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

Fine ways to fail to secure realism

Soazig Le Bihan

Published Jan 1, 2009• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

Since he proved his theorem in 1982, Fine has been challenging the traditional interpretation of the experimental violation of the Bell Inequalities (BI). A natural interpretation of Fine's theorem is that it provides us with an alternative set of assumptions on which to place blame for the failure of the BI, and opens to a new interpretation of the violation of the BI. Fine has a stronger interpretation for his theorem. He claims that his result undermines the traditional interpretation in terms of local realism. The aim of this paper is to understand and to assess Fine's claim. We distinguish three different strategies that Fine uses in order to support his view. We show that none of these strategies is successful. Fine fails to prove that local realism is not at stake in the violation of the BI by quantum phenomena.

Related papers

Violation of local realism with freedom of choice

Thomas Scheidl, Rupert Ursin, Johannes Kofler +8 more

Bell's theorem shows that local realistic theories place strong restrictions on observable correlations between different systems, giving rise to Bell's inequality which can be violated in experiments using entangled quantum states. Bell's theorem is based on the assumptions of realism, locality, and the freedom to choose between measurement settings. In experimental tests, "loopholes" arise which allow observed violations to still be explained by local realistic theories. Violating Bell's inequality while simultaneously closing all such loopholes is one of the most significant still open challenges in fundamental physics today. In this paper, we present an experiment that violates Bell's inequality while simultaneously closing the locality loophole and addressing the freedom-of-choice loophole, also closing the latter within a reasonable set of assumptions. We also explain that the locality and freedom-of-choice loopholes can be closed only within nondeterminism, i.e., in the context of stochastic local realism.

arXiv:0811.3129•Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences•Nov 1, 2010•330 citations

Local Realism Explains Bell Violations

Andrew P. Yake

Local realism reduces to the proposition that local determinate reality is the necessary and sufficient cause of every physical effect. By any standard account, quantum theory requires that local realism is false, because it embeds the famously spooky premise that some physical effects require causes that are instantly effective from arbitrarily far away. Nonetheless, quantum theory has replaced local realism as the foundation of science because, whereas local realism allegedly cannot violate the Bell inequality, quantum theory is taken to do so in accord with experiments. Here we prove, however, that an epistemic contextual model of local realism solves a puzzle about independent random measurements of local hidden variables in a way that causally explains observed Bell violations. We also reveal exactly how the Bell inequality fails to represent the local realistic prediction. Finally, we show that any theory that denies local realism comprises an unfalsifiable causal claim that is freely adjustable to make arbitrary predictions, which thus provide no validation of its causal claim. Results revitalize the hypothesis that local realism prevails. Keywords: Local Realism. Bell Violations. Photons. Entanglement. Quantum Physics.

•Apr 1, 2017•0 citations

Bell inequalities, counterfactual definiteness and falsifiability

Justo Pastor Lambare

We formally prove the existence of an enduring incongruence pervading a widespread interpretation of the Bell inequality and explain how to rationally avoid it with a natural assumption justified by explicit reference to a mathematical property of Bell’s probabilistic model. Although the amendment does not alter the relevance of the theorem regarding local realism, it brings back Bell theorem from the realm of philosophical discussions about counterfactual conditionals to the concrete experimental arena.

arXiv:1911.00343•International Journal of Quantum Information•Apr 1, 2021•11 citations

A Bell Theorem with no locality assumption

Charles P. Tresser

We prove here a version of Bell Theorem that does not assume locality. As a consequence classical realism, and not locality, is the common source of the violation by nature of all Bell Inequalities.

arXiv:quant-ph/0608008•Aug 1, 2006•0 citations

A note on the violation of Bell's inequality

Thomas Schürmann

With Bell's inequalities one has a formal expression to show how essentially all local theories of natural phenomena that are formulated within the framework of realism may be tested using a simple experimental arrangement. For the case of entangled pairs of spin-1/2 particles we propose an alternative measurement setup which is consistent to the necessary assumptions corresponding to the derivation of the Bell inequalities. We find that the Bell inequalities are never violated with respect to our suggested measurement process.

arXiv:1703.10030•Mar 17, 2017•1 citation

Does a Bell inequality violation imply irrealism?

