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

Cambridge University Press eBooks

An exposition of Bell's theorem

Abner Shimony

Published Feb 26, 1993• 1 citation
Publisher

Abstract

The purpose of this lecture is to give a self-contained demonstration of a version of Bell's theorem and a discussion of the significance of the theorem and the experiments which it inspired. The lecture should be comprehensible to people who have had no previous acquaintance with the literature on Bell's theorem, but I hope that explicitness about premisses and consequences will make it useful even to those who are familiar with the literature. All versions of Bell's theorem are variations, and usually generalizations, of the pioneering paper of J. S. Bell of 1964, entitled “On the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen Paradox.” All of them consider an ensemble of pairs of particles prepared in a uniform manner, so that statistical correlations may be expected between outcomes of tests performed on the particles of each pair. If each pair in the ensemble is characterized by the same quantum state φ, then the quantum mechanical predictions for correlations of the outcomes can in principle be calculated when the tests are specified. On the other hand, if it is assumed that the statistical behavior of the pairs is governed by a theory which satisfies certain independence conditions (always similar to the Parameter and Outcome Independence conditions stated below, though the exact details vary from version to version of Bell's theorem), then it is possible to derive a restriction upon the statistical correlations of the outcomes of tests upon the two particles.

DOI
10.1017/cbo9781139172196.008

Related papers

Bell's theorem and its optical tests

J. C. Garrison, R. Y. Chiao

This chapter begins with a review of the ideas of locality and realism which provide the basis for the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox. The general conditions defining a local, realistic theory are stated, and then used to prove Bell's theorem, which yields — for any local, realistic theory — an inequality satisfied by certain linear combinations of correlations. It is shown that this inequality is violated by quantum theory and by experiment. The chapter ends with a discussion of possible experimental loopholes and the alternative Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger (GHZ) state, which would, in principle, make the use of statistical correlations unnecessary.

Oxford University Press eBooks•Jun 5, 2008•0 citations

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and the Bell theorem

Ujjwal Sen

We will discuss here the Bell theorem, which shows that "locality" and "reality" are together inconsistent with quantum theory.

arXiv:2408.07639•Aug 14, 2024•0 citations

Experimental Consequences of Local Hidden Variable Theories.

Michael Horne

A family of theories called "deterministic local hidden variable theories" (DLHV) is characterized and their consequences are investigated for an experimentally realistic situation. An experiment on the polarization correlation of optical photon pairs emitted in certain atomic cascades is proposed as a test of the family of DLHV theories. The model-independent hidden variable predictions applicable to the realistic experimental arrangement are obtained by a generalization of a previous theorem of Bell. Quantum mechanical predictions for the same experimental situation are calculated for two cases: a J = 0 + J = 1 + J = 0 and a J = 1 + J = 1 + J = 0 electric dipole cascade. For both cascades, it is shown that the quantum mechanical and the DLHV predictions are in sufficient disagreement for an actual experimental test to be possible. Restrictions on detector solid angle and polarizer efficiency, necessary to obtain a decisive experiment, are explicitly given. The Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen argument for the existence of a DLHV theory is reviewed.

