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

Entropy

Closing the Door on Quantum Nonlocality

Marian Kupczyński

Published Nov 15, 2018• 43 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Bell-type inequalities are proven using oversimplified probabilistic models and/or counterfactual definiteness (CFD). If setting-dependent variables describing measuring instruments are correctly introduced, none of these inequalities may be proven. In spite of this, a belief in a mysterious quantum nonlocality is not fading. Computer simulations of Bell tests allow people to study the different ways in which the experimental data might have been created. They also allow for the generation of various counterfactual experiments' outcomes, such as repeated or simultaneous measurements performed in different settings on the same "photon-pair", and so forth. They allow for the reinforcing or relaxing of CFD compliance and/or for studying the impact of various "photon identification procedures", mimicking those used in real experiments. Data samples consistent with quantum predictions may be generated by using a specific setting-dependent identification procedure. It reflects the active role of instruments during the measurement process. Each of the setting-dependent data samples are consistent with specific setting-dependent probabilistic models which may not be deduced using non-contextual local realistic or stochastic hidden variables. In this paper, we will be discussing the results of these simulations. Since the data samples are generated in a locally causal way, these simulations provide additional strong arguments for closing the door on quantum nonlocality.

DOI
10.3390/e20110877

Related papers

What do we learn from computer simulations of Bell experiments?

Marian Kupczyński

Contrary to counterfactual definiteness quantum theory teaches us that measuring instruments are not passively reading predetermined values of physical observables. Counterfactual definiteness allows proving Bell inequalities. If the contextual character of quantum measurements is correctly taken into account the proofs of these inequalities may not be done. In recent computer simulations of idealized Bell experiment predetermined successive outcomes of measurements for each setting and predetermined time delays of their registrations are calculated. Time windows and time delays are used to select various samples. Correlations, estimated using these selected samples are consistent with the predictions of quantum theory and the time window dependence is similar to the dependence observed in some real experiments. It is an important example how correlations can be explained without evoking quantum non-locality. However by using a suitable post-selection one may prove anything. Since before the post-selection generated samples may not violate Bell inequalities as significantly as finite samples generated using quantum predictions thus one may not conclude that counterfactual definiteness is not able to distinguish classical from quantum physics. Moreover we show that for each choice of a time window there exists a contextual hidden variable probabilistic model consistent with the post-selection procedure used by the authors what explains why they are able to reproduce quantum predictions.

arXiv:1611.03444•Nov 10, 2016•1 citation

Can we close the Bohr-Einstein quantum debate

Marian Kupczyński

Recent experiments allowed concluding that Bell-type inequalities are indeed violated thus it is important to understand what it means and how can we explain the existence of strong correlations between outcomes of distant measurements. Do we have to announce that: Einstein was wrong, Nature is nonlocal and nonlocal correlations are produced due to the quantum magic and emerge, somehow, from outside space-time? Fortunately such conclusions are unfounded because if supplementary parameters describing measuring instruments are correctly incorporated in a theoretical model then Bell-type inequalities may not be proven .We construct a simple probabilistic model explaining these correlations in a locally causal way. In our model measurement outcomes are neither predetermined nor produced in irreducibly random way. We explain in detail why, contrary to the general belief; an introduction of setting dependent parameters does not restrict experimenters’ freedom of choice. Since the violation of Bell-type inequalities does not allow concluding that Nature is nonlocal and that quantum theory is complete thus the Bohr-Einstein quantum debate may not be closed. The continuation of this debate is not only important for a better understanding of Nature but also for various practical applications of quantum phenomena

•Jan 1, 2017•38 citations

Can we close the Bohr–Einstein quantum debate?

Marian Kupczyński

Recent experiments allow one to conclude that Bell-type inequalities are indeed violated; thus, it is important to understand what this means and how we can explain the existence of strong correlations between outcomes of distant measurements. Do we have to announce that Einstein was wrong, Nature is non-local and non-local correlations are produced due to quantum magic and emerge, somehow, from outside space-time? Fortunately, such conclusions are unfounded because, if supplementary parameters describing measuring instruments are correctly incorporated in a theoretical model, then Bell-type inequalities may not be proved. We construct a simple probabilistic model allowing these correlations to be explained in a locally causal way. In our model, measurement outcomes are neither predetermined nor produced in an irreducibly random way. We explain why, contrary to the general belief, the introduction of setting-dependent parameters does not restrict experimenters' freedom of choice. Since the violation of Bell-type inequalities does not allow the conclusion that Nature is non-local and that quantum theory is complete, the Bohr-Einstein quantum debate may not be closed. The continuation of this debate is important not only for a better understanding of Nature but also for various practical applications of quantum phenomena.This article is part of the themed issue 'Second quantum revolution: foundational questions'.

arXiv:1603.00266•Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences•Oct 2, 2017•29 citations

Quantum non-locality—it ainʼt necessarily so...

