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

Illusory Signaling under Local Realism with Forecasts

John R. Dixon

Published Jun 1, 2016• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

G. Adenier and A.Y. Khrennikov (2016) show that a recent ``loophole free'' CHSH Bell experiment violates no-signaling equalities, contrary to the expected impossibility of signaling in that experiment. We show that a local realism setup, in which nature sets hidden variables based on forecasts, and which can violate a Bell Inequality, can also give the illusion of signaling where there is none. This suggests that the violation of the CHSH Bell inequality, and the puzzling no-signaling violation in the CHSH Bell experiment may be explained by hidden variables based on forecasts as well.

Related papers

Signaling loophole in experimental Bell tests

Adam Bednorz

The recent Bell test performed in Delft [B. Hensen et al. Nature 526, 682 (2015), arXiv:1508.05949], claimed as loophole-free, has shown violation of local realism with 96% confidence level. However, the raw data indicate violation of no-signaling principle (microcausality) around 99% confidence level. While violation of local realism is consistent with quantum mechanics, it is not the case of no-signaling. Violation of the latter would be a groundbreaking revolution in physics but also invalidate the conclusion of the Bell theorem, where it no-signaling assumed and must be verified or at least not falsified. If the signature of signaling is believed to be a statistical error, a fair calculation of the Bell parameter gives S = 1.86 < 2, in accordance with local realism. Therefore further experimental tests are urgent to clarify with better confidence level whether local realism or no-signaling is violated or none of them.

•Nov 11, 2015•2 citations

Bell's Theorem Begs the Question

Joy Christian

I demonstrate that Bell's theorem is based on circular reasoning and thus a fundamentally flawed argument. It unjustifiably assumes the additivity of expectation values for dispersion-free states of contextual hidden variable theories for non-commuting observables involved in Bell-test experiments, which is tautologous to assuming the bounds of ±2 on the Bell-CHSH sum of expectation values. Its premises thus assume in a different guise the bounds of ±2 it sets out to prove. Once this oversight is ameliorated from Bell's argument by identifying the impediment that leads to it and local realism is implemented correctly, the bounds on the Bell-CHSH sum of expectation values work out to be ±2√2 instead of ±2, thereby mitigating the conclusion of Bell's theorem. Consequently, what is ruled out by any of the Bell-test experiments is not local realism but the linear additivity of expectation values, which does not hold for non-commuting observables in any hidden variable theories to begin with.

•Dec 27, 2023•0 citations

Bell's Theorem Begs the Question

Joy Christian

I demonstrate that Bell's theorem is based on circular reasoning and thus a fundamentally flawed argument. It unjustifiably assumes the additivity of expectation values for dispersion-free states of contextual hidden variable theories for non-commuting observables involved in Bell-test experiments, which is tautologous to assuming the bounds of ±2 on the Bell-CHSH sum of expectation values. Its premises thus assume in a different guise the bounds of ±2 it sets out to prove. Once this oversight is ameliorated from Bell's argument by identifying the impediment that leads to it and local realism is implemented correctly, the bounds on the Bell-CHSH sum of expectation values work out to be ±2√2 instead of ±2, thereby mitigating the conclusion of Bell's theorem. Consequently, what is ruled out by any of the Bell-test experiments is not local realism but the linear additivity of expectation values, which does not hold for non-commuting observables in any hidden variable theories to begin with.

•Aug 3, 2023•0 citations

Bell's Theorem Begs the Question

Joy Christian

I demonstrate that Bell's theorem is based on circular reasoning and thus a fundamentally flawed argument. It unjustifiably assumes the additivity of expectation values for dispersion-free states of contextual hidden variable theories for non-commuting observables involved in Bell-test experiments, which is tautologous to assuming the bounds of ±2 on the Bell-CHSH sum of expectation values. Its premises thus assume in a different guise the bounds of ±2 it sets out to prove. Once this oversight is ameliorated from Bell's argument by identifying the impediment that leads to it and local realism is implemented correctly, the bounds on the Bell-CHSH sum of expectation values work out to be ±2√2 instead of ±2, thereby mitigating the conclusion of Bell's theorem. Consequently, what is ruled out by any of the Bell-test experiments is not local realism but the linear additivity of expectation values, which does not hold for non-commuting observables in any hidden variable theories to begin with.

