To refer again to the article A. Aspect bell's THEOREM: the view of the experimenter we were forced by some publications. However, we have again seen the conceptual correctness of the statement of the problem of in the Aspect's article. In conceptual terms, in the naive presentation of EPR from the Aspect of no splices probabilistic measures of different spaces is not required. The presentation of the Aspect is logically closed and complete. The existence of a problem related to the violation of bell inequality is shown conceptually (by simple examples). The real possibility of solving this problem today is, in our opinion, only a relational interpretation of quantum mechanics [3], [4], since the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics Rovelli puts out the brackets local causality in the paradox, replacing it with the concept of the integrity of the relations of the observed systems and, thereby, abandoning the concept of velocity, doubtful from the point of view of quantum mechanics as a derivative in the TMK-topology of space-time relations. And this is, apparently, what physics is pregnant for a long time! But the difficulty of resolution of the dilemma of completeness and the local causality associated with the absence of the notion of speed in the form of spatio-temporal derivative in the scalar form. And this is a common problem of quantum mechanics, which the relational concept intends to solve . In the proposed article there are all logical ties, for each of which it would be possible to object and say - it is not so
To refer again to the article A. Aspect bell's THEOREM: the view of the experimenter we were forced by some publications. However, we have again seen the conceptual correctness of the statement of the problem of in the Aspect's article. In conceptual terms, in the naive presentation of EPR from the Aspect of no splices probabilistic measures of different spaces is not required. The presentation of the Aspect is logically closed and complete. The existence of a problem related to the violation of bell inequality is shown conceptually (by simple examples). The real possibility of solving this problem today is, in our opinion, only a relational interpretation of quantum mechanics [3], [4], since the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics Rovelli puts out the brackets local causality in the paradox, replacing it with the concept of the integrity of the relations of the observed systems and, thereby, abandoning the concept of velocity, doubtful from the point of view of quantum mechanics as a derivative in the TMK-topology of space-time relations. And this is, apparently, what physics is pregnant for a long time! But the difficulty of resolution of the dilemma of completeness and the local causality associated with the absence of the notion of speed in the form of spatio-temporal derivative in the scalar form. And this is a common problem of quantum mechanics, which the relational concept intends to solve . In the proposed article there are all logical ties, for each of which it would be possible to object and say - it is not so
In the footsteps of the article by A. Aspect BELL'S THEOREM: the naive view of an experimentalist. As in equation (23) has detected an error (or typo), I took the trouble to verify calculations from 1 to 5 sections of the article. Are some clarifying points that are important for understanding the essence. Given an elementary conclusion of formulas (3), which is omitted in the article. The Bell's inequality, derived on the basis of the general model for a dichotomous variable, disturbed the quantum mechanical model for a pair of entangled photons. In Bell's article it is clearly (though not very detailed) shown. No artificial gadgets is not able to resolve this contradiction. The only thing that causes confusion is the procedure of creating a mixed state of two photons and the essence conceptual view of mathematics experiment. Theoretically, this procedure can be represented as a symmetrization of the wave function of the pair. However, how does the transfer of this idea to the technical essence of the experiment is unclear.
The quantum theory (QT) and new stochastic approaches have no deterministic prediction for a single measurement or for a single time‐series of events observed for a trapped ion, electron or any other individual physical system. The predictions of QT being of probabilistic character apply to the statistical distribution of the results obtained in various experiments. The Copenhagen interpretation (CI) of QT acknowledged the abstract and statistical character of the predictions of QT but at the same time claimed that a state vector Ψ provided complete description of each individual physical system. The assigning the state vector to an individual physical system together with a postulate of its instantaneous reduction in the measurements was shown by Einstein Podolski and Rosen to lead to so called EPR paradox for the experiments with the entangled pairs of the particles. EPR concluded that a state vector could not provide a complete description of the individual systems and the question arose whether the probabilistic predictions of QT could be derived from some more fundamental spatio‐temporal deterministic description of the invisible sub‐phenomena by introduction of supplementary parameters. The experimental violation of the Bell inequalities in the spin polarization correlation experiments (SPCE) which were the implementations of Bohm and EPR gedanken experiments eliminated so called local and realistic models of the sub‐phenomena. Quite often the violation of these inequalities has been incorrectly interpreted as a proof of the completeness of QT or as the violation of the locality and causality in the micro‐world. The local and realistic models overlooked the fact that an experimental outcome is only the information about a particular system‐system or system‐instrument interaction. Namely the quantum phenomena are described in terms of the probabilities. It is well known that the probability distribution is not an attribute of a dice but it is a characteristic of a whole random experiment: “rolling a dice”. In this paper we will underline: that the quantum probabilities do not describe the lack of knowledge about the physical systems but the lack of knowledge about the experiments and therefore they are “contextual” and that the statistical long range correlations between two random variables X and Y are not a proof of any causal relation between these variables. Moreover any probabilistic model used to described a random experiment is consistent only with a specific protocol telling how the random experiment has to be performed. The probabilistic model used to prove Bell inequalities implied a protocol completely inappropriate and impossible to implement for SPCE . We conclude that the meaningful question about the predictable completeness of QT is still open and it should be answered by a careful and unconventional analysis of the experimental data. The correct understanding of statistical and contextual character of QT is essential for the research in the domain of quantum information and quantum computing.
