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

Is Bell's theorem relevant to quantum mechanics?

A. Matzkin

Published Feb 5, 2008• 2 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

Bell's theorem is a statement by which averages obtained from specific types of statistical distributions must conform to a family of inequalities. These models, in accordance with the EPR argument, provide for the simultaneous existence of quantum mechanically incompatible quantities. We first recall several contradictions arising between the assumption of a joint distribution for incompatible observables and the probability structure of quantum-mechanics, and conclude that Bell's theorem is not expected to be relevant to quantum phenomena described by non-commuting observables, irrespective of the issue of locality. Then, we try to disentangle the locality issue from the existence of joint distributions by introducing two models accounting for the EPR correlations but denying the existence of joint distributions. We will see that these models do not need to resort explicitly to non-locality: the first model relies on conservation laws for ensembles, and the second model on an equivalence class by which different configurations lead to the same physical predictions.

Related papers

Is Bell’s Theorem Relevant to Quantum Mechanics? On Locality and Non-Commuting Observables

A. Matzkin, Luigi Accardi, Guillaume Adenier +5 more

Bell's theorem is a statement by which averages obtained from specific types of statistical distributions must conform to a family of inequalities. These models, in accordance with the EPR argument, provide for the simultaneous existence of quantum mechanically incompatible quantities. We first recall several contradictions arising between the assumption of a joint distribution for incompatible observables and the probability structure of quantum-mechanics, and conclude that Bell's theorem is not expected to be relevant to quantum phenomena described by non-commuting observables, irrespective of the issue of locality. Then, we try to disentangle the locality issue from the existence of joint distributions by introducing two models accounting for the EPR correlations but denying the existence of joint distributions. We will see that these models do not need to resort explicitly to non-locality: the first model relies on conservation laws for ensembles, and the second model on an equivalence class by which different configurations lead to the same physical predictions.

arXiv:0802.0613•AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2009•8 citations

Is Bell’s theorem relevant to quantum mechanics? On locality and non-commuting observables

A. Matzkin

Abstract. Bell’s theorem is a statement by which averages obtained from specific types of statistical distributions must conform to a family of inequalities. These models, in accordance with the EPR argument, provide for the simultaneous existence of quantum mechanically incompatible quantities. We first recall several contradictions arising between the assumption of a joint distribution for incompatible observables and the probability structure of quantum-mechanics, and conclude that Bell’s theorem is not expected to be relevant to quantum phenomena described by non-commuting observables, irrespective of the issue of locality. Then, we try to disentangle the locality issue from the existence of joint distributions by introducing two models accounting for the EPR correlations but denying the existence of joint distributions. We will see that these models do not need to resort explicitly to non-locality: the first model relies on conservation laws for ensembles, and the second model on an equivalence class by which different configurations lead to the same physical predictions. Keywords: Quantum mechanics, Non-locality, Bell inequalities

•Nov 20, 2012•10 citations

Relevance of Bell's theorem as a signature of nonlocality: Case of classical angular momentum distributions

A. Matzkin

For a system composed of two particles, Bell's theorem asserts that averages of physical quantities determined from local variables must conform to a family of inequalities. In this work we show that a classical model containing a local probabilistic interaction in the measurement process can lead to a violation of the Bell inequalities. We first introduce two-particle phase-space distributions in classical mechanics constructed to be the analogs of quantum-mechanical angular momentum eigenstates. These distributions are then employed in four schemes characterized by different types of detectors measuring the angular momenta. When the model includes an interaction between the detector and the measured particle leading to ensemble dependencies, the relevant Bell inequalities are violated if the total angular momentum is required to be conserved. The violation is explained by identifying assumptions made in the derivation of Bell's theorem that are not fulfilled by the model, in particular noncommutativity of single-particle measurements. We discuss to what extent a violation of these assumptions is a faithful marker of nonlocality.

arXiv:0709.2114•Physical Review A•Jun 20, 2008•7 citations

Incompatible Statistics and Bell-KS Theorem

́Angel Rivas

We analyze a possible loophole to the conclusion of the Bell-KS theorem that quantum mechanics is not compatible with any realistic and noncontextual or local theory. We emphasize that the models discarded by Bell-KS-like arguments possess a property not shared by quantum mechanics, i.e. the capability to make non-trivial statements about the joint statistics of quantum incompatible observables. By ruling out this possibility, apparently nothing seems to prevent from a realistic, noncontextual or local view of quantum mechanics.

