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.
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.
Abstract By filtering out the philosophic component we can be said that the EPR-paper was directed against the straightforward interpretation of the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle or more generally the Bohr’s complementarity principle. The latter expresses contextuality of quantum measurements: dependence of measurement’s output on the complete experimental arrangement. However, Bell restructured the EPR-argument against complementarity to justify nonlocal theories with hidden variables of the Bohmian mechanics’ type. Then this Bell’s kind of nonlocality - subquantum nonlocality - was lifted to the level of quantum theory - up to the terminology “quantum nonlocality”. The aim of this short note is to explain that Bell’s test is simply a special test of local incompatibility of quantum observables, similar to interference experiments, e.g., the two-slit experiment.
John Bell and others used a locality condition to establish inequalities that they believe must be satisfied by any local hidden-variable model for the spin probability distribution for two entangled particles in a Bohm-EPR experiment. We show that this condition is invalid because it contradicts the product rule of probability theory for any model that exhibits the expected property of perfect correlation. This breaks the connection between Bell inequalities and the existence of any local hidden-variable model of interest. As already known, these inequalities give necessary conditions for the existence of third/fourth-order joint probability distributions for the spin outcomes from three/four separate Bohm-EPR experimental set-ups that are consistent with the second-order joint spin distributions for each experiment after marginalization. If a Bell inequality is violated, as quantum mechanics theory predicts and experiments show can happen, then at least one third-order joint probability is negative. However, this does not imply anything about the existence of local hidden-variable models for the second-order joint probability distributions for the spin outcomes of a single experiment. The locality condition does seem reasonable under the widely-applied frequentist interpretation of the spin probability distributions that views them as real properties of a random process that are manifested through their relative frequency of occurrence, which gives conditioning in the probabilities for the spin outcomes a causal role. In contrast, under the Bayesian interpretation of probability, probabilistic conditioning on one particle's spin outcome in the product rule is viewed as information to make probabilistic predictions of the other particle's spin outcome. There is nothing causal and so no reason to develop a locality condition.
The EPR paradox was caused by the provision that quantum variables must have pre-existing values. This type of "hidden property realism" was later falsified by Bell's Theorem. Accordingly, the physical basis for action-at-a-distance between entangled quanta was removed. Yet, modern interpretations present Bell's inequality as a Locality Criterion, as if Bell violations can only happen at the quantum level, and only with remote interactions. This is a questionable practice, considering that classical joint measurements also violate such inequalities for mutually exclusive wave properties. In particular, consecutive measurements of polarization produce the same coefficients of correlation as parallel measurements with entangled quanta, yet they are explicitly local. Furthermore, it is possible to combine parallel and consecutive measurements of Type I polarization-entangled photons in a single experiment, conclusively showing that quantum Bell violations can be local. Surprisingly, classical phenomena also require nonlocal interpretations if pre-existing properties are taken for granted. Hence, the solution is to reject the models with pre-existing properties for both classical and quantum wave-like phenomena.
In the early 1960s, John Bell decided to look once again at the hidden variable problem in quantum mechanics, through an examination of the A. Einstein, with B. Podolsky and N. Rosen (EPR) paradox. Proposals for proofs against the possibility of hidden variables had been advanced both before and after EPR. Bell developed both a “theorem” and an inequality, but this may be overstating the case. Most interpretations are that Bell is ruling out any “action-at-a-distance” type of interactions or variables, but would accept that such forces could violate the inequality. By triple of random variables, mentioned by A. Yu. Krennikov, one has to think once again about the experiment suggested by the Bell inequality. Bell has assumed that the set of hidden variables, and more importantly the probability function of the hidden variables, is unchanging. K. Hess and Walter Philipp began to worry about this assumption, because it has some implicit assumptions of its own.
EPR showed that two particles emitted from a source can be entangled by a shared wavefunction where two non-commuting observables (position, momentum) can be simultaneously real, leading to a contradiction with quantum mechanics (two non-commuting variables can not be simultaneously real). John Bell derived an inequality where any local hidden variables prediction is bounded and quantum mechanics can violate the inequality. Bell tests on correlated photon pairs showed a clear violation of the Bell inequality and agreement with quantum mechanics. This study revealed that the Bell inequality holds at any individual instances in a given system but it does not hold over the entire population. The Bell inequality is not an incompatibility criterion for local hidden variables vs quantum mechanics rather it is a criterion for an individual nature vs population dynamics. The nonlocality prediction given by wavefunction is a system approximation and local causality (photon polarization) provides a complete description of the Bell tests. The paper concludes with great satisfaction that the measurement of two correlated photons at a distance was a local cause (photon-filter interaction did not violate the special theory of relativity).
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