P. Silva, Ana C. S. Costa, R. M. Angelo

Abstract Seminal for the raising of the quantum information age and quintessential for a deep understanding of nature, Bell inequality violations are known for having provided a profound disruption to classical models of the physical world. Yet, their meaning is still debatable nowadays. An important point under dispute in this context concerns the relevance of realism. While some believe that a Bell inequality violation implies the manifestation of nonlocal aspects, others defend that it is the notion of realism that should be abandoned. The purpose of the present work is to shed some light on the matter by employing a formal definition of (ir)realism. Our strategy consists of (i) rephrasing Bell’s assumption of local causality in terms of more primitive hypotheses and (ii) assessing where the fundamental difficulties emerge when using the quantum formalism. We analyze the question posed in the title using two distinct approaches and assert that a positive answer is justifiable. Nevertheless, even in this scenario, it becomes evident that violations of locality cannot be avoided. As a byproduct of our approach, the connections of (ir)realism with both quantum steering and entanglement are also discussed.

Physica Scripta•Apr 10, 2024•2 citations
Since he proved his theorem in 1982, Fine has been challenging the traditional interpretation of the experimental violation of the Bell Inequalities (BI). A natural interpretation of Fine's theorem is that it provides us with an alternative set of assumptions on which to place blame for the failure of the BI, and opens to a new interpretation of the violation of the BI. Fine has a stronger interpretation for his theorem. He claims that his result undermines the traditional interpretation in terms of local realism. The aim of this paper is to understand and to assess Fine's claim. We distinguish three different strategies that Fine uses in order to support his view. We show that none of these strategies is successful. Fine fails to prove that local realism is not at stake in the violation of the BI by quantum phenomena.
Bell's theorem shows that local realistic theories place strong restrictions on observable correlations between different systems, giving rise to Bell's inequality which can be violated in experiments using entangled quantum states. Bell's theorem is based on the assumptions of realism, locality, and the freedom to choose between measurement settings. In experimental tests, "loopholes" arise which allow observed violations to still be explained by local realistic theories. Violating Bell's inequality while simultaneously closing all such loopholes is one of the most significant still open challenges in fundamental physics today. In this paper, we present an experiment that violates Bell's inequality while simultaneously closing the locality loophole and addressing the freedom-of-choice loophole, also closing the latter within a reasonable set of assumptions. We also explain that the locality and freedom-of-choice loopholes can be closed only within nondeterminism, i.e., in the context of stochastic local realism.
Local realism reduces to the proposition that local determinate reality is the necessary and sufficient cause of every physical effect. By any standard account, quantum theory requires that local realism is false, because it embeds the famously spooky premise that some physical effects require causes that are instantly effective from arbitrarily far away. Nonetheless, quantum theory has replaced local realism as the foundation of science because, whereas local realism allegedly cannot violate the Bell inequality, quantum theory is taken to do so in accord with experiments. Here we prove, however, that an epistemic contextual model of local realism solves a puzzle about independent random measurements of local hidden variables in a way that causally explains observed Bell violations. We also reveal exactly how the Bell inequality fails to represent the local realistic prediction. Finally, we show that any theory that denies local realism comprises an unfalsifiable causal claim that is freely adjustable to make arbitrary predictions, which thus provide no validation of its causal claim. Results revitalize the hypothesis that local realism prevails. Keywords: Local Realism. Bell Violations. Photons. Entanglement. Quantum Physics.
We formally prove the existence of an enduring incongruence pervading a widespread interpretation of the Bell inequality and explain how to rationally avoid it with a natural assumption justified by explicit reference to a mathematical property of Bell’s probabilistic model. Although the amendment does not alter the relevance of the theorem regarding local realism, it brings back Bell theorem from the realm of philosophical discussions about counterfactual conditionals to the concrete experimental arena.
With Bell's inequalities one has a formal expression to show how essentially all local theories of natural phenomena that are formulated within the framework of realism may be tested using a simple experimental arrangement. For the case of entangled pairs of spin-1/2 particles we propose an alternative measurement setup which is consistent to the necessary assumptions corresponding to the derivation of the Bell inequalities. We find that the Bell inequalities are never violated with respect to our suggested measurement process.
Abstract Seminal for the raising of the quantum information age and quintessential for a deep understanding of nature, Bell inequality violations are known for having provided a profound disruption to classical models of the physical world. Yet, their meaning is still debatable nowadays. An important point under dispute in this context concerns the relevance of realism. While some believe that a Bell inequality violation implies the manifestation of nonlocal aspects, others defend that it is the notion of realism that should be abandoned. The purpose of the present work is to shed some light on the matter by employing a formal definition of (ir)realism. Our strategy consists of (i) rephrasing Bell’s assumption of local causality in terms of more primitive hypotheses and (ii) assessing where the fundamental difficulties emerge when using the quantum formalism. We analyze the question posed in the title using two distinct approaches and assert that a positive answer is justifiable. Nevertheless, even in this scenario, it becomes evident that violations of locality cannot be avoided. As a byproduct of our approach, the connections of (ir)realism with both quantum steering and entanglement are also discussed.