This work offers a foundational, ontological re-examination of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox and the violation of Bell inequalities. It argues that the apparent "nonlocality" in quantum mechanics stems not from a physical mechanism of interaction, but from an inadequate ontological premise shared by classical reasoning and many interpretations of quantum theory. Core Thesis: The paradox arises from the implicit assumption that measurement outcomes in entangled systems represent independent, local facts that pre-exist or can be defined separately. The work rejects this premise. Instead, it proposes that entangled states describe indivisible ontological structures, where correlated outcomes are not separate entities to be coordinated, but inseparable aspects of a single whole. Key Conceptual Innovations: The JED Postulate (Ontological Simultaneity): The cornerstone of the framework. It posits a global constraint on the co-realization of facts: for an entangled state, individual outcomes cannot exist as autonomous facts. They can only be realized as elements of an admissible pair (e.g., {Alice+, Bob-} or {Alice-, Bob+}). This is not a temporal or causal constraint, but a structural condition for existence. Formalism of Frames and Admissibility Relations: The ontology is formalized using "frames" (sets of co-existing facts) and an "admissibility relation" R, which encodes the structure of an entangled state (e.g., for a singlet: R = {(+, -), (-, +)}). The JED postulate ensures that a frame containing one element of a related pair must contain its counterpart. The "Broken Mirror" Metaphor: A central heuristic. Entanglement is likened to a mirror broken into two complementary halves. The halves do not "communicate" to match; their perfect fit is a consequence of their common origin in a single act of breaking. Asking "which half appeared first?" or "how does one half know about the other?" is ontologically meaningless—there is no process that produces only one isolated half. Resolution of the EPR Paradox: The paradox dissolves because its first step—treating Alice's local outcome as an independent fact—is invalid within the JED ontology. There is no independent fact for locality to protect, hence no contradiction between correlations and relativistic locality. Interpretation of Bell's Theorem: The work reframes Bell's theorem. Its violation is not proof of nonlocality, but empirical evidence against the ontology of independent local facts. Bell's mathematics is correct, but its physical significance depends on ontological axioms that may not hold. The JED ontology provides a local, realistic (but not fact-local) framework consistent with the correlations. Distinction from Hidden Variables: The approach is explicitly not a hidden-variable theory. It introduces no hidden parameters λ governing individual outcomes. The relation R is a structural definition of the entangled whole, not a hidden cause of correlations. Probabilities are treated as a descriptive layer over the admissible ontological structures. Methodology: The work is developed in the spirit of the "pencil-case" methodology, constructing minimal ontological models to analyze the logical roots of physical puzzles without adding new dynamical mechanisms. Scope and Intent: The present work should be read as a contribution to the philosophy of physics: it does not aim at proposing a new physical theory, but at clarifying the ontological assumptions underlying existing formalisms. It seeks to shift the discussion from "how do the parts communicate?" to "what kind of whole do the parts constitute?" The formalism is shown to be logically consistent with the standard quantum correlation function (e.g., E(θ,φ) = -cos(θ-φ)), without deriving it, thereby separating the ontological question of admissibility from the empirical-statistical question of probability distribution. Keywords: EPR Paradox, Bell's Theorem
This paper starts with the observation that the combination of the so-calld EPR argument and Bell's theorem reveals one of the most paradoxical features of quantum reality, i.e. the no-separability of two contingent events. If we accept the conclusion of the revised EPR argument together with Bell's theorem, we are necessarily led to the denial of local causality which was presupposed by the original version of Einstein's criticism against quantum physics.. As the concept of local causality is a cornerstone of Einstein's theory of relativity, we next consider the problem of compatibility between the theory of relativity and quantum physics. Popper's proposal of going back to Lorentz's theory is examined and rejected because the quantum correlation of EPR is not to be interpreted as “an action at a distance” which we can control and use as the operational definition of absolute simultaneity. An inquiry into something like aether as hidden reality behind the theory of relativity is considered as retrogressive as the so-called hidden variable theory of quantum physics. Accepting the non-separability of local elements of reality as the undeniable fact, we discuss the possibility of a realistic interpretation of quantum physics which transcends scientific materialism and classical determinism. As an example of such projects, Stapp's theory is examined with respect to a Whiteheadean process philosophy which provides the meta-physical background for his realistic interpretation of quantum physics. Finally, we present another version of quantum meta-physics based on “the philosophy of organism” which is broad enough to include observer and observed, local causality and non-local correlation, space and time, and potentiality and actuality in the inseparable unity of physical reality.
The EPR paradox, showing the incompatibility between causality and quantum mechanics, leads, especially after Bell's theorem and the experiments based on it, to a deep crisis of the causality principle. A complete redefinition of the entanglement concept, based on the impossibility of violation of conservation laws and on the generalization to a 5-dimensional space, leads to the recovery of the classical and fundamental idea for the physics of causality. The absolute validity of conservation laws, induces moreover, in the cases where they would be otherwise violated, topology changes which make possible "tunneling processes" (like wormholes in astrophysics) which connect separate spacetimes. It can be shown that such a phenomenon is a-luminal , opening the door, without overcoming light speed, to a conceivable time-machine.
We begin with a brief summary of issues encountered involving causality in quantum theory, placing careful emphasis on the assumptions involved in results such as the EPR paradox and Bell's inequality. We critique some solutions to the resulting paradox, including Rovelli's relational quantum mechanics and the many-worlds interpretation. We then discuss how a spacetime manifold could come about on the classical level out of a quantum system, by constructing a space with a topology out of the algebra of observables, and show that even with an hypothesis of superluminal causation enforcing consistent measurements of entangled states, a causal cone structure arises on the classical level. Finally, we discuss the possibility that causality as understood in classical relativistic physics may be an emergent symmetry which does not hold on the quantum level.