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 Theorem Refuted via True Local Realism

Gordon Watson

Published Nov 1, 2020• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

Bell's theorem has been described as the most profound discovery of science; one of the few essential discoveries of 20th Century physics; indecipherable to non-mathematicians. However, taking elementary analysis to be an adequate logic here, we refute Bell's theorem, correct his inequality and identify his error. Further, we do this under the principle of true local realism, the union of true locality (or relativistic causality: no influence propagates superluminally) and true realism (or non-naive realism: some existents change interactively). We thus lay the foundation for a more complete physical theory: one in line with Einstein's ideas and Bell's hopes. Let's see.

Related papers

Local Realism Generalized, EPR Refined, Bell's Theorem Refuted

Gordon Watson

This open letter challenges Annals of Physics' Editors and Bell's supporters on this front: in the context of Bell's theorem -- after AoP (2016:67) -- ‘it's a proven scientific fact that a violation of local realism has been demonstrated theoretically and experimentally.' We show that such claims under the Bellian canon are curtailed by its foundation on a naive realism that is known to be false; ie, under Bohr's old insight (in our terms), a test may disturb the tested system. Further: (i) We define a general all-embracing local realism -- CLR, commonsense local realism -- the union of local-causality (no causal influence propagates superluminally) and physical-realism (some physical properties change interactively). (ii) Under CLR, with EPR-based variables (and without QM), a thought-experiment delivers a local-realistic account of EPRB and GHZ in 3-space. (iii) Under EPR, mixing common-sense with undergrad math/physics in the classical way so favored by Einstein, we interpret QM locally and realistically. (iv) We find the flaw in Bell's theorem: Bell's 1964:(14a) ≠ Bell's 1964:(14b) under EPRB. (v) EPR (1935) famously argue that additional variables will bring locality and causality to QM's completion; we show that they are right. (vi) Even more famously, Bell (1964) cried ‘impossible' against such variables; we give the shortest possible refutation of his claim. (vii) Using Bell's (1988:88) moot gloss on a fragment of von Neumann's work, we conclude: ‘There's nothing to Bell's theorem -- nor Bellian variants like CHSH (1969), Mermin (1990), Peres (1995); nor Bellian endorsements like those by Bricmont, du Sautoy, Goldstein et al., Maudlin, Norsen, Shimony -- it's not just flawed, it's silly; its assumptions nonsense; it's not merely false but foolish' and misleading. (viii) Our results accord with common-sense, QM, Einstein's principles, EPR's belief and Bell's hopes and expectations.

•Nov 1, 2016•0 citations

Bell's Theorem Refuted; Commonsense Local Realism Defined

Gordon Watson

An open letter to Bellians and the Annals of Physics' Editors re -- it's a proven scientific fact: a violation of local realism has been demonstrated theoretically and experimentally -- after AoP (2016:67). EPR (1935) famously argue that additional variables will bring locality and causality to QM's completion; we show that they are right. Even more famously, Bell (1964) cried ‘impossible' against such variables; we give the shortest possible refutation of his claims. With EPR-based variables (and without QM), an old thought-experiment delivers a commonsensical locally-causal account of EPRB and GHZ in 3-space. We then name the flaw in Bell's theorem – Bell's error -- Bell's 1964:(14a) ≠ Bell's 1964:(14b) under EPRB. Thus, given Bell's (1988:88) gloss on a snippet of von Neumann's work, ‘There's nothing to Bell's theorem -- nor variants like CHSH (1969), Mermin (1990), Peres (1995) -- it's not just flawed, it's silly; not merely false but foolish.' In short, we show that the whole Bellian canon -- with its no-name brand of local realism -- is all of those, and misleading too. Under EPR, mixing common-sense with undergrad math/physics in the classical way so favored by Einstein, we interpret QM locally and realistically. We thus define a new brand of local realism -- CLR, commonsense local realism -- the union of local-causality (no causal influence propagates superluminally) and physical-realism (some physical properties change interactively). Long may EPR rule OK we say.

•Oct 1, 2016•0 citations

Einstein vs Bell? Bell's Inequality Refuted, Bell's Error Corrected.

