© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

Terms Privacy Legal Notice

Symmetry

A Critical Review of Works Pertinent to the Einstein-Bohr Debate and Bell’s Theorem

K. Hess

Published Jan 14, 2022• 21 citations

Abstract

This review is related to the Einstein-Bohr debate and to Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen’s (EPR) and Bohm’s (EPRB) Gedanken-experiments as well as their realization in actual experiments. I examine a significant number of papers, from my minority point of view and conclude that the well-known theorems of Bell and Clauser, Horne, Shimony and Holt (CHSH) deal with mathematical abstractions that have only a tenuous relation to quantum theory and the actual EPRB experiments. It is also shown that, therefore, Bell-CHSH cannot be used to assess the nature of quantum entanglement, nor can physical features of entanglement be used to prove Bell-CHSH. Their proofs are, among other factors, based on a statistical sampling argument that is invalid for general physical entities and processes and only applicable for finite “populations”; not for elements of physical reality that are linked, for example, to a time-like continuum. Bell-CHSH have, furthermore, neglected the subtleties of the theorem of Vorob’ev that includes their theorems as special cases. Vorob’ev found that certain combinatorial-topological cyclicities of classical random variables form a necessary and sufficient condition for the constraints that are now known as Bell-CHSH inequalities. These constraints, however, must not be linked to the observables of quantum theory nor to the actual EPRB experiments for a variety of reasons, including the existence of continuum-related variables and appropriate considerations of symmetry.

DOI: 10.3390/sym14010163

Related papers

Towards Experiments to Test Violation of the Original Bell Inequality

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov, Irina Basieva

The aim of this paper is to attract the attention of experimenters to the original Bell (OB) inequality that was shadowed by the common consideration of the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality. There are two reasons to test the OB inequality and not the CHSH inequality. First of all, the OB inequality is a straightforward consequence to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) argumentation. In addition, only this inequality is directly related to the EPR-Bohr debate. The second distinguishing feature of the OB inequality was emphasized by Itamar Pitowsky. He pointed out that the OB inequality provides a higher degree of violations of classicality than the CHSH inequality. For the CHSH inequality, the fraction of the quantum (Tsirelson) bound Q CHSH = 2 2 to the classical bound C CHSH = 2 , i.e., F CHSH = Q CHSH C CHSH = 2 is less than the fraction of the quantum bound for the OB inequality Q OB = 3 2 to the classical bound C OB = 1 , i.e., F OB = Q OB C OB = 3 2 . Thus, by violating the OB inequality, it is possible to approach a higher degree of deviation from classicality. The main problem is that the OB inequality is derived under the assumption of perfect (anti-) correlations. However, the last few years have been characterized by the amazing development of quantum technologies. Nowadays, there exist sources producing, with very high probability, the pairs of photons in the singlet state. Moreover, the efficiency of photon detectors was improved tremendously. In any event, one can start by proceeding with the fair sampling assumption. Another possibility is to use the scheme of the Hensen et al. experiment for entangled electrons. Here, the detection efficiency is very high.

arXiv:1801.09663•Entropy•Apr 13, 2018•14 citations

Bell Inequalities

Reinhold A. Bertlmann, Nicolai Friis

Abstract This chapter presents a detailed discussion of Bell inequalities and their experimental tests. Starting from the Aharonov-Bohm version of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox, we review EPR’s criteria for realism and completeness and Bell’s locality condition, before deriving the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality. This is followed by an exposition on Bell’s original inequality and other Bell inequalities by Wigner, as well as Clauser and Horne. We then discuss the milestones in the experimental violation of Bell inequalities, from the experiment of Freedman and Clauser in the 1970s, to the efforts of Aspect et al. in the 1980s, the experiments by the teams of Zeilinger and Gisin in the 1990s, and culminating the loophole-free tests in 2015. Finally we turn to a brief discussion of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, focusing on contrasting the realist views held by, e.g., Einstein and Bell, and the informational views with proponents such as Brukner and Zeilinger

•Sep 7, 2023•1 citation

HAS CHSH-INEQUALITY ANY RELATION TO EPR-ARGUMENT?