•Jan 26, 2024•0 citations

Loophole-free Bell inequality violation experiments verifying the realism and locality principles

Stéphane Le Corre

The aim of this study is to produce a simulation of EPR experiments violating the CHSH-Bell inequalities using physically interpretable objects (properties defined before measurement) and interactions (no supraliminal communication), without influence from any theory. It turns out that the proposed model systematically violates the CHSH-Bell inequalities reaching all the values ( 2 ≤ S ≤ 4 ) . Our simulation reproduces experimental entanglements with greater efficiency. This approach has at least two consequences. First, it demonstrates that violations of the CHSH-Bell inequalities are possible while still verifying the principles of realism and locality, but in a different sense from that of Bell’s theorem. Therefore, Bell’s theorem itself is not called into question, nor are the results of the EPR experiments. However, it is the deduction that leads to the current interpretation (often described as strange because it does not follow one of the principles of realism and locality as defined by Bell’s theorem) that is challenged. Second, it challenges real-world EPR experiments to exceed the efficiency rates of our simulation. Our idealization demonstrates that, between the efficiency rates required to confirm the violation of Bell’s inequalities and the efficiency rates of our idealization, the interpretation of experiments remains possible within a framework of “classical” physical principles (properties defined before measurement and no supraliminal communication). Confirming the strangeness of quantum mechanics would therefore require obtaining efficiency rates higher than those of Bell’s theorem.

Frontiers in Physics•Mar 18, 2026•0 citations

Bell's Theorem Begs the Question

Joy Christian

I demonstrate that Bell's theorem is based on circular reasoning and thus a fundamentally flawed argument. It unjustifiably assumes the additivity of expectation values for dispersion-free states of contextual hidden variable theories for non-commuting observables involved in Bell-test experiments, which is tautologous to assuming the bounds of ±2 on the Bell-CHSH sum of expectation values. Its premises thus assume in a different guise the bounds of ±2 it sets out to prove. Once this oversight is ameliorated from Bell's argument by identifying the impediment that leads to it and local realism is implemented correctly, the bounds on the Bell-CHSH sum of expectation values work out to be ±2√2 instead of ±2, thereby mitigating the conclusion of Bell's theorem. Consequently, what is ruled out by any of the Bell-test experiments is not local realism but the linear additivity of expectation values, which does not hold for non-commuting observables in any hidden variable theories to begin with.