Marek Żukowski, Časlav Brukner

Bell's theorem is 50 years old. Still there is a controversy about its implications. Much of it has its roots in confusion regarding the premises from which the theorem can be derived. Some claim that a derivation of Bell's inequalities requires just locality assumption, and nothing more. Violations of the inequalities are then interpreted as ``nonlocality'' or ``quantum nonlocality''. We show that such claims are unfounded and that every derivation of Bell's inequalities requires a premise -- in addition to locality and freedom of choice -- which is either assumed tacitly, or unconsciously, or is embedded in a single compound condition (like Bell's ``local causality''). The premise is equivalent to the assumption of existence of additional variables which do not appear in the quantum formalism (in form of determinism, or joint probability for outcomes of all conceivable measurements, or ``additional causes`'', or ``hidden variables'', ``complete description of the state'' or counterfactual definiteness, etc.). A certain irony is that perhaps the main message of violation of Bell's inequalities is that our notion of locality should be based on an operationally well-defined no-signalling condition, rather than on local causality.

arXiv:1501.04618•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Oct 9, 2014•100 citations

Some remarks on Bell's inequality tests

A Feoli, S Rampone

We emphasize the difficulties of an experiment that can definitely discriminate between local realistic hidden-variables theories and quantum mechanics using the Bell CHSH inequalities and a real measurement apparatus. In particular, we analyze some examples in which the noise in real instruments can alter the experimental results, and the nontrivial problem to find a real "fair sample" of particles to test the inequalities.

arXiv:quant-ph/0212060•Europhysics Letters (EPL)•Apr 1, 2003•0 citations

Quantum nonlocality: no, yes, how and why

Alejandro A. Hnilo

The problem of the existence of nonlocal effects in Quantum Mechanics is discussed. The problem is divided in two: the first ('soft') one is to explain the violation of Bell's inequalities as a statistical magnitude. This can be achieved by a simple model within non-Boolean Locality and Realism. This result shows that quantum non-Locality as a consequence of the statistical violation of Bell's inequalities is inexistent. The second ('hard') problem is to explain the violation as it is calculated from series of detection outcomes. L.Sica has demonstrated that, in order to violate Bell's inequalities, the series recorded at (say) Bob when the setting at station Alice is alfa, can be different from the series that would have been recorded at Bob if that setting had been alfa'instead. Therefore, non-Locality in the series of detection outcomes does exist. It cannot be experimentally verified because of its counterfactual nature, but is observed in computer simulations. An appropriate computer code is based on the simple model mentioned plus a contextual instruction. It explains 'how' (Sica's) non-Locality arises, and solves the hard problem. 'Why' the contextual instruction exists is explained by Hellwig and Kraus' postulate of covariant quantum state collapse. In consequence, (Sica's) non-Locality is not in contradiction with Relativity but, quite the opposite, it is implied by Relativistic covariance.