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

We emphasize the role of the precise correlations loophole in attempting to connect the CHSH type inequalities with the EPR-argument. The possibility to test theories with hidden variables experimentally by using such inequalities is questioned. The role of the original Bell inequality is highlighted. The interpretation of the CHSH inequality in the spirit of Bohr, as a new test of incompatibility, is presented. The positions of Bohr, Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, Bell, Clauser, Horne, Shimony, Holt, De Broglie, Hertz, and Boltzmann on interrelation of theory and experiment are enlightened.

arXiv:1808.03762•May 26, 2020•3 citations

EPR and Bell Theorem

Muhammad Suhail Zubairy

The first round of the Einstein–Bohr debates took place when Einstein challenged Bohr’s principle of complementarity at the Solvay conference in 1927 and Bohr successfully defended it. The most serious challenge, however, came in 1935 when a paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) argued that quantum mechanics was incomplete through a gedanken experiment motivating an approach based on hidden variables. In this chapter, EPR’s arguments about the incompleteness of quantum mechanics and Bohr’s reply to them are presented. The ultimate answer came almost 30 years later, almost ten years after Einstein’s death, and was nothing that Einstein would have expected. Bell’s inequality and the subsequent Bell-CHSH inequality, that are satisfied by all theories based on the “self-evident truths” of reality and locality are discussed. The startling results that quantum mechanics violates Bell’s inequality and the experimental results are in agreement with the prediction of quantum mechanics are presented.

Oxford University Press eBooks•May 7, 2020•0 citations

On the roles of Vorob'ev cyclicities and Berry's phase in the EPR paradox and Bell-tests

David H. Oaknin, K. Hess

The well known inequalities of John S. Bell may be regarded, from a purely mathematical viewpoint, as a direct consequence of Vorob'ev-type topological-combinatorial cyclicities formed with functions on a common probability space. However, the interpretation of these cyclicities becomes more subtle when considerations related to gauge symmetries and geometric-combinatorial phases are taken into account. These physics related considerations permit violations of all Bell-type inequalities within the realm of Einstein's causal physical-mathematics.

arXiv:2008.02633•Aug 4, 2020•1 citation

Einstein-Local Counter-Arguments and Counter-Examples to Bell-Type Proofs

K. Hess

J. S. Bell’s well-known proofs of inequalities (and related work) are shown to be invalidated by two counter-arguments (-examples) that are based on Einstein-local propositions: Bell-type inequalities of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiments must include, as virtually all physical theories do, elements of physical reality and their mathematical representations that relate to continua as opposed to exclusively finite numbers. Furthermore, Bell-type inequalities must be valid for all possible experimental geometries that lead to the quantum result. Based on these propositions, violations of Bell-type inequalities are demonstrated without violating Einstein locality, without conspiracy type theories and even for the case that all known “loopholes” are closed.

Journal of Modern Physics•Jan 1, 2023•2 citations

This review is related to the Einstein-Bohr debate and to Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen’s (EPR) and Bohm’s (EPRB) Gedanken-experiments as well as their realization in actual experiments. I examine a significant number of papers, from my minority point of view and conclude that the well-known theorems of Bell and Clauser, Horne, Shimony and Holt (CHSH) deal with mathematical abstractions that have only a tenuous relation to quantum theory and the actual EPRB experiments. It is also shown that, therefore, Bell-CHSH cannot be used to assess the nature of quantum entanglement, nor can physical features of entanglement be used to prove Bell-CHSH. Their proofs are, among other factors, based on a statistical sampling argument that is invalid for general physical entities and processes and only applicable for finite “populations”; not for elements of physical reality that are linked, for example, to a time-like continuum. Bell-CHSH have, furthermore, neglected the subtleties of the theorem of Vorob’ev that includes their theorems as special cases. Vorob’ev found that certain combinatorial-topological cyclicities of classical random variables form a necessary and sufficient condition for the constraints that are now known as Bell-CHSH inequalities. These constraints, however, must not be linked to the observables of quantum theory nor to the actual EPRB experiments for a variety of reasons, including the existence of continuum-related variables and appropriate considerations of symmetry.

