quant-ph/0301067•Jan 15, 2003•0 citations

Comment on the GHZ variant of Bell's theorem without inequalities

Joy Christian

I point out a sign mistake in the GHZ variant of Bell's theorem, invalidating its claim that the premisses of the EPR argument are inconsistent for systems of more than two particles in entangled quantum states.

arXiv:2408.10256•Aug 12, 2024•0 citations

Locality Is An Unnecessary Assumption of Bell's Theorem

H. Razmi, Mehdi Golshani

Without imposing the locality condition,it is shown that quantum mechanics cannot reproduce all the predictions of a special stochastic realistic model used in certain spin-correlation experiments.This shows that the so-called locality condition is an unnecessary assumption of Bell's theorem.

arXiv:quant-ph/9812029•Dec 14, 1998•0 citations
Bell's theorem is 50 years old. Still there is a controversy about its implications. Much of it has its roots in confusion regarding the premises from which the theorem can be derived. Some claim that a derivation of Bell's inequalities requires just locality assumption, and nothing more. Violations of the inequalities are then interpreted as ``nonlocality'' or ``quantum nonlocality''. We show that such claims are unfounded and that every derivation of Bell's inequalities requires a premise -- in addition to locality and freedom of choice -- which is either assumed tacitly, or unconsciously, or is embedded in a single compound condition (like Bell's ``local causality''). The premise is equivalent to the assumption of existence of additional variables which do not appear in the quantum formalism (in form of determinism, or joint probability for outcomes of all conceivable measurements, or ``additional causes`'', or ``hidden variables'', ``complete description of the state'' or counterfactual definiteness, etc.). A certain irony is that perhaps the main message of violation of Bell's inequalities is that our notion of locality should be based on an operationally well-defined no-signalling condition, rather than on local causality.