Gordon Watson

Bell's inequality is widely regarded as a profound proof that nature is nonlocal, not Einstein-local. Against this, and supporting Einstein, we refute Bell's inequality and correct his error. We thus advance the principle of true-local-realism (TLR); the union of true-locality (no beables move superluminally, after Einstein) and true-realism (some beables change interactively, after Bohr). Importantly, for STEM teachers: we believe our commonsense results require no knowledge of quantum mechanics. Let us see.

•Sep 1, 2019•0 citations

Bell's Theorem Refuted in Our Locally-Causal Lorentz-Invariant World

Gordon Watson

Adjusting EPR (to accord with Bohr's insight), and accepting Bell's principles (but not his false inferences), we:— (i) complete the QM account of EPR correlations in a classical way; (ii) deliver Bell's hope for a simple constructive model of EPRB; (iii) justify EPR's belief that additional variables would bring locality and causality to QM's completion; (iv) refute key claims that such variables are impossible — including CHSH, Mermin's three-particle always-vs-never variant of GHZ, and this: in the context of Bell's theorem ‘it's a proven scientific fact that a violation of local realism has been demonstrated theoretically and experimentally,' (Annals of Physics Editors, 2016). In short: we refute Bell's theorem and endorse Einstein's locally-causal Lorentz-invariant worldview.

•Mar 1, 2017•0 citations

Einstein-Classicality Explains Aspect's Experiment and Refutes Bell's Theorem

Gordon Watson

With Bell's inequality refuted and his error identified [see References], we now explain Aspect's experiment and refute Bell's theorem via what we call Einstein-classicality: the union of true locality (no influence propagates superluminally) and true realism (some beables change interactively). We also remedy many of Aspect's pro-Bell comments; eg, inability to picture in 3-space, hopeless searching, vindicated nonlocality.

•Jan 1, 2019•0 citations

John S. Bell’s concept of local causality

Travis Norsen

John Stewart Bell’s famous theorem is widely regarded as one of the most important developments in the foundations of physics. Yet even as we approach the 50th anniversary of Bell’s discovery, its meaning and implications remain controversial. Many workers assert that Bell’s theorem refutes the possibility suggested by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) of supplementing ordinary quantum theory with “hidden” variables that might restore determinism and/or some notion of an observer-independent reality. But Bell himself interpreted the theorem very differently—as establishing an “essential conflict” between the well-tested empirical predictions of quantum theory and relativistic local causality. Our goal is to make Bell’s own views more widely known and to explain Bell’s little-known formulation of the concept of relativistic local causality on which his theorem rests. We also show precisely how Bell’s formulation of local causality can be used to derive an empirically testable Bell-type inequality and to recapitulate the EPR argument.