•Jan 20, 2015•3 citations

The EPR-B Paradox Resolution. Bell inequalities revisited.

Jaykov Foukzon, Менькова Елена Романовна, Alexander A Potapov

Abstract One of the Bell’s assumptions in the original derivation of his inequalities was the hypothesis of locality, i.e., the absence of the influence of two remote measuring instruments on one another. That is why violations of these inequalities observed in experiments are often interpreted as a manifestation of the nonlocal nature of quantum mechanics, or a refutation of a local realism. It is well known that the Bell’s inequality was derived in its traditional form, without resorting to the hypothesis of locality and without the introduction of hidden variables, the only assumption being that the probability distributions are nonnegative. This can therefore be regarded as a rigorous proof that the hypothesis of locality and the hypothesis of existence of the hidden variables not relevant to violations of Bell’s inequalities. The physical meaning of the obtained results is examined. Physical nature of the violation of the Bell inequalities is explained under new EPR-B nonlocality postulate. We show that the correlations of the observables involved in the Bohm–Bell type experiments can be expressed as correlations of classical random variables. The revisited Bell type inequality in canonical notatons reads 〈AB〉 + 〈A’B〉 + 〈AB’〉 − 〈A’B’〉 ⩽ 6.

Journal of Physics Conference Series•Nov 1, 2019•0 citations

Bell theorem

Franck Laloë

The Bell theorem [103] can be seen in several different ways, as the EPR argument. Initially, Bell invented it as a direct logical continuation of the EPR theorem: the idea is to take the existence of the EPR elements of reality seriously, and to push it further by introducing them explicitly into the mathematics with the notation λ; one then proceeds to study all possible kinds of correlations that can be obtained from the fluctuations of one or several variables λ, making the condition of locality explicit in the mathematics (locality was already useful in the EPR theorem, but not used in equations). The reasoning develops within determinism (considered as proved by the EPR reasoning) and classical probabilities; it studies in a completely general way all kinds of correlations that can be predicted from the fluctuations of some classical common cause in the past – if one prefers, from some random choice concerning the initial state of the system. This leads to the famous inequalities. But subsequent studies have shown that the scope of the Bell theorem is not limited to determinism; for instance, the λ variables may determine the probabilities of the results of future experiments, instead of the results themselves (see Appendix B), without canceling the theorem. We postpone the discussion of the various possible generalizations to §4.2.3. For the moment, we just emphasize that the essential condition for the validity of the Bell theorem is locality: all kinds of fluctuations can be assumed, but their effect must affect physics only locally.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 30, 2012•0 citations
Bell's theorem is a statement by which averages obtained from specific types of statistical distributions must conform to a family of inequalities. These models, in accordance with the EPR argument, provide for the simultaneous existence of quantum mechanically incompatible quantities. We first recall several contradictions arising between the assumption of a joint distribution for incompatible observables and the probability structure of quantum-mechanics, and conclude that Bell's theorem is not expected to be relevant to quantum phenomena described by non-commuting observables, irrespective of the issue of locality. Then, we try to disentangle the locality issue from the existence of joint distributions by introducing two models accounting for the EPR correlations but denying the existence of joint distributions. We will see that these models do not need to resort explicitly to non-locality: the first model relies on conservation laws for ensembles, and the second model on an equivalence class by which different configurations lead to the same physical predictions.
Bell's theorem is a statement by which averages obtained from specific types of statistical distributions must conform to a family of inequalities. These models, in accordance with the EPR argument, provide for the simultaneous existence of quantum mechanically incompatible quantities. We first recall several contradictions arising between the assumption of a joint distribution for incompatible observables and the probability structure of quantum-mechanics, and conclude that Bell's theorem is not expected to be relevant to quantum phenomena described by non-commuting observables, irrespective of the issue of locality. Then, we try to disentangle the locality issue from the existence of joint distributions by introducing two models accounting for the EPR correlations but denying the existence of joint distributions. We will see that these models do not need to resort explicitly to non-locality: the first model relies on conservation laws for ensembles, and the second model on an equivalence class by which different configurations lead to the same physical predictions.
