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

Physics Essays

Bell tests explained classically without quantum entanglement

Dean L. Mamas

Published Sep 21, 2021• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

Bell test experimental results can be classically explained as simply a trivial geometric effect, without any need to evoke any quantum phenomena such as entanglement. There is no instantaneous action-at-a-distance.
DOI
10.4006/0836-1398-34.3.340

Related papers

On the Correlation in Bell-test Experiments

Gerard van der Ham

This paper throws a new light on Bell-test experiments. It is analyzed what the results of Bell-test experiments exactly represent and how they come to existance. It turns out that the 'violation of Bell's inequalities' can be accounted for in a logical way and that there is no need for 'spooky action at a distance'. A condition is that spin is a definite property of particles

•Jan 1, 2021•0 citations

Bell’s Theorem and Its Experiments

Alex Mo

Quantum mechanics makes surprising predictions that defy our classical understanding of the world.Experiments done on entangled particles-particles with linked properties-prove that actions on one particle can affect the other one no matter the distance.In response, physicists came up with local hidden variable theories in an attempt to understand this quantum phenomena through a classical lens.John Bell formulated a way to test whether nature is dictated by local hidden variable theories or quantum mechanics, and since then it has been the goal of numerous physicists to experimentally test the theorem and improve upon the results.This paper describes the history of these experiments, their pros and cons, their advancements, and the potential applications that they will enable.

•Aug 25, 2025•0 citations

Experimental test of nonlocal causality

Martin Ringbauer, Christina Giarmatzi, Rafael Chaves +3 more

Explaining observations in terms of cause-and-effect (causal) relations is central to empirical science. However, in his seminal 1964 work [1], John Bell showed that the correlations between entangled quantum systems cannot be explained in terms of, possibly hidden, cause and effect relations. After four decades of experimental effort, Bell's prediction has recently been confirmed in an unambiguous way by a series of loophole-free Bell-test experiments [2-4]. These experiments, however, cannot reveal where exactly quantum mechanics breaks with our classical notion of cause and effect. Specifically, Bell's theorem is based on the central assumptions of realism and local causality. Realism posits that physical systems have real, objective properties, independent of whether we observe them or not, and local causality assumes that causal influences cannot propagate faster than the speed of light.

Conference on Lasers and Electro-Optics Europe & European Quantum Electronics Conference (CLEO/Europe-EQEC)•Jun 1, 2017•7 citations

Bell Correlations Disclosed as Bivector Entanglement - Measurement and the Failure of Separable Vector Realism

Philip Lilien

Bell’s theorem is widely understood as demonstrating that quantum correlations cannot be explained by any theory of local hidden variables. The experimental violation of Bell inequalities has therefore often been interpreted as evidence for nonlocality or “spooky action at a distance.” This paper proposes a different geometric interpretation. It accepts Bell’s theorem as a decisive refutation of separable preassigned vector realism, but argues that entangled systems need not be modeled as pairs of particles carrying hidden local vector outcomes. Instead, the entangled state is interpreted as a nonseparable bivector coherence relation whose correlated vector outcomes are disclosed only through measurement. On this view, measurement is a basis-conditioned reduction from bivector structure to local vector registration. The standard singlet correlation E(a,b)=-a⋅b, including the Tsirelson bound S=2√2, is then interpreted as the scalar trace of a shared bivector relation rather than as the result of superluminal influence. The framework does not deny Bell’s theorem, Bell experiments, or quantum statistics. It instead reframes their ontological meaning: Bell violation marks the failure of separable vector completion, not the necessity of action at a distance. Keywords: Bell’s theorem; entanglement; bivectors; geometric algebra; spin; nonlocality; measurement; quantum foundations; Tsirelson bound; separable realism; relational ontology; UCCF. Explainer video Watch on YouTube (Roots of Reality): https://youtu.be/wfpY4QZ45ME The video, its thumbnail and description are included in this record.

•May 12, 2026•0 citations

Bell Test experiments explained without entanglement

Jeffrey H. Boyd

Bulletin of the American Physical Society•Apr 9, 2011•0 citations

Statistical contextual explanation of quantum paradoxes

Marian Kupczyński

This year we celebrate 100 years of quantum mechanics (QM). Incorrect interpretations of QM and incorrect mental models of the invisible details of quantum phenomena lead to paradoxes. To explain these, we advocate the statistical contextual interpretation (SCI) of quantum mechanics. State vectors (wave functions) and various operators are purely mathematical entities that permit quantitative probabilistic predictions. “State vector” describes an ensemble of identically prepared physical systems, and a specific “operator” represents a class of equivalent measurements of a physical observable. A collapse of wavefunction is not a mysterious and instantaneous physical process; a collapsed quantum state describes a new ensemble of physical systems prepared in a particular way. A value of a physical observable, such as a spin projection, associated with a pure quantum ensemble is a characteristic of this ensemble created by its interaction with measuring instruments. Probabilities are objective properties of random experiments in which empirical frequencies stabilize. Following Einstein, SCI rejects the claim that QM provides a complete description of individual physical systems, but it remains agnostic about whether a more detailed subquantum description can be found or is necessary. In conformity with Bohr contextuality, SCI rejects Bell-local and Bell-causal hidden variable models. Nevertheless, by incorporating into a probabilistic model contextual hidden variable measuring instruments, long distance quantum correlations studied in Bell tests can be explained without evoking quantum nonlocality or retro-causality. SCI allows the explanation of several quantum phenomena without evoking quantum magic. SCI does not claim to provide a complete description of quantum phenomena; in fact, it is unknown whether quantum probabilities even provide a complete description of existing experimental data. Time series of experimental data may contain much more information than is obtained using empirical frequencies and histograms. Therefore, predictable completeness of QM must be tested and not taken for granted.

