© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

Terms Privacy Legal Notice

Asia Pacific Journal of Mathematics

Incompleteness in the Bell Theorem Involving All Settings of Measuring Apparatus

Koji Nagata, Santanu Kumar Patro, Shahrokh Heidari, Germano Resconi, Do Ngoc Diep, Tadao Nakamura, Han J.F. Geurdes

Published Jan 1, 2020• 0 citations

Abstract

Here, we consider the Bell experiment for a system described by multipartite states in the case where ndichotomic observables are measured per site.If n is two, we consider a two-setting Bell experiment.If n is infinite, we consider an infinite-setting Bell experiment.Two-setting model is an explicit local realistic model for the values of a correlation function, given in a two-setting Bell experiment.Infinite-setting model is an explicit local realistic model for the values of a correlation function, given in an infinite-setting Bell experiment.In the non-contextual scenario, there is not the essential difference between infinite-setting model and two-setting model.And we cannot classify local realistic theories in this case.This says that we can construct infinite-setting model from two-setting model.Surprisingly we can discuss incompleteness in the Bell theorem by using non-contextual models.On the other hand, in the contextual scenario, there is the essential difference between infinite-setting model and two-setting model.This says that we must distinguish infinite-setting model from two-setting model.And we can classify local realistic theories in this case.

DOI: 10.28924/apjm/7-8

Related papers

Bell Operator Method to Classify Local Realistic Theories

Koji Nagata

We review the historical fact of multipartite Bell inequalities with an arbitrary number of settings. An explicit local realistic model for the values of a correlation function, given in a two-setting Bell experiment (two-setting model), works only for the specific set of settings in the given experiment, but cannot construct a local realistic model for the values of a correlation function, given in a continuous-infinite settings Bell experiment (infinite-setting model), even though there exist two-setting models for all directions in space. Hence, the two-setting model does not have the property that the infinite-setting model has. Here, we show that an explicit two-setting model cannot construct a local realistic model for the values of a correlation function, given in an M -setting Bell experiment ( M -setting model), even though there exist two-setting models for the M measurement directions chosen in the given M -setting experiment. Hence, the two-setting model does not have the property that the M -setting model has.

Chinese Physics Letters•Mar 1, 2010•0 citations

Classification of local realistic theories

Koji Nagata

Recently, it has been shown that an explicit local realistic model for the values of a correlation function, given in a two-setting Bell experiment (two-setting model), works only for the specific set of settings in the given experiment, but cannot construct a local realistic model for the values of a correlation function, given in a continuous-infinite settings Bell experiment (infinite-setting model), even though there exist two-setting models for all directions in space. Hence, the two-setting model does not have the property which the infinite-setting model has. Here, we show that an explicit two-setting model cannot construct a local realistic model for the values of a correlation function, given in an only discrete-three settings Bell experiment (three-setting model), even though there exist two-setting models for the three measurement directions chosen in the given three-setting experiment. Hence, the two-setting model does not have the property which the three-setting model has.

arXiv:0710.1935•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Apr 2, 2008•7 citations

Generalized Bell Scenarios: Disturbing Consequences on Local-Hidden-Variable Models

André Saugo Mazzari, Gabriel Ruffolo, Carlos Vieira +3 more

Bell nonlocality and Kochen-Specker contextuality are among the main topics in the foundations of quantum theory. Both of them are related to stronger-than-classical correlations, with the former usually referring to spatially separated systems, while the latter considers a single system. In recent works, a unified framework for these phenomena was presented. This article reviews, expands, and obtains new results regarding this framework. Contextual and disturbing features inside the local models are explored, which allows for the definition of different local sets with a non-trivial relation among them. The relations between the set of quantum correlations and these local sets are also considered, and post-quantum local behaviours are found. Moreover, examples of correlations that are both local and non-contextual but such that these two classical features cannot be expressed by the same hidden variable model are shown. Extensions of the Fine-Abramsky-Brandenburger theorem are also discussed.

arXiv:2307.16058•Entropy•Aug 30, 2023•1 citation

Bell's Theorem Begs the Question

Joy Christian

I demonstrate that Bell's theorem is based on circular reasoning and thus a fundamentally flawed argument. It unjustifiably assumes the additivity of expectation values for dispersion-free states of contextual hidden variable theories for non-commuting observables involved in Bell-test experiments, which is tautologous to assuming the bounds of ±2 on the Bell-CHSH sum of expectation values. Its premises thus assume in a different guise the bounds of ±2 it sets out to prove. Consequently, what is ruled out by the Bell-test experiments is not local realism but the additivity of expectation values, which does not hold for non-commuting observables in any hidden variable theories to begin with.