Abstract. Bell’s theorem is a statement by which averages obtained from specific types of statistical distributions must conform to a family of inequalities. These models, in accordance with the EPR argument, provide for the simultaneous existence of quantum mechanically incompatible quantities. We first recall several contradictions arising between the assumption of a joint distribution for incompatible observables and the probability structure of quantum-mechanics, and conclude that Bell’s theorem is not expected to be relevant to quantum phenomena described by non-commuting observables, irrespective of the issue of locality. Then, we try to disentangle the locality issue from the existence of joint distributions by introducing two models accounting for the EPR correlations but denying the existence of joint distributions. We will see that these models do not need to resort explicitly to non-locality: the first model relies on conservation laws for ensembles, and the second model on an equivalence class by which different configurations lead to the same physical predictions. Keywords: Quantum mechanics, Non-locality, Bell inequalities
For a system composed of two particles, Bell's theorem asserts that averages of physical quantities determined from local variables must conform to a family of inequalities. In this work we show that a classical model containing a local probabilistic interaction in the measurement process can lead to a violation of the Bell inequalities. We first introduce two-particle phase-space distributions in classical mechanics constructed to be the analogs of quantum-mechanical angular momentum eigenstates. These distributions are then employed in four schemes characterized by different types of detectors measuring the angular momenta. When the model includes an interaction between the detector and the measured particle leading to ensemble dependencies, the relevant Bell inequalities are violated if the total angular momentum is required to be conserved. The violation is explained by identifying assumptions made in the derivation of Bell's theorem that are not fulfilled by the model, in particular noncommutativity of single-particle measurements. We discuss to what extent a violation of these assumptions is a faithful marker of nonlocality.
We analyze a possible loophole to the conclusion of the Bell-KS theorem that quantum mechanics is not compatible with any realistic and noncontextual or local theory. We emphasize that the models discarded by Bell-KS-like arguments possess a property not shared by quantum mechanics, i.e. the capability to make non-trivial statements about the joint statistics of quantum incompatible observables. By ruling out this possibility, apparently nothing seems to prevent from a realistic, noncontextual or local view of quantum mechanics.
Abstract One of the Bell’s assumptions in the original derivation of his inequalities was the hypothesis of locality, i.e., the absence of the influence of two remote measuring instruments on one another. That is why violations of these inequalities observed in experiments are often interpreted as a manifestation of the nonlocal nature of quantum mechanics, or a refutation of a local realism. It is well known that the Bell’s inequality was derived in its traditional form, without resorting to the hypothesis of locality and without the introduction of hidden variables, the only assumption being that the probability distributions are nonnegative. This can therefore be regarded as a rigorous proof that the hypothesis of locality and the hypothesis of existence of the hidden variables not relevant to violations of Bell’s inequalities. The physical meaning of the obtained results is examined. Physical nature of the violation of the Bell inequalities is explained under new EPR-B nonlocality postulate. We show that the correlations of the observables involved in the Bohm–Bell type experiments can be expressed as correlations of classical random variables. The revisited Bell type inequality in canonical notatons reads 〈AB〉 + 〈A’B〉 + 〈AB’〉 − 〈A’B’〉 ⩽ 6.
The Bell theorem [103] can be seen in several different ways, as the EPR argument. Initially, Bell invented it as a direct logical continuation of the EPR theorem: the idea is to take the existence of the EPR elements of reality seriously, and to push it further by introducing them explicitly into the mathematics with the notation λ; one then proceeds to study all possible kinds of correlations that can be obtained from the fluctuations of one or several variables λ, making the condition of locality explicit in the mathematics (locality was already useful in the EPR theorem, but not used in equations). The reasoning develops within determinism (considered as proved by the EPR reasoning) and classical probabilities; it studies in a completely general way all kinds of correlations that can be predicted from the fluctuations of some classical common cause in the past – if one prefers, from some random choice concerning the initial state of the system. This leads to the famous inequalities. But subsequent studies have shown that the scope of the Bell theorem is not limited to determinism; for instance, the λ variables may determine the probabilities of the results of future experiments, instead of the results themselves (see Appendix B), without canceling the theorem. We postpone the discussion of the various possible generalizations to §4.2.3. For the moment, we just emphasize that the essential condition for the validity of the Bell theorem is locality: all kinds of fluctuations can be assumed, but their effect must affect physics only locally.