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

Bell's Inequality Refuted on Bell's Own Terms

Gordon Watson

Published Jul 1, 2018• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

Bell's famous inequality contradicts ours. But ours holds algebraically, experimentally, classically and quantum-mechanically: Bell's does not. So Bell's inequality is refuted on Bell's terms as we identify his naively-realistic error and correct it.

Related papers

Please: What's Wrong with This Refutation of Bell's Famous Inequality?

Gordon Watson

•Dec 1, 2018•0 citations

Bell's Theorem refuted with a Kolmogorovian counterexample

Johannes F. Geurdes

The statistics behind Bell's inequality is demonstrated to allow a Kolmogorovian (i.e. classical) model of probabilities that recovers the quantum covariance.

arXiv:0705.3378•May 23, 2007•2 citations

Remarks on Bell's Inequality

Zhengjun Cao, Lihua Liu

Quantum entanglement is of great importance to quantum cryptography and computation. So far, all experimental demonstrations of entanglement are designed to check Bell's inequality which is based on Bell's formulation for EPR paradox. In this note, we specify the assumptions needed in Bell's mathematical argument. We then show the contradictions among these assumptions. As a result, it becomes very easy to see that Bell's inequality is trivial.

•Feb 1, 2018•0 citations

Bell's Theorem Refuted for Stem Students

Gordon Watson

Here begins a precautionary tale from a creative life in STEM. Bringing an elementary knowledge of vectors to Bell (1964)—en route to refuting Bell’s inequality and his theorem—we aim to help STEM students study one of the strangest double-errors in the history of science. To that end we question du Sautoy’s (2016) claim that Bell’s theorem is as mathematically robust as they come.

•Nov 1, 2017•0 citations

What exactly is proved by the violation of Bell's inequality?

Gerold Gründler

Bell's inequality has been derived several times from quite different basic assumptions, which imply different conclusions. This resulted into widespread confusion regarding the exact implications of the experimental violations of the inequality. In this article, the structures of Bell's and of Peres' derivations are analyzed, and the title question is explicitly answered.

arXiv:1704.03856•Apr 11, 2017•0 citations

Commonsense local realism refutes Bell’s theorem

Gordon Watson

With Bell (1964) and his EPR-based mathematics contradicted by experiments, at least one step in his supposedly commonsense theorem must be false. Defining commonsense local realism as the fusion of local-causality (no causal influence propagates superluminally) and physical-realism (some physical properties change interactively), we eliminate all such contradictions and make EPR correlations intelligible by completing the quantum mechanical account in a classical way. Thus refuting the famous inequality at the heart of Bell's mathematics, we show that Bell's theorem is limited by Bell's use of naive realism. Validating the classical mantra that correlated tests on correlated things produce correlated results without mystery, we conclude that Bell's theorem and related experiments negate naive realism, not commonsense local realism.

•Mar 1, 2014•0 citations
With Bell (1964) and his EPR-based mathematics contradicted by experiments, at least one step in his supposedly commonsense theorem must be false. Defining commonsense local realism as the fusion of local-causality (no causal influence propagates superluminally) and physical-realism (some physical properties change interactively), we eliminate all such contradictions and make EPR correlations intelligible by completing the quantum mechanical account in a classical way. Thus refuting the famous inequality at the heart of Bell's mathematics, we show that Bell's theorem is limited by Bell's use of naive realism. Validating the classical mantra that correlated tests on correlated things produce correlated results without mystery, we conclude that Bell's theorem and related experiments negate naive realism, not commonsense local realism.