•Feb 1, 2023•0 citations

Bell's Theorem Begs the Question

Joy Christian

I demonstrate that Bell's theorem is based on circular reasoning and thus a fundamentally flawed argument. It unjustifiably assumes the additivity of expectation values for dispersion-free states of contextual hidden variable theories for non-commuting observables involved in Bell-test experiments, which is tautologous to assuming the bounds of ±2 on the Bell-CHSH sum of expectation values. Its premises thus assume in a different guise the bounds of ±2 it sets out to prove. Consequently, what is ruled out by the Bell-test experiments is not local realism but the additivity of expectation values, which does not hold for non-commuting observables in any hidden variable theories to begin with.

•Jan 24, 2023•0 citations

Bell's Theorem Begs the Question

Joy Christian

I demonstrate that Bell's theorem is based on circular reasoning and thus a fundamentally flawed argument. It unjustifiably assumes the additivity of expectation values for dispersion-free states of contextual hidden variable theories for non-commuting observables involved in Bell-test experiments, which is tautologous to assuming the bounds of ±2 on the Bell-CHSH sum of expectation values. Its premises thus assume in a different guise the bounds of ±2 it sets out to prove. Consequently, what is ruled out by the Bell-test experiments is not local realism but the additivity of expectation values, which does not hold for non-commuting observables in any hidden variable theories to begin with.

•Jan 19, 2023•0 citations

Here, we consider the Bell experiment for a system described by multipartite states in the case where ndichotomic observables are measured per site.If n is two, we consider a two-setting Bell experiment.If n is infinite, we consider an infinite-setting Bell experiment.Two-setting model is an explicit local realistic model for the values of a correlation function, given in a two-setting Bell experiment.Infinite-setting model is an explicit local realistic model for the values of a correlation function, given in an infinite-setting Bell experiment.In the non-contextual scenario, there is not the essential difference between infinite-setting model and two-setting model.And we cannot classify local realistic theories in this case.This says that we can construct infinite-setting model from two-setting model.Surprisingly we can discuss incompleteness in the Bell theorem by using non-contextual models.On the other hand, in the contextual scenario, there is the essential difference between infinite-setting model and two-setting model.This says that we must distinguish infinite-setting model from two-setting model.And we can classify local realistic theories in this case.

We review the historical fact of multipartite Bell inequalities with an arbitrary number of settings. An explicit local realistic model for the values of a correlation function, given in a two-setting Bell experiment (two-setting model), works only for the specific set of settings in the given experiment, but cannot construct a local realistic model for the values of a correlation function, given in a continuous-infinite settings Bell experiment (infinite-setting model), even though there exist two-setting models for all directions in space. Hence, the two-setting model does not have the property that the infinite-setting model has. Here, we show that an explicit two-setting model cannot construct a local realistic model for the values of a correlation function, given in an M -setting Bell experiment ( M -setting model), even though there exist two-setting models for the M measurement directions chosen in the given M -setting experiment. Hence, the two-setting model does not have the property that the M -setting model has.

Recently, it has been shown that an explicit local realistic model for the values of a correlation function, given in a two-setting Bell experiment (two-setting model), works only for the specific set of settings in the given experiment, but cannot construct a local realistic model for the values of a correlation function, given in a continuous-infinite settings Bell experiment (infinite-setting model), even though there exist two-setting models for all directions in space. Hence, the two-setting model does not have the property which the infinite-setting model has. Here, we show that an explicit two-setting model cannot construct a local realistic model for the values of a correlation function, given in an only discrete-three settings Bell experiment (three-setting model), even though there exist two-setting models for the three measurement directions chosen in the given three-setting experiment. Hence, the two-setting model does not have