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 inequalities versus quantum physics: A reply to Lambare

Robert B. Griffiths

Published Jun 17, 2021• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

In Phys. Rev. A 101 (2020) 022117 it was argued that Bell inequalities are based on classical, not quantum, physics, and hence their violation in experiments provides no support for the claimed existence of peculiar nonlocal and superluminal influences in the real (quantum) world. Following a brief review of some aspects of the Consistent Histories approach used in that work, the objections raised in Lambare's Comment, arXiv:2102.075243v3, are examined and shown to rest on serious misunderstandings, and as a result fail to identify any errors in, or problems with, the work being criticized.

Related papers

Reply to “Comment on ‘Nonlocality claims are inconsistent with Hilbert-space quantum mechanics’ ”

Robert B. Griffiths

In Phys. Rev. A 101, 022117 (2020), it was argued that Bell inequalities are based on classical not quantum physics, and, hence, their violation in experiments provides no support for the claimed existence of peculiar nonlocal and superluminal influences in the real (quantum) world. This Reply to Lambare's Comment, Phys. Rev. A 104, 066201 (2021), on that paper seeks to clarify some issues related to the correct use of Hilbert space quantum mechanics for identifying the microscopic causes of later macroscopic measurement outcomes, a matter not properly addressed by Bell, who used classical hidden variables in place of the Hilbert subspaces (equivalently, their projectors) employed by von Neumann in Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics.

arXiv:2106.09824•Physical Review A•Dec 20, 2021•11 citations

Comment on "Nonlocality claims are inconsistent with Hilbert-space quantum mechanics"

Justo Pastor Lambare

The view exists that the Bell inequality is a mere inconsistent application of classical concepts to a well-established quantum world. In the article, ``Nonlocality claims are inconsistent with Hilbert-space quantum mechanics'' [Phys. Rev. A, 101, 022117, (2020)], Robert B. Griffiths advocates for quantum theory's locality. Although R. B. Griffiths presents valuable insights in favor of quantum mechanics' local character, he argues the Bell inequality is an inconsistent application of classical physics to quantum mechanics. We explain why a correct assessment of the Bell inequality does not in fact conflict with Griffiths's views of quantum locality and, on the contrary, it already contemplates them. Hence, Bell inequality inconsistency is not necessary for Griffiths's quantum locality to hold.

arXiv:2102.07524•Feb 15, 2021•5 citations

Classicality and Bell’s theorem

Márton Gömöri, Carl Hoefer

Abstract A widespread view among physicists is that Bell’s theorem rests on an implicit assumption of “classicality,” in addition to locality. According to this understanding, the violation of Bell’s inequalities poses no challenge to locality, but simply reinforces the fact that quantum mechanics is not classical. The paper provides a critical analysis of this view. First we characterize the notion of classicality in probabilistic terms. We argue that classicality thus construed has nothing to do with the validity of classical physics, nor of classical probability theory, contrary to what many believe. At the same time, we show that the probabilistic notion of classicality is not an additional premise of Bell’s theorem, but a mathematical corollary of locality in conjunction with the standard auxiliary assumptions of Bell. Accordingly, any theory that claims to get around the derivation of Bell’s inequalities by giving up classicality, in fact has to give up one of those standard assumptions. As an illustration of this, we look at two recent interpretations of quantum mechanics, Reinhard Werner’s operational quantum mechanics and Robert Griffiths’ consistent histories approach, that are claimed to be local and non-classical, and identify which of the standard assumptions of Bell’s theorem each of them is forced to give up. We claim that while in operational quantum mechanics the Common Cause Principle is violated, the consistent histories approach is conspiratorial. Finally, we relate these two options to the idea of realism, a notion that is also often identified as an implicit assumption of Bell’s theorem.

European Journal for Philosophy of Science•Sep 1, 2023•0 citations

On the applicability of Kolmogorov's theory of probability to the description of quantum phenomena. Part II: Bell inequalities

Maik Reddiger

Among the various "no-go theorems" in the foundations of quantum mechanics, Bell inequalities are among the few, which do not implicitly rely on the mathematical structure of quantum mechanics. Instead, Bell inequalities are commonly understood to rest on Kolmogorov's theory of probability and a "locality" assumption. Physical evidence supporting their violation is hence taken as evidence against at least one of these two assumptions. This work provides a comprehensive analysis of the physical debate on Bell inequalities from the point of view of Kolmogorov's theory of probability, focusing on the Bell-Clauser-Horn-Shimony-Holt inequality (BCHSH inequality). The central contribution is the motivation and mathematical study of the notion of contextuality in Bell experiments: in so-called contextual Bell models the detectors themselves behave randomly and the distribution of the random detector parameters depends on the chosen detector settings. It is shown how even "classical" Bell experiments motivate such a description. The need to account for contextuality was pointed out before by de la Peña, Cetto, Brody, Lochak, Bohm, Hiley and others. A broad class of contextual models is proven to satisfy the BCHSH inequality, thereby generalizing a previous result by Gill and Lambare. Nonetheless, even under strong locality requirements, contextual Bell models may violate the BCHSH inequality: based on work by Popescu and Rohrlich, we consider a "proof of concept" example exhibiting the maximum possible violation. Contrary to the much debated "loopholes" in empirical tests of Bell inequalities, contextuality thus reveals a conceptual misunderstanding in the physical conclusions commonly drawn from Bell inequality violations.

quant-pharXiv:2609.31075•Sep 28, 2026•0 citations

Further comments on ‘Is the moon there if nobody looks? Bell inequalities and physical reality’