The aim of this paper is to attract the attention of experimenters to the original Bell (OB) inequality that was shadowed by the common consideration of the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality. There are two reasons to test the OB inequality and not the CHSH inequality. First of all, the OB inequality is a straightforward consequence to the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) argumentation. In addition, only this inequality is directly related to the EPR-Bohr debate. The second distinguishing feature of the OB inequality was emphasized by Itamar Pitowsky. He pointed out that the OB inequality provides a higher degree of violations of classicality than the CHSH inequality. For the CHSH inequality, the fraction of the quantum (Tsirelson) bound Q CHSH = 2 2 to the classical bound C CHSH = 2 , i.e., F CHSH = Q CHSH C CHSH = 2 is less than the fraction of the quantum bound for the OB inequality Q OB = 3 2 to the classical bound C OB = 1 , i.e., F OB = Q OB C OB = 3 2 . Thus, by violating the OB inequality, it is possible to approach a higher degree of deviation from classicality. The main problem is that the OB inequality is derived under the assumption of perfect (anti-) correlations. However, the last few years have been characterized by the amazing development of quantum technologies. Nowadays, there exist sources producing, with very high probability, the pairs of photons in the singlet state. Moreover, the efficiency of photon detectors was improved tremendously. In any event, one can start by proceeding with the fair sampling assumption. Another possibility is to use the scheme of the Hensen et al. experiment for entangled electrons. Here, the detection efficiency is very high.

Abstract This chapter presents a detailed discussion of Bell inequalities and their experimental tests. Starting from the Aharonov-Bohm version of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox, we review EPR’s criteria for realism and completeness and Bell’s locality condition, before deriving the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality. This is followed by an exposition on Bell’s original inequality and other Bell inequalities by Wigner, as well as Clauser and Horne. We then discuss the milestones in the experimental violation of Bell inequalities, from the experiment of Freedman and Clauser in the 1970s, to the efforts of Aspect et al. in the 1980s, the experiments by the teams of Zeilinger and Gisin in the 1990s, and culminating the loophole-free tests in 2015. Finally we turn to a brief discussion of the interpretations of quantum mechanics, focusing on contrasting the realist views held by, e.g., Einstein and Bell, and the informational views with proponents such as Brukner and Zeilinger

We emphasize the role of the precise correlations loophole in attempting to connect the CHSH type inequalities with the EPR-argument. The possibility to test theories with hidden variables experimentally by using such inequalities is questioned. The role of the original Bell inequality is highlighted. The interpretation of the CHSH inequality in the spirit of Bohr, as a new test of incompatibility, is presented. The positions of Bohr, Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, Bell, Clauser, Horne, Shimony, Holt, De Broglie, Hertz, and Boltzmann on interrelation of theory and experiment are enlightened.

The first round of the Einstein–Bohr debates took place when Einstein challenged Bohr’s principle of complementarity at the Solvay conference in 1927 and Bohr successfully defended it. The most serious challenge, however, came in 1935 when a paper by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) argued that quantum mechanics was incomplete through a gedanken experiment motivating an approach based on hidden variables. In this chapter, EPR’s arguments about the incompleteness of quantum mechanics and Bohr’s reply to them are presented. The ultimate answer came almost 30 years later, almost ten years after Einstein’s death, and was nothing that Einstein would have expected. Bell’s inequality and the subsequent Bell-CHSH inequality, that are satisfied by all theories based on the “self-evident truths” of reality and locality are discussed. The startling results that quantum mechanics violates Bell’s inequality and the experimental results are in agreement with the prediction of quantum mechanics are presented.

The well known inequalities of John S. Bell may be regarded, from a purely mathematical viewpoint, as a direct consequence of Vorob'ev-type topological-combinatorial cyclicities formed with functions on a common probability space. However, the interpretation of these cyclicities becomes more subtle when considerations related to gauge symmetries and geometric-combinatorial phases are taken into account. These physics related considerations permit violations of all Bell-type inequalities within the realm of Einstein's causal physical-mathematics.

J. S. Bell’s well-known proofs of inequalities (and related work) are shown to be invalidated by two counter-arguments (-examples) that are based on Einstein-local propositions: Bell-type inequalities of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen experiments must include, as virtually all physical theories do, elements of physical reality and their mathematical representations that relate to continua as opposed to exclusively finite numbers. Furthermore, Bell-type inequalities must be valid for all possible experimental geometries that lead to the quantum result. Based on these propositions, violations of Bell-type inequalities are demonstrated without violating Einstein locality, without conspiracy type theories and even for the case that all known “loopholes” are closed.