•Jan 1, 1970•5 citations

017 Einstein-Podolski-Rosen Experiment and Bell's Inequality

James Jeffrey Binney

•May 1, 2014•0 citations

The Illusion of Nonlocality: Ontological Sources of Bell Inequality Violations

Okupski Arkadiusz

This work offers a foundational, ontological re-examination of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox and the violation of Bell inequalities. It argues that the apparent "nonlocality" in quantum mechanics stems not from a physical mechanism of interaction, but from an inadequate ontological premise shared by classical reasoning and many interpretations of quantum theory. Core Thesis: The paradox arises from the implicit assumption that measurement outcomes in entangled systems represent independent, local facts that pre-exist or can be defined separately. The work rejects this premise. Instead, it proposes that entangled states describe indivisible ontological structures, where correlated outcomes are not separate entities to be coordinated, but inseparable aspects of a single whole. Key Conceptual Innovations: The JED Postulate (Ontological Simultaneity): The cornerstone of the framework. It posits a global constraint on the co-realization of facts: for an entangled state, individual outcomes cannot exist as autonomous facts. They can only be realized as elements of an admissible pair (e.g., {Alice+, Bob-} or {Alice-, Bob+}). This is not a temporal or causal constraint, but a structural condition for existence. Formalism of Frames and Admissibility Relations: The ontology is formalized using "frames" (sets of co-existing facts) and an "admissibility relation" R, which encodes the structure of an entangled state (e.g., for a singlet: R = {(+, -), (-, +)}). The JED postulate ensures that a frame containing one element of a related pair must contain its counterpart. The "Broken Mirror" Metaphor: A central heuristic. Entanglement is likened to a mirror broken into two complementary halves. The halves do not "communicate" to match; their perfect fit is a consequence of their common origin in a single act of breaking. Asking "which half appeared first?" or "how does one half know about the other?" is ontologically meaningless—there is no process that produces only one isolated half. Resolution of the EPR Paradox: The paradox dissolves because its first step—treating Alice's local outcome as an independent fact—is invalid within the JED ontology. There is no independent fact for locality to protect, hence no contradiction between correlations and relativistic locality. Interpretation of Bell's Theorem: The work reframes Bell's theorem. Its violation is not proof of nonlocality, but empirical evidence against the ontology of independent local facts. Bell's mathematics is correct, but its physical significance depends on ontological axioms that may not hold. The JED ontology provides a local, realistic (but not fact-local) framework consistent with the correlations. Distinction from Hidden Variables: The approach is explicitly not a hidden-variable theory. It introduces no hidden parameters λ governing individual outcomes. The relation R is a structural definition of the entangled whole, not a hidden cause of correlations. Probabilities are treated as a descriptive layer over the admissible ontological structures. Methodology: The work is developed in the spirit of the "pencil-case" methodology, constructing minimal ontological models to analyze the logical roots of physical puzzles without adding new dynamical mechanisms. Scope and Intent: The present work should be read as a contribution to the philosophy of physics: it does not aim at proposing a new physical theory, but at clarifying the ontological assumptions underlying existing formalisms. It seeks to shift the discussion from "how do the parts communicate?" to "what kind of whole do the parts constitute?" The formalism is shown to be logically consistent with the standard quantum correlation function (e.g., E(θ,φ) = -cos(θ-φ)), without deriving it, thereby separating the ontological question of admissibility from the empirical-statistical question of probability distribution. Keywords: EPR Paradox, Bell's Theorem

•Jan 18, 2026•0 citations

The Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen Paradox, Bell’s Theorem and Nonlocality