Richard David Gill

Kupczynski (2023) claims that Gill and Lambare (2022a, 2022b) misrepresent several of his published papers. This paper shows that the latest version of his “contextuality by default” model of a Bell experiment places no constraints whatsoever on the statistics of observed results in such experiments. It thereby effectively allows arbitrary non-locality, ie direct causal effects of local measurement settings on distant measurement outcomes.

arXiv:2305.03026•May 5, 2023•1 citation

Comment on “Loophole-Free Bell Test for Continuous Variables via Wave and Particle Correlations”

Daniel Cavalcanti, Valerio Scarani

The inequalities proposed in [Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 170404 (2010)] are not Bell's inequalities in the usual sense: there are local classical models that violate these inequalities. Thus, their violation demonstrates nonlocality only under assumptions about the physical implementation and moreover they cannot be used as a device-independent test of nonlocality.

arXiv:1010.5358•Physical Review Letters•May 20, 2011•7 citations
In Phys. Rev. A 101 (2020) 022117 it was argued that Bell inequalities are based on classical, not quantum, physics, and hence their violation in experiments provides no support for the claimed existence of peculiar nonlocal and superluminal influences in the real (quantum) world. Following a brief review of some aspects of the Consistent Histories approach used in that work, the objections raised in Lambare's Comment, arXiv:2102.075243v3, are examined and shown to rest on serious misunderstandings, and as a result fail to identify any errors in, or problems with, the work being criticized.
In Phys. Rev. A 101, 022117 (2020), it was argued that Bell inequalities are based on classical not quantum physics, and, hence, their violation in experiments provides no support for the claimed existence of peculiar nonlocal and superluminal influences in the real (quantum) world. This Reply to Lambare's Comment, Phys. Rev. A 104, 066201 (2021), on that paper seeks to clarify some issues related to the correct use of Hilbert space quantum mechanics for identifying the microscopic causes of later macroscopic measurement outcomes, a matter not properly addressed by Bell, who used classical hidden variables in place of the Hilbert subspaces (equivalently, their projectors) employed by von Neumann in Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics.
The view exists that the Bell inequality is a mere inconsistent application of classical concepts to a well-established quantum world. In the article, ``Nonlocality claims are inconsistent with Hilbert-space quantum mechanics'' [Phys. Rev. A, 101, 022117, (2020)], Robert B. Griffiths advocates for quantum theory's locality. Although R. B. Griffiths presents valuable insights in favor of quantum mechanics' local character, he argues the Bell inequality is an inconsistent application of classical physics to quantum mechanics. We explain why a correct assessment of the Bell inequality does not in fact conflict with Griffiths's views of quantum locality and, on the contrary, it already contemplates them. Hence, Bell inequality inconsistency is not necessary for Griffiths's quantum locality to hold.
Abstract A widespread view among physicists is that Bell’s theorem rests on an implicit assumption of “classicality,” in addition to locality. According to this understanding, the violation of Bell’s inequalities poses no challenge to locality, but simply reinforces the fact that quantum mechanics is not classical. The paper provides a critical analysis of this view. First we characterize the notion of classicality in probabilistic terms. We argue that classicality thus construed has nothing to do with the validity of classical physics, nor of classical probability theory, contrary to what many believe. At the same time, we show that the probabilistic notion of classicality is not an additional premise of Bell’s theorem, but a mathematical corollary of locality in conjunction with the standard auxiliary assumptions of Bell. Accordingly, any theory that claims to get around the derivation of Bell’s inequalities by giving up classicality, in fact has to give up one of those standard assumptions. As an illustration of this, we look at two recent interpretations of quantum mechanics, Reinhard Werner’s operational quantum mechanics and Robert Griffiths’ consistent histories approach, that are claimed to be local and non-classical, and identify which of the standard assumptions of Bell’s theorem each of them is forced to give up. We claim that while in operational quantum mechanics the Common Cause Principle is violated, the consistent histories approach is conspiratorial. Finally, we relate these two options to the idea of realism, a notion that is also often identified as an implicit assumption of Bell’s theorem.
Among the various "no-go theorems" in the foundations of quantum mechanics, Bell inequalities are among the few, which do not implicitly rely on the mathematical structure of quantum mechanics. Instead, Bell inequalities are commonly understood to rest on Kolmogorov's theory of probability and a "locality" assumption. Physical evidence supporting their violation is hence taken as evidence against at least one of these two assumptions. This work provides a comprehensive analysis of the physical debate on Bell inequalities from the point of view of Kolmogorov's theory of probability, focusing on the Bell-Clauser-Horn-Shimony-Holt inequality (BCHSH inequality). The central contribution is the motivation and mathematical study of the notion of contextuality in Bell experiments: in so-called contextual Bell models the detectors themselves behave randomly and the distribution of the random detector parameters depends on the chosen detector settings. It is shown how even "classical" Bell experiments motivate such a description. The need to account for contextuality was pointed out before by de la Peña, Cetto, Brody, Lochak, Bohm, Hiley and others. A broad class of contextual models is proven to satisfy the BCHSH inequality, thereby generalizing a previous result by Gill and Lambare. Nonetheless, even under strong locality requirements, contextual Bell models may violate the BCHSH inequality: based on work by Popescu and Rohrlich, we consider a "proof of concept" example exhibiting the maximum possible violation. Contrary to the much debated "loopholes" in empirical tests of Bell inequalities, contextuality thus reveals a conceptual misunderstanding in the physical conclusions commonly drawn from Bell inequality violations.