arXiv:0707.0401•American Journal of Physics•Nov 29, 2011•148 citations
Bell's theorem has been described as the most profound discovery of science; one of the few essential discoveries of 20th Century physics; indecipherable to non-mathematicians. However, taking elementary analysis to be an adequate logic here, we refute Bell's theorem, correct his inequality and identify his error. Further, we do this under the principle of true local realism, the union of true locality (or relativistic causality: no influence propagates superluminally) and true realism (or non-naive realism: some existents change interactively). We thus lay the foundation for a more complete physical theory: one in line with Einstein's ideas and Bell's hopes. Let's see.
This open letter challenges Annals of Physics' Editors and Bell's supporters on this front: in the context of Bell's theorem -- after AoP (2016:67) -- ‘it's a proven scientific fact that a violation of local realism has been demonstrated theoretically and experimentally.' We show that such claims under the Bellian canon are curtailed by its foundation on a naive realism that is known to be false; ie, under Bohr's old insight (in our terms), a test may disturb the tested system. Further: (i) We define a general all-embracing local realism -- CLR, commonsense local realism -- the union of local-causality (no causal influence propagates superluminally) and physical-realism (some physical properties change interactively). (ii) Under CLR, with EPR-based variables (and without QM), a thought-experiment delivers a local-realistic account of EPRB and GHZ in 3-space. (iii) Under EPR, mixing common-sense with undergrad math/physics in the classical way so favored by Einstein, we interpret QM locally and realistically. (iv) We find the flaw in Bell's theorem: Bell's 1964:(14a) ≠ Bell's 1964:(14b) under EPRB. (v) EPR (1935) famously argue that additional variables will bring locality and causality to QM's completion; we show that they are right. (vi) Even more famously, Bell (1964) cried ‘impossible' against such variables; we give the shortest possible refutation of his claim. (vii) Using Bell's (1988:88) moot gloss on a fragment of von Neumann's work, we conclude: ‘There's nothing to Bell's theorem -- nor Bellian variants like CHSH (1969), Mermin (1990), Peres (1995); nor Bellian endorsements like those by Bricmont, du Sautoy, Goldstein et al., Maudlin, Norsen, Shimony -- it's not just flawed, it's silly; its assumptions nonsense; it's not merely false but foolish' and misleading. (viii) Our results accord with common-sense, QM, Einstein's principles, EPR's belief and Bell's hopes and expectations.
An open letter to Bellians and the Annals of Physics' Editors re -- it's a proven scientific fact: a violation of local realism has been demonstrated theoretically and experimentally -- after AoP (2016:67). EPR (1935) famously argue that additional variables will bring locality and causality to QM's completion; we show that they are right. Even more famously, Bell (1964) cried ‘impossible' against such variables; we give the shortest possible refutation of his claims. With EPR-based variables (and without QM), an old thought-experiment delivers a commonsensical locally-causal account of EPRB and GHZ in 3-space. We then name the flaw in Bell's theorem – Bell's error -- Bell's 1964:(14a) ≠ Bell's 1964:(14b) under EPRB. Thus, given Bell's (1988:88) gloss on a snippet of von Neumann's work, ‘There's nothing to Bell's theorem -- nor variants like CHSH (1969), Mermin (1990), Peres (1995) -- it's not just flawed, it's silly; not merely false but foolish.' In short, we show that the whole Bellian canon -- with its no-name brand of local realism -- is all of those, and misleading too. Under EPR, mixing common-sense with undergrad math/physics in the classical way so favored by Einstein, we interpret QM locally and realistically. We thus define a new brand of local realism -- CLR, commonsense local realism -- the union of local-causality (no causal influence propagates superluminally) and physical-realism (some physical properties change interactively). Long may EPR rule OK we say.
Bell's inequality is widely regarded as a profound proof that nature is nonlocal, not Einstein-local. Against this, and supporting Einstein, we refute Bell's inequality and correct his error. We thus advance the principle of true-local-realism (TLR); the union of true-locality (no beables move superluminally, after Einstein) and true-realism (some beables change interactively, after Bohr). Importantly, for STEM teachers: we believe our commonsense results require no knowledge of quantum mechanics. Let us see.
Adjusting EPR (to accord with Bohr's insight), and accepting Bell's principles (but not his false inferences), we:— (i) complete the QM account of EPR correlations in a classical way; (ii) deliver Bell's hope for a simple constructive model of EPRB; (iii) justify EPR's belief that additional variables would bring locality and causality to QM's completion; (iv) refute key claims that such variables are impossible — including CHSH, Mermin's three-particle always-vs-never variant of GHZ, and this: in the context of Bell's theorem ‘it's a proven scientific fact that a violation of local realism has been demonstrated theoretically and experimentally,' (Annals of Physics Editors, 2016). In short: we refute Bell's theorem and endorse Einstein's locally-causal Lorentz-invariant worldview.
John Stewart Bell’s famous theorem is widely regarded as one of the most important developments in the foundations of physics. Yet even as we approach the 50th anniversary of Bell’s discovery, its meaning and implications remain controversial. Many workers assert that Bell’s theorem refutes the possibility suggested by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) of supplementing ordinary quantum theory with “hidden” variables that might restore determinism and/or some notion of an observer-independent reality. But Bell himself interpreted the theorem very differently—as establishing an “essential conflict” between the well-tested empirical predictions of quantum theory and relativistic local causality. Our goal is to make Bell’s own views more widely known and to explain Bell’s little-known formulation of the concept of relativistic local causality on which his theorem rests. We also show precisely how Bell’s formulation of local causality can be used to derive an empirically testable Bell-type inequality and to recapitulate the EPR argument.