Douglas L. Hemmick, Asif M. Shakur

SpringerBriefs in physics•Sep 30, 2011•0 citations
The purpose of this lecture is to give a self-contained demonstration of a version of Bell's theorem and a discussion of the significance of the theorem and the experiments which it inspired. The lecture should be comprehensible to people who have had no previous acquaintance with the literature on Bell's theorem, but I hope that explicitness about premisses and consequences will make it useful even to those who are familiar with the literature. All versions of Bell's theorem are variations, and usually generalizations, of the pioneering paper of J. S. Bell of 1964, entitled “On the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen Paradox.” All of them consider an ensemble of pairs of particles prepared in a uniform manner, so that statistical correlations may be expected between outcomes of tests performed on the particles of each pair. If each pair in the ensemble is characterized by the same quantum state φ, then the quantum mechanical predictions for correlations of the outcomes can in principle be calculated when the tests are specified. On the other hand, if it is assumed that the statistical behavior of the pairs is governed by a theory which satisfies certain independence conditions (always similar to the Parameter and Outcome Independence conditions stated below, though the exact details vary from version to version of Bell's theorem), then it is possible to derive a restriction upon the statistical correlations of the outcomes of tests upon the two particles.
This chapter begins with a review of the ideas of locality and realism which provide the basis for the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox. The general conditions defining a local, realistic theory are stated, and then used to prove Bell's theorem, which yields — for any local, realistic theory — an inequality satisfied by certain linear combinations of correlations. It is shown that this inequality is violated by quantum theory and by experiment. The chapter ends with a discussion of possible experimental loopholes and the alternative Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger (GHZ) state, which would, in principle, make the use of statistical correlations unnecessary.
A family of theories called "deterministic local hidden variable theories" (DLHV) is characterized and their consequences are investigated for an experimentally realistic situation. An experiment on the polarization correlation of optical photon pairs emitted in certain atomic cascades is proposed as a test of the family of DLHV theories. The model-independent hidden variable predictions applicable to the realistic experimental arrangement are obtained by a generalization of a previous theorem of Bell. Quantum mechanical predictions for the same experimental situation are calculated for two cases: a J = 0 + J = 1 + J = 0 and a J = 1 + J = 1 + J = 0 electric dipole cascade. For both cascades, it is shown that the quantum mechanical and the DLHV predictions are in sufficient disagreement for an actual experimental test to be possible. Restrictions on detector solid angle and polarizer efficiency, necessary to obtain a decisive experiment, are explicitly given. The Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen argument for the existence of a DLHV theory is reviewed.
This work offers a foundational, ontological re-examination of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox and the violation of Bell inequalities. It argues that the apparent "nonlocality" in quantum mechanics stems not from a physical mechanism of interaction, but from an inadequate ontological premise shared by classical reasoning and many interpretations of quantum theory. Core Thesis: The paradox arises from the implicit assumption that measurement outcomes in entangled systems represent independent, local facts that pre-exist or can be defined separately. The work rejects this premise. Instead, it proposes that entangled states describe indivisible ontological structures, where correlated outcomes are not separate entities to be coordinated, but inseparable aspects of a single whole. Key Conceptual Innovations: The JED Postulate (Ontological Simultaneity): The cornerstone of the framework. It posits a global constraint on the co-realization of facts: for an entangled state, individual outcomes cannot exist as autonomous facts. They can only be realized as elements of an admissible pair (e.g., {Alice+, Bob-} or {Alice-, Bob+}). This is not a temporal or causal constraint, but a structural condition for existence. Formalism of Frames and Admissibility Relations: The ontology is formalized using "frames" (sets of co-existing facts) and an "admissibility relation" R, which encodes the structure of an entangled state (e.g., for a singlet: R = {(+, -), (-, +)}). The JED postulate ensures that a frame containing one element of a related pair must contain its counterpart. The "Broken Mirror" Metaphor: A central heuristic. Entanglement is likened to a mirror broken into two complementary halves. The halves do not "communicate" to match; their perfect fit is a consequence of their common origin in a single act of breaking. Asking "which half appeared first?" or "how does one half know about the other?" is ontologically meaningless—there is no process that produces only one isolated half. Resolution of the EPR Paradox: The paradox dissolves because its first step—treating Alice's local outcome as an independent fact—is invalid within the JED ontology. There is no independent fact for locality to protect, hence no contradiction between correlations and relativistic locality. Interpretation of Bell's Theorem: The work reframes Bell's theorem. Its violation is not proof of nonlocality, but empirical evidence against the ontology of independent local facts. Bell's mathematics is correct, but its physical significance depends on ontological axioms that may not hold. The JED ontology provides a local, realistic (but not fact-local) framework consistent with the correlations. Distinction from Hidden Variables: The approach is explicitly not a hidden-variable theory. It introduces no hidden parameters λ governing individual outcomes. The relation R is a structural definition of the entangled whole, not a hidden cause of correlations. Probabilities are treated as a descriptive layer over the admissible ontological structures. Methodology: The work is developed in the spirit of the "pencil-case" methodology, constructing minimal ontological models to analyze the logical roots of physical puzzles without adding new dynamical mechanisms. Scope and Intent: The present work should be read as a contribution to the philosophy of physics: it does not aim at proposing a new physical theory, but at clarifying the ontological assumptions underlying existing formalisms. It seeks to shift the discussion from "how do the parts communicate?" to "what kind of whole do the parts constitute?" The formalism is shown to be logically consistent with the standard quantum correlation function (e.g., E(θ,φ) = -cos(θ-φ)), without deriving it, thereby separating the ontological question of admissibility from the empirical-statistical question of probability distribution. Keywords: EPR Paradox, Bell's Theorem