arXiv:2502.16048•Frontiers in Quantum Science and Technology•May 1, 2025•1 citation
Quantum mechanics makes surprising predictions that defy our classical understanding of the world.Experiments done on entangled particles-particles with linked properties-prove that actions on one particle can affect the other one no matter the distance.In response, physicists came up with local hidden variable theories in an attempt to understand this quantum phenomena through a classical lens.John Bell formulated a way to test whether nature is dictated by local hidden variable theories or quantum mechanics, and since then it has been the goal of numerous physicists to experimentally test the theorem and improve upon the results.This paper describes the history of these experiments, their pros and cons, their advancements, and the potential applications that they will enable.
Explaining observations in terms of cause-and-effect (causal) relations is central to empirical science. However, in his seminal 1964 work [1], John Bell showed that the correlations between entangled quantum systems cannot be explained in terms of, possibly hidden, cause and effect relations. After four decades of experimental effort, Bell's prediction has recently been confirmed in an unambiguous way by a series of loophole-free Bell-test experiments [2-4]. These experiments, however, cannot reveal where exactly quantum mechanics breaks with our classical notion of cause and effect. Specifically, Bell's theorem is based on the central assumptions of realism and local causality. Realism posits that physical systems have real, objective properties, independent of whether we observe them or not, and local causality assumes that causal influences cannot propagate faster than the speed of light.
Bell’s theorem is widely understood as demonstrating that quantum correlations cannot be explained by any theory of local hidden variables. The experimental violation of Bell inequalities has therefore often been interpreted as evidence for nonlocality or “spooky action at a distance.” This paper proposes a different geometric interpretation. It accepts Bell’s theorem as a decisive refutation of separable preassigned vector realism, but argues that entangled systems need not be modeled as pairs of particles carrying hidden local vector outcomes. Instead, the entangled state is interpreted as a nonseparable bivector coherence relation whose correlated vector outcomes are disclosed only through measurement. On this view, measurement is a basis-conditioned reduction from bivector structure to local vector registration. The standard singlet correlation E(a,b)=-a⋅b, including the Tsirelson bound S=2√2, is then interpreted as the scalar trace of a shared bivector relation rather than as the result of superluminal influence. The framework does not deny Bell’s theorem, Bell experiments, or quantum statistics. It instead reframes their ontological meaning: Bell violation marks the failure of separable vector completion, not the necessity of action at a distance. Keywords: Bell’s theorem; entanglement; bivectors; geometric algebra; spin; nonlocality; measurement; quantum foundations; Tsirelson bound; separable realism; relational ontology; UCCF. Explainer video Watch on YouTube (Roots of Reality): https://youtu.be/wfpY4QZ45ME The video, its thumbnail and description are included in this record.
This year we celebrate 100 years of quantum mechanics (QM). Incorrect interpretations of QM and incorrect mental models of the invisible details of quantum phenomena lead to paradoxes. To explain these, we advocate the statistical contextual interpretation (SCI) of quantum mechanics. State vectors (wave functions) and various operators are purely mathematical entities that permit quantitative probabilistic predictions. “State vector” describes an ensemble of identically prepared physical systems, and a specific “operator” represents a class of equivalent measurements of a physical observable. A collapse of wavefunction is not a mysterious and instantaneous physical process; a collapsed quantum state describes a new ensemble of physical systems prepared in a particular way. A value of a physical observable, such as a spin projection, associated with a pure quantum ensemble is a characteristic of this ensemble created by its interaction with measuring instruments. Probabilities are objective properties of random experiments in which empirical frequencies stabilize. Following Einstein, SCI rejects the claim that QM provides a complete description of individual physical systems, but it remains agnostic about whether a more detailed subquantum description can be found or is necessary. In conformity with Bohr contextuality, SCI rejects Bell-local and Bell-causal hidden variable models. Nevertheless, by incorporating into a probabilistic model contextual hidden variable measuring instruments, long distance quantum correlations studied in Bell tests can be explained without evoking quantum nonlocality or retro-causality. SCI allows the explanation of several quantum phenomena without evoking quantum magic. SCI does not claim to provide a complete description of quantum phenomena; in fact, it is unknown whether quantum probabilities even provide a complete description of existing experimental data. Time series of experimental data may contain much more information than is obtained using empirical frequencies and histograms. Therefore, predictable completeness of QM must be tested and not taken for granted.