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

What Econometrics Can Teach Quantum Physics: Causality and the Bell Inequality

Nancy Delaney Cartwright

Published Apr 7, 1994• 2 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Abstract This chapter gives a concrete example of a question of current scientific interest where capacities matter: ‘Do the Bell inequalities describing Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) experiments show that causality is incompatible with quantum mechanics?’ The question cannot be answered if we rely on probabilistic theories of causality and laws of associations alone. It takes the concept of capacity and related notions of how capacities operate even to formulate the problem correctly. Econometrics models with correlated errors, it is shown, can explain the EPR results when the correlations are given a capacity interpretation.

DOI
10.1093/0198235070.003.0007

Related papers

The EPR paradox, Bell’s inequality, and the question of locality

Guy Blaylock

Most physicists agree that the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bell paradox exemplifies much of the strange behavior of quantum mechanics, but argument persists about what assumptions underlie the paradox. To clarify what the debate is about, we employ a simple and well-known thought experiment involving two correlated photons to help us focus on the logical assumptions needed to construct the EPR and Bell arguments. The view presented in this paper is that the minimal assumptions behind Bell’s inequality are locality and counterfactual definiteness but not scientific realism, determinism, or hidden variables as are often suggested. We further examine the resulting constraints on physical theory with an illustration from the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics—an interpretation that we argue is deterministic, local, and realist but that nonetheless violates the Bell inequality.

arXiv:0902.3827•American Journal of Physics•Dec 14, 2009•59 citations

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox and Bell’s inequalities

Jan Schütz

Considering the Gedankenexperiment of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen as example the nonlocal character of quantum mechanics is discussed. The attempt to complement quantum mechanics by a supplementary, local causal theory of ’hidden-variables’ and the fundamental incompatibility of both theories due to Bell’s inequalities is shown. Some experiments clearly favouring quantum mechanics are outlined.

•Jan 1, 2005•0 citations

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument and the Bell Inequalities

László E. Szabó

In 1935 Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) published an important paper in which they claimed that the whole formalism of quantum mechanics together with what they called "Reality Criterion" imply that quantum mechanics cannot be complete. That is, there must exist some elements of reality that are not described by quantum mechanics. There must be, they concluded, a more complete description of physical reality behind quantum mechanics. There must be a state, a hidden variable, characterizing the state of affairs in the world in more details than the quantum mechanical state, something that also reflects the missing elements of reality. Under some further but quite plausible assumptions, this conclusion implies that in some spin-correlation experiments the measured quantum mechanical probabilities should satisfy particular inequalities (Bell-type inequalities). The paradox consists in the fact that quantum probabilities do not satisfy these inequalities. And this paradoxical fact has been confirmed by several laboratory experiments in the last three decades. The problem is still open and hotly debated among both physicists and philosophers. It has motivated a wide range of research from the most fundamental quantum mechanical experiments through foundations of probability theory to the theory of stochastic causality as well as the metaphysics of free will.

arXiv:0712.1318•Dec 9, 2007•12 citations

Bell Inequalities

Reinhold A. Bertlmann, Nicolai Friis

Abstract This chapter presents a detailed discussion of Bell inequalities and their experimental tests. Starting from the Aharonov-Bohm version of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox, we review EPR’s criteria for realism and completeness and Bell’s locality condition, before deriving the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality. This is followed by an exposition on Bell’s original inequality and other Bell inequalities by Wigner, as well as Clauser and Horne. We then discuss the milestones in the experimental violation of Bell inequalities, from the experiment of Freedman and Clauser in the 1970s, to the efforts of Aspect et al. in the 1980s, the experiments by the teams of Zeilinger and Gisin in the 1990s, and culminating the loophole-free tests in 2015. Finally we turn to a brief discussion of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, focusing on contrasting the realist views held by, e.g., Einstein and Bell, and the informational views with proponents such as Brukner and Zeilinger

•Sep 7, 2023•1 citation

Quantum mechanics versus local realism : the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox

F. Selleri

1 History of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox.- 2 Are Faster-Than-Light Influences Necessary?.- 3 All the Inequalities of Einstein Locality.- 4 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Experiments Using the Decays of ?c or J/? into ??? ? ?-?p?+p?.- Chapter5 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox for the K0-K?0 and B0-B?0 Systems.- 6 Even Local Probabilities Lead to the Paradox.- 7 The Experimental Investigation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Question and Bell's Inequality.- 8 Rapisarda's Experiment: Testing Quantum Mechanics versus Local Hidden-Variable Theories with Dichotomic Analyzers.- 9 Nonlocality and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Experiment as Understood through the Quantum-Potential Approach.- 10 Interpretation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Effect in Terms of a Generalized Causality.- 11 Quantum Action-at-a-Distance: The Mystery of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Correlations.- 12 Particle Trajectories and Quantum Correlations.- 13 Bell's Inequality and the Nonergodic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.- 14 An Extended-Probability Response to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument.- 15 The Search for Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics.- 16 Variable Detection Probability Models for Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Type Experiments.- 17 Stochastic Electrodynamics and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument.- 18 Explicit Calculations with a Hidden-Variable Spin Model.- 19 Symmetric and Asymmetric Models for Atomic Cascade Experiments.

