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

Refutation of Bell's Theorem for Temporal Logic

Colin James

Published Aug 1, 2019• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Related papers

Bell’s Theorem Refuted Irrefutably on Bell’s Own Terms

Gordon Watson

•Jul 1, 2018•0 citations

Bell’s Theorem Refuted via Elementary Probability Theory

Gordon Watson

•Oct 1, 2020•0 citations

A Note on Bell’s Theorem Logical Consistency

Justo Pastor Lambare, Rodney Franco

arXiv:2012.10238•Foundations of Physics•Jul 31, 2021•24 citations

On the logical structure of Bell theorems.

Jonathan Walgate, Anne Broadbent, Hilary A. Carteret +1 more

Bulletin of the American Physical Society•Mar 5, 2007•0 citations

Refutation of Tropical Sum for Bell's Theorem

Colin James

•Nov 1, 2018•0 citations

Anti Chsh—Refutation of the Chsh Inequality

Ilija Barukčić

Today, quantum-mechanical concepts i.e. such as non-locality refer to some mathematical foundations, especially to Bell’s inequality and the Chsh inequality. Experimental data, analyzed while using Bell’s inequality or the Chsh inequality, favor a quantum mechanical description of nature over local hidden variable theories (often referred to as local realism). In general, the use of mathematically inconsistent methods can imply a waste of money, time and effort on this account. Under some certain conditions (the assumption of independence) Bell’s theorem and the Chsh inequality are already refuted. The purpose of this publication is to explore the terra incognita, the interior logic that may lie beyond Bell’s original theorem and the Chsh inequality and to refute both Bell’s original theorem and the Chsh inequality under any circumstances by the proof that we can derive a logical contradiction out of Bell’s inequalities. Thus far, if you accept Bell’s theorem or the Chsh inequality as correct, then you must accept too that +0 = +1, which is a logical contradiction. Bell’s theorem and the Chsh inequality are refuted in general. In this insight, it appears to be necessary to revisit the very foundations of quantum theory and of physics as such.

Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics•Jan 1, 2016•6 citations
Today, quantum-mechanical concepts i.e. such as non-locality refer to some mathematical foundations, especially to Bell’s inequality and the Chsh inequality. Experimental data, analyzed while using Bell’s inequality or the Chsh inequality, favor a quantum mechanical description of nature over local hidden variable theories (often referred to as local realism). In general, the use of mathematically inconsistent methods can imply a waste of money, time and effort on this account. Under some certain conditions (the assumption of independence) Bell’s theorem and the Chsh inequality are already refuted. The purpose of this publication is to explore the terra incognita, the interior logic that may lie beyond Bell’s original theorem and the Chsh inequality and to refute both Bell’s original theorem and the Chsh inequality under any circumstances by the proof that we can derive a logical contradiction out of Bell’s inequalities. Thus far, if you accept Bell’s theorem or the Chsh inequality as correct, then you must accept too that +0 = +1, which is a logical contradiction. Bell’s theorem and the Chsh inequality are refuted in general. In this insight, it appears to be necessary to revisit the very foundations of quantum theory and of physics as such.