•Feb 12, 2024•0 citations
G. Adenier and A.Y. Khrennikov (2016) show that a recent ``loophole free'' CHSH Bell experiment violates no-signaling equalities, contrary to the expected impossibility of signaling in that experiment. We show that a local realism setup, in which nature sets hidden variables based on forecasts, and which can violate a Bell Inequality, can also give the illusion of signaling where there is none. This suggests that the violation of the CHSH Bell inequality, and the puzzling no-signaling violation in the CHSH Bell experiment may be explained by hidden variables based on forecasts as well.
The recent Bell test performed in Delft [B. Hensen et al. Nature 526, 682 (2015), arXiv:1508.05949], claimed as loophole-free, has shown violation of local realism with 96% confidence level. However, the raw data indicate violation of no-signaling principle (microcausality) around 99% confidence level. While violation of local realism is consistent with quantum mechanics, it is not the case of no-signaling. Violation of the latter would be a groundbreaking revolution in physics but also invalidate the conclusion of the Bell theorem, where it no-signaling assumed and must be verified or at least not falsified. If the signature of signaling is believed to be a statistical error, a fair calculation of the Bell parameter gives S = 1.86 < 2, in accordance with local realism. Therefore further experimental tests are urgent to clarify with better confidence level whether local realism or no-signaling is violated or none of them.
I demonstrate that Bell's theorem is based on circular reasoning and thus a fundamentally flawed argument. It unjustifiably assumes the additivity of expectation values for dispersion-free states of contextual hidden variable theories for non-commuting observables involved in Bell-test experiments, which is tautologous to assuming the bounds of ±2 on the Bell-CHSH sum of expectation values. Its premises thus assume in a different guise the bounds of ±2 it sets out to prove. Once this oversight is ameliorated from Bell's argument by identifying the impediment that leads to it and local realism is implemented correctly, the bounds on the Bell-CHSH sum of expectation values work out to be ±2√2 instead of ±2, thereby mitigating the conclusion of Bell's theorem. Consequently, what is ruled out by any of the Bell-test experiments is not local realism but the linear additivity of expectation values, which does not hold for non-commuting observables in any hidden variable theories to begin with.
I demonstrate that Bell's theorem is based on circular reasoning and thus a fundamentally flawed argument. It unjustifiably assumes the additivity of expectation values for dispersion-free states of contextual hidden variable theories for non-commuting observables involved in Bell-test experiments, which is tautologous to assuming the bounds of ±2 on the Bell-CHSH sum of expectation values. Its premises thus assume in a different guise the bounds of ±2 it sets out to prove. Once this oversight is ameliorated from Bell's argument by identifying the impediment that leads to it and local realism is implemented correctly, the bounds on the Bell-CHSH sum of expectation values work out to be ±2√2 instead of ±2, thereby mitigating the conclusion of Bell's theorem. Consequently, what is ruled out by any of the Bell-test experiments is not local realism but the linear additivity of expectation values, which does not hold for non-commuting observables in any hidden variable theories to begin with.
I demonstrate that Bell's theorem is based on circular reasoning and thus a fundamentally flawed argument. It unjustifiably assumes the additivity of expectation values for dispersion-free states of contextual hidden variable theories for non-commuting observables involved in Bell-test experiments, which is tautologous to assuming the bounds of ±2 on the Bell-CHSH sum of expectation values. Its premises thus assume in a different guise the bounds of ±2 it sets out to prove. Once this oversight is ameliorated from Bell's argument by identifying the impediment that leads to it and local realism is implemented correctly, the bounds on the Bell-CHSH sum of expectation values work out to be ±2√2 instead of ±2, thereby mitigating the conclusion of Bell's theorem. Consequently, what is ruled out by any of the Bell-test experiments is not local realism but the linear additivity of expectation values, which does not hold for non-commuting observables in any hidden variable theories to begin with.
The aim of this study is to produce a simulation of EPR experiments violating the CHSH-Bell inequalities using physically interpretable objects (properties defined before measurement) and interactions (no supraliminal communication), without influence from any theory. It turns out that the proposed model systematically violates the CHSH-Bell inequalities reaching all the values ( 2 ≤ S ≤ 4 ) . Our simulation reproduces experimental entanglements with greater efficiency. This approach has at least two consequences. First, it demonstrates that violations of the CHSH-Bell inequalities are possible while still verifying the principles of realism and locality, but in a different sense from that of Bell’s theorem. Therefore, Bell’s theorem itself is not called into question, nor are the results of the EPR experiments. However, it is the deduction that leads to the current interpretation (often described as strange because it does not follow one of the principles of realism and locality as defined by Bell’s theorem) that is challenged. Second, it challenges real-world EPR experiments to exceed the efficiency rates of our simulation. Our idealization demonstrates that, between the efficiency rates required to confirm the violation of Bell’s inequalities and the efficiency rates of our idealization, the interpretation of experiments remains possible within a framework of “classical” physical principles (properties defined before measurement and no supraliminal communication). Confirming the strangeness of quantum mechanics would therefore require obtaining efficiency rates higher than those of Bell’s theorem.
I demonstrate that Bell's theorem is based on circular reasoning and thus a fundamentally flawed argument. It unjustifiably assumes the additivity of expectation values for dispersion-free states of contextual hidden variable theories for non-commuting observables involved in Bell-test experiments, which is tautologous to assuming the bounds of ±2 on the Bell-CHSH sum of expectation values. Its premises thus assume in a different guise the bounds of ±2 it sets out to prove. Once this oversight is ameliorated from Bell's argument by identifying the impediment that leads to it and local realism is implemented correctly, the bounds on the Bell-CHSH sum of expectation values work out to be ±2√2 instead of ±2, thereby mitigating the conclusion of Bell's theorem. Consequently, what is ruled out by any of the Bell-test experiments is not local realism but the linear additivity of expectation values, which does not hold for non-commuting observables in any hidden variable theories to begin with.