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

Journal of Modern Physics

Kolmogorov’s Probability Spaces for “Entangled” Data-Subsets of EPRB Experiments: No Violation of Einstein’s Separation Principle

K. Hess

Published Jan 1, 2020• 5 citations
Publisher

Abstract

It is demonstrated that the use of Kolmogorov’s probability theory to describe results of quantum probability for EPRB (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm) experiments requires extreme care when different subsets of measurement outcomes are considered. J. S. Bell and his followers have committed critical inaccuracies related to spin-gauge and probability measures of such subsets, because they use exclusively a single probability space for all data sets and sub-sets of data. It is also shown that Bell and followers use far too stringent epistemological requirements for the consequences of space-like separation. Their requirements reach way beyond Einstein’s separation principle and cannot be met by the major existing physical theories including relativity and even classical mechanics. For example, the independent free will does not empower the experimenters to choose multiple independent spin-gauges in the two EPRB wings. It is demonstrated that the suggestion of instantaneous influences at a distance (supposedly “derived” from experiments with entangled quantum entities) is a consequence of said inaccuracies and takes back rank as soon as the Kolmogorov probability measures are related to a consistent global spin-gauge and permitted to be different for different data subsets: Using statistical interpretations and different probability spaces for certain subsets of outcomes instead of probability amplitudes related to single quantum entities, permits physical explanations without a violation of Einstein’s separation principle.

DOI
10.4236/jmp.2020.115044

Related papers

Data analysis of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm laboratory experiments

Hans A. De Raedt, F. Jin, K. Michielsen

Data sets produced by three different Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm (EPRB) experiments are tested against the hypothesis that the statistics of this data is described by quantum theory. Although these experiments generate data that violate Bell inequalities for suitable choices of the time-coincidence window, the analysis shows that it is highly unlikely that these data sets are compatible with the quantum theoretical description of the EPRB experiment, suggesting that the popular statements that EPRB experiments agree with quantum theory lack a solid scientific basis and that more precise experiments are called for.

arXiv:1312.6361•Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE•Oct 1, 2013•21 citations

Data analysis of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm laboratory experiments

Hans A. De Raedt, Fengping Jin, Kristel F. L. Michielsen

Data sets produced by three different Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm (EPRB) experiments are tested against the hypothesis that the statistics of this data is described by quantum theory. Although these experiments generate data that violate Bell inequalities for suitable choices of the time-coincidence window, the analysis shows that it is highly unlikely that these data sets are compatible with the quantum theoretical description of the EPRB experiment, suggesting that the popular statements that EPRB experiments agree with quantum theory lack a solid scientific basis and that more precise experiments are called for.

•Jan 1, 2013•23 citations

Categories of Nonlocality in EPR Theories and the Validity of Einstein’s Separation Principle as Well as Bell’s Theorem

K. Hess

Work on quantum entanglement is currently emphasizing the nonlocal nature of theories that attempt to explain spatially separated Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) correlation experiments. It is frequently claimed that nonlocal instantaneous influences, or equivalently a breakdown of Einstein’s separation principle, are a signature property of (quantum) entanglement. This paper presents a categorization of the various forms of nonlocality in physical theories. It is shown that, even for Einstein’s theory of relativity, correlations of spatially separated measurements cannot be explained without the involvement of some nonlocal or global knowledge and facts. Instantaneous Influences at a distance are, however, in a special category of nonlocality and, as is well known, Einstein called them spooky. Following a separation of nonlocalities into four distinctly different categories 0, 1, 2, 3, with number 3 corresponding to theories containing instantaneous influences at a distance, I show that any theory of EPR experiments must be at least in category 1 or 2 and does not need to be in category 3. In particular, the Bell theorem, valid for category 0 theories, may be violated for categories 1 and 2 and does not require category 3 theories. Category 0 enforces Bell’s theorem. However, it does not apply to relativistic theories of space like separated measurements.

Journal of Modern Physics•Jan 1, 2019•8 citations

Complete account of randomness in the EPR-Bohm-Bell experiment

David Avis, Paul Fischer, Astrid Hilbert +1 more

We show that paradoxical consequences of violations of Bell's inequality are induced by the use of an unsuitable probabilistic description for the EPR-Bohm-Bell experiment. The conventional description (due to Bell) is based on a combination of statistical data collected for different settings of polarization beam splitters (PBSs). In fact, such data consists of some conditional probabilities which only partially define a probability space. Ignoring this conditioning leads to apparent contradictions in the classical probabilistic model (due to Kolmogorov). We show how to make a completely consistent probabilistic model by taking into account the probabilities of selecting the settings of the PBSs. Our model matches both the experimental data and is consistent with classical probability theory.

arXiv:0806.0445•Jun 3, 2008•2 citations

Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm laboratory experiments: Data analysis and simulation