Plenum Press eBooks•Jan 1, 1988•64 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
Abstract This chapter gives a concrete example of a question of current scientific interest where capacities matter: ‘Do the Bell inequalities describing Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) experiments show that causality is incompatible with quantum mechanics?’ The question cannot be answered if we rely on probabilistic theories of causality and laws of associations alone. It takes the concept of capacity and related notions of how capacities operate even to formulate the problem correctly. Econometrics models with correlated errors, it is shown, can explain the EPR results when the correlations are given a capacity interpretation.
Most physicists agree that the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen–Bell paradox exemplifies much of the strange behavior of quantum mechanics, but argument persists about what assumptions underlie the paradox. To clarify what the debate is about, we employ a simple and well-known thought experiment involving two correlated photons to help us focus on the logical assumptions needed to construct the EPR and Bell arguments. The view presented in this paper is that the minimal assumptions behind Bell’s inequality are locality and counterfactual definiteness but not scientific realism, determinism, or hidden variables as are often suggested. We further examine the resulting constraints on physical theory with an illustration from the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics—an interpretation that we argue is deterministic, local, and realist but that nonetheless violates the Bell inequality.
In 1935 Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) published an important paper in which they claimed that the whole formalism of quantum mechanics together with what they called "Reality Criterion" imply that quantum mechanics cannot be complete. That is, there must exist some elements of reality that are not described by quantum mechanics. There must be, they concluded, a more complete description of physical reality behind quantum mechanics. There must be a state, a hidden variable, characterizing the state of affairs in the world in more details than the quantum mechanical state, something that also reflects the missing elements of reality. Under some further but quite plausible assumptions, this conclusion implies that in some spin-correlation experiments the measured quantum mechanical probabilities should satisfy particular inequalities (Bell-type inequalities). The paradox consists in the fact that quantum probabilities do not satisfy these inequalities. And this paradoxical fact has been confirmed by several laboratory experiments in the last three decades. The problem is still open and hotly debated among both physicists and philosophers. It has motivated a wide range of research from the most fundamental quantum mechanical experiments through foundations of probability theory to the theory of stochastic causality as well as the metaphysics of free will.
Abstract This chapter presents a detailed discussion of Bell inequalities and their experimental tests. Starting from the Aharonov-Bohm version of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox, we review EPR’s criteria for realism and completeness and Bell’s locality condition, before deriving the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality. This is followed by an exposition on Bell’s original inequality and other Bell inequalities by Wigner, as well as Clauser and Horne. We then discuss the milestones in the experimental violation of Bell inequalities, from the experiment of Freedman and Clauser in the 1970s, to the efforts of Aspect et al. in the 1980s, the experiments by the teams of Zeilinger and Gisin in the 1990s, and culminating the loophole-free tests in 2015. Finally we turn to a brief discussion of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, focusing on contrasting the realist views held by, e.g., Einstein and Bell, and the informational views with proponents such as Brukner and Zeilinger
1 History of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox.- 2 Are Faster-Than-Light Influences Necessary?.- 3 All the Inequalities of Einstein Locality.- 4 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Experiments Using the Decays of ?c or J/? into ??? ? ?-?p?+p?.- Chapter5 Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox for the K0-K?0 and B0-B?0 Systems.- 6 Even Local Probabilities Lead to the Paradox.- 7 The Experimental Investigation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Question and Bell's Inequality.- 8 Rapisarda's Experiment: Testing Quantum Mechanics versus Local Hidden-Variable Theories with Dichotomic Analyzers.- 9 Nonlocality and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Experiment as Understood through the Quantum-Potential Approach.- 10 Interpretation of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Effect in Terms of a Generalized Causality.- 11 Quantum Action-at-a-Distance: The Mystery of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Correlations.- 12 Particle Trajectories and Quantum Correlations.- 13 Bell's Inequality and the Nonergodic Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.- 14 An Extended-Probability Response to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument.- 15 The Search for Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics.- 16 Variable Detection Probability Models for Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Type Experiments.- 17 Stochastic Electrodynamics and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument.- 18 Explicit Calculations with a Hidden-Variable Spin Model.- 19 Symmetric and Asymmetric Models for Atomic Cascade Experiments.
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.