A Reexamination on Bell's Theorem

Tan Tian-rong

Published Jan 1, 2005• 0 citations

Abstract

It is proved that Bell's inequality can be traced back to a classical probabilistic formula that is invalid clearly, while the spin correlation formula in quantum mechanics to a formula that has confirmed both by facts and quantum mechanics. Two misunderstandings about Bell's theorem are pointed out: Firstly, the hidden variable theory Bell's used is a special one, but it is regarded as a general form of such theories. Secondly, there are two outcomes obtainable from Bell's hypotheses: one is compatible with quantum mechanics and the other leads to Bell's inequality. Unfortunately, the former is regarded as a property of local hidden variable theory, while the latter as self-evident. G. Lochak has revealed the first misunderstanding, and thereby he pointed out that Bell's inequality has nothing to do with locality, but he did not find the second one, so that he still analyzed this problem starting from hidden variable theory, which is actually irrelative to Bell's inequality. (The Journal of American Science. 2005;1(2):42-50).

Related papers

Probabilities and Spin Correlation

Tan Tian-rong

Bell’s inequality can be traced back to a classical probabilistic formula that is invalid clearly, while spin correlation formula in quantum mechanics to a formula that has confirmed both by facts and quantum mechanics. Bell’s two misunderstandings about Bell’s theorem are pointed out: Firstly, the hidden variable theory Bell’s used, which is a special form of such theories, is regarded as a general one. Secondly, there are two theses obtainable from Bell’s hypotheses; one is compatible with quantum mechanics, the other leads to Bell's inequality. Unfortunately, the former is regarded as a property of local hidden variable theory, while the latter as self-evident. G.Lochak has revealed the first thesis, and thereby he pointed out that Bell’s inequality has nothing to do with locality, but he did not find the second one, so that he still analyzed this problem starting from hidden variable theory, which is actually without regard to Bell’s inequality.

Jan 1, 20050 citations

Misunderstandings for Bell's Inequality

Tan Tian-rong

It is pointed that Bell had two misunderstandings for his work: Firstly,the hidden variable theory that he applied for deriving Bell's inequality keeps wholly intact the operating rules of classical probabilistic theory,but he regarded it as the general local hidden variable theory.Secondly,in Bell's work,the promise actually deriving Bell's inequality is not the one that Bell regarded as the character of local hidden variable theory.Also,other versions can prove Bell's inequality without local hidden variable theory and the Lochak's objection against Bell's theory are examined.

Journal of Hechi UniversityJan 1, 20070 citations

A Study on Bell's Theorem

Tan Tian-rong

This paper proves that Bell's inequality is originated from classical probability theory,and thereby is related neither to locality nor to hidden variables.But it is also possible to derive spin correlation formula in quantum mechanics according to the classical probabilistic theory.This fact indicates that on cer- tain conditions,classical probabilistic theory would be inconsistent with quantum mechanics,but under other conditions,classical probabilistic theory and quantum mechanics would,reach the same goal by different means.Still further,this paper confirms that all of the probability operation rules in classical probability theo- ry,containing joint probability operation rules,are suitable for micro processes,but the event operation rules in classical probability theory are unsuitable.The reason obtaining Bell's inequality lies in the steps applying Boolean algebra rules on the non-Boolean micro event space.

Journal of Changzhou Institute of TechnologyJan 1, 20080 citations

Inequality-free proof of Bell's theorem

Andrea Aiello

Bell's theorem supposedly demonstrates an irreconcilable conflict between quantum mechanics and local realistic hidden-variable theories. Most proofs of Bell's theorem, are based on inequalities. In this paper we present an alternative proof which does not involve inequalities, but only a direct comparison between correlation functions calculated using quantum mechanics on the one hand, and those calculated according to local realistic hidden-variable theories on the other. Our proof is based on a physically motivated use of Fourier series for periodic functions, and confirms that local realistic hidden-variable theories are incompatible with quantum mechanics.

arXiv:2410.17912Physical Review AMar 4, 20250 citations

Concerning an old (but still quite alive) rebuttal of the theorem of John Bell

Aurélien Drezet

In a old paper by G. Lochak, it is claimed that the Bell definition of a hidden variable is in conflict with the formalism of quantum mechanics. This result implies that it is not necessary to invoke non locality to explain the violation of the Bell inequality. A careful analysis of the concept of probability for hidden variables, as defined differently by Bell and Lochak, show that the reasoning and main conclusions of are not correct.

arXiv:0909.4200Sep 23, 20090 citations

Bell's Theorem: A Critique

M. R. Clover

By implicitly assuming that all possible Bell-measurements occur simultaneously, all proofs of Bell's Theorem violate Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. This assumption is made in the original form of Bell's inequality, in Wigner's probability inequalities, and in the ``nonlocality without inequalities'' arguments. The introduction of time into derivations of these variants of Bell's theorem results in extra terms related to the time order of the measurements used in constructing correlation coefficients. Since the same locality assumptions are made in the Heisenberg-compliant derivations of this paper, only time-independent classical local hidden variable theories are forbidden by violations of the original Bell inequalities; time-dependent quantum local hidden variable theories can satisfy this new bound and agree with experiment. We further point out that factorizable wavefunctions have been used to describe some EPR experiments and can be used to describe others. These will generate local de Broglie-Bohm trajectories in the description of the data. This second, independent, line of argument also shows that violation of Bell's inequality is only evidence that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle cannot be ignored.

arXiv:quant-ph/0502016Feb 1, 20059 citations