quant-pharXiv:2603.09000•Mar 11, 2026•0 citations
Bell-type inequalities are proven using oversimplified probabilistic models and/or counterfactual definiteness (CFD). If setting-dependent variables describing measuring instruments are correctly introduced, none of these inequalities may be proven. In spite of this, a belief in a mysterious quantum nonlocality is not fading. Computer simulations of Bell tests allow people to study the different ways in which the experimental data might have been created. They also allow for the generation of various counterfactual experiments' outcomes, such as repeated or simultaneous measurements performed in different settings on the same "photon-pair", and so forth. They allow for the reinforcing or relaxing of CFD compliance and/or for studying the impact of various "photon identification procedures", mimicking those used in real experiments. Data samples consistent with quantum predictions may be generated by using a specific setting-dependent identification procedure. It reflects the active role of instruments during the measurement process. Each of the setting-dependent data samples are consistent with specific setting-dependent probabilistic models which may not be deduced using non-contextual local realistic or stochastic hidden variables. In this paper, we will be discussing the results of these simulations. Since the data samples are generated in a locally causal way, these simulations provide additional strong arguments for closing the door on quantum nonlocality.
Contrary to counterfactual definiteness quantum theory teaches us that measuring instruments are not passively reading predetermined values of physical observables. Counterfactual definiteness allows proving Bell inequalities. If the contextual character of quantum measurements is correctly taken into account the proofs of these inequalities may not be done. In recent computer simulations of idealized Bell experiment predetermined successive outcomes of measurements for each setting and predetermined time delays of their registrations are calculated. Time windows and time delays are used to select various samples. Correlations, estimated using these selected samples are consistent with the predictions of quantum theory and the time window dependence is similar to the dependence observed in some real experiments. It is an important example how correlations can be explained without evoking quantum non-locality. However by using a suitable post-selection one may prove anything. Since before the post-selection generated samples may not violate Bell inequalities as significantly as finite samples generated using quantum predictions thus one may not conclude that counterfactual definiteness is not able to distinguish classical from quantum physics. Moreover we show that for each choice of a time window there exists a contextual hidden variable probabilistic model consistent with the post-selection procedure used by the authors what explains why they are able to reproduce quantum predictions.
Recent experiments allowed concluding that Bell-type inequalities are indeed violated thus it is important to understand what it means and how can we explain the existence of strong correlations between outcomes of distant measurements. Do we have to announce that: Einstein was wrong, Nature is nonlocal and nonlocal correlations are produced due to the quantum magic and emerge, somehow, from outside space-time? Fortunately such conclusions are unfounded because if supplementary parameters describing measuring instruments are correctly incorporated in a theoretical model then Bell-type inequalities may not be proven .We construct a simple probabilistic model explaining these correlations in a locally causal way. In our model measurement outcomes are neither predetermined nor produced in irreducibly random way. We explain in detail why, contrary to the general belief; an introduction of setting dependent parameters does not restrict experimenters’ freedom of choice. Since the violation of Bell-type inequalities does not allow concluding that Nature is nonlocal and that quantum theory is complete thus the Bohr-Einstein quantum debate may not be closed. The continuation of this debate is not only important for a better understanding of Nature but also for various practical applications of quantum phenomena
Recent experiments allow one to conclude that Bell-type inequalities are indeed violated; thus, it is important to understand what this means and how we can explain the existence of strong correlations between outcomes of distant measurements. Do we have to announce that Einstein was wrong, Nature is non-local and non-local correlations are produced due to quantum magic and emerge, somehow, from outside space-time? Fortunately, such conclusions are unfounded because, if supplementary parameters describing measuring instruments are correctly incorporated in a theoretical model, then Bell-type inequalities may not be proved. We construct a simple probabilistic model allowing these correlations to be explained in a locally causal way. In our model, measurement outcomes are neither predetermined nor produced in an irreducibly random way. We explain why, contrary to the general belief, the introduction of setting-dependent parameters does not restrict experimenters' freedom of choice. Since the violation of Bell-type inequalities does not allow the conclusion that Nature is non-local and that quantum theory is complete, the Bohr-Einstein quantum debate may not be closed. The continuation of this debate is important not only for a better understanding of Nature but also for various practical applications of quantum phenomena.This article is part of the themed issue 'Second quantum revolution: foundational questions'.
Bell's theorem is 50 years old. Still there is a controversy about its implications. Much of it has its roots in confusion regarding the premises from which the theorem can be derived. Some claim that a derivation of Bell's inequalities requires just locality assumption, and nothing more. Violations of the inequalities are then interpreted as ``nonlocality'' or ``quantum nonlocality''. We show that such claims are unfounded and that every derivation of Bell's inequalities requires a premise -- in addition to locality and freedom of choice -- which is either assumed tacitly, or unconsciously, or is embedded in a single compound condition (like Bell's ``local causality''). The premise is equivalent to the assumption of existence of additional variables which do not appear in the quantum formalism (in form of determinism, or joint probability for outcomes of all conceivable measurements, or ``additional causes`'', or ``hidden variables'', ``complete description of the state'' or counterfactual definiteness, etc.). A certain irony is that perhaps the main message of violation of Bell's inequalities is that our notion of locality should be based on an operationally well-defined no-signalling condition, rather than on local causality.
The problem of the existence of nonlocal effects in Quantum Mechanics is discussed. The problem is divided in two: the first ('soft') one is to explain the violation of Bell's inequalities as a statistical magnitude. This can be achieved by a simple model within non-Boolean Locality and Realism. This result shows that quantum non-Locality as a consequence of the statistical violation of Bell's inequalities is inexistent. The second ('hard') problem is to explain the violation as it is calculated from series of detection outcomes. L.Sica has demonstrated that, in order to violate Bell's inequalities, the series recorded at (say) Bob when the setting at station Alice is alfa, can be different from the series that would have been recorded at Bob if that setting had been alfa'instead. Therefore, non-Locality in the series of detection outcomes does exist. It cannot be experimentally verified because of its counterfactual nature, but is observed in computer simulations. An appropriate computer code is based on the simple model mentioned plus a contextual instruction. It explains 'how' (Sica's) non-Locality arises, and solves the hard problem. 'Why' the contextual instruction exists is explained by Hellwig and Kraus' postulate of covariant quantum state collapse. In consequence, (Sica's) non-Locality is not in contradiction with Relativity but, quite the opposite, it is implied by Relativistic covariance.