Hans A. De Raedt, Kristel F. L. Michielsen, Fengping Jin

Data produced by laboratory Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm (EPRB) experiments is tested against the hypothesis that the statistics of this data is given by quantum theory of this thought experiment. Statistical evidence is presented that the experimental data, while violating Bell inequalities, does not support this hypothesis. It is shown that an event-based simulation model, providing a cause-and-effect description of real EPRB experiments at a level of detail which is not covered by quantum theory, reproduces the results of quantum theory of this thought experiment, indicating that there is no fundamental obstacle for a real EPRB experiment to produce data that can be described by quantum theory.

arXiv:1112.2629•AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2012•30 citations

EPR Paradox, Locality and Completeness of Quantum Theory

Marian Kupczyński, Guillaume Adenier, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov +3 more

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.

arXiv:0710.3510•AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2007•20 citations
It is demonstrated that the use of Kolmogorov’s probability theory to describe results of quantum probability for EPRB (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm) experiments requires extreme care when different subsets of measurement outcomes are considered. J. S. Bell and his followers have committed critical inaccuracies related to spin-gauge and probability measures of such subsets, because they use exclusively a single probability space for all data sets and sub-sets of data. It is also shown that Bell and followers use far too stringent epistemological requirements for the consequences of space-like separation. Their requirements reach way beyond Einstein’s separation principle and cannot be met by the major existing physical theories including relativity and even classical mechanics. For example, the independent free will does not empower the experimenters to choose multiple independent spin-gauges in the two EPRB wings. It is demonstrated that the suggestion of instantaneous influences at a distance (supposedly “derived” from experiments with entangled quantum entities) is a consequence of said inaccuracies and takes back rank as soon as the Kolmogorov probability measures are related to a consistent global spin-gauge and permitted to be different for different data subsets: Using statistical interpretations and different probability spaces for certain subsets of outcomes instead of probability amplitudes related to single quantum entities, permits physical explanations without a violation of Einstein’s separation principle.
Data sets produced by three different Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm (EPRB) experiments are tested against the hypothesis that the statistics of this data is described by quantum theory. Although these experiments generate data that violate Bell inequalities for suitable choices of the time-coincidence window, the analysis shows that it is highly unlikely that these data sets are compatible with the quantum theoretical description of the EPRB experiment, suggesting that the popular statements that EPRB experiments agree with quantum theory lack a solid scientific basis and that more precise experiments are called for.
Data sets produced by three different Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm (EPRB) experiments are tested against the hypothesis that the statistics of this data is described by quantum theory. Although these experiments generate data that violate Bell inequalities for suitable choices of the time-coincidence window, the analysis shows that it is highly unlikely that these data sets are compatible with the quantum theoretical description of the EPRB experiment, suggesting that the popular statements that EPRB experiments agree with quantum theory lack a solid scientific basis and that more precise experiments are called for.
Work on quantum entanglement is currently emphasizing the nonlocal nature of theories that attempt to explain spatially separated Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) correlation experiments. It is frequently claimed that nonlocal instantaneous influences, or equivalently a breakdown of Einstein’s separation principle, are a signature property of (quantum) entanglement. This paper presents a categorization of the various forms of nonlocality in physical theories. It is shown that, even for Einstein’s theory of relativity, correlations of spatially separated measurements cannot be explained without the involvement of some nonlocal or global knowledge and facts. Instantaneous Influences at a distance are, however, in a special category of nonlocality and, as is well known, Einstein called them spooky. Following a separation of nonlocalities into four distinctly different categories 0, 1, 2, 3, with number 3 corresponding to theories containing instantaneous influences at a distance, I show that any theory of EPR experiments must be at least in category 1 or 2 and does not need to be in category 3. In particular, the Bell theorem, valid for category 0 theories, may be violated for categories 1 and 2 and does not require category 3 theories. Category 0 enforces Bell’s theorem. However, it does not apply to relativistic theories of space like separated measurements.
We show that paradoxical consequences of violations of Bell's inequality are induced by the use of an unsuitable probabilistic description for the EPR-Bohm-Bell experiment. The conventional description (due to Bell) is based on a combination of statistical data collected for different settings of polarization beam splitters (PBSs). In fact, such data consists of some conditional probabilities which only partially define a probability space. Ignoring this conditioning leads to apparent contradictions in the classical probabilistic model (due to Kolmogorov). We show how to make a completely consistent probabilistic model by taking into account the probabilities of selecting the settings of the PBSs. Our model matches both the experimental data and is consistent with classical probability theory.
Data produced by laboratory Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm (EPRB) experiments is tested against the hypothesis that the statistics of this data is given by quantum theory of this thought experiment. Statistical evidence is presented that the experimental data, while violating Bell inequalities, does not support this hypothesis. It is shown that an event-based simulation model, providing a cause-and-effect description of real EPRB experiments at a level of detail which is not covered by quantum theory, reproduces the results of quantum theory of this thought experiment, indicating that there is no fundamental obstacle for a real EPRB experiment to produce data that can be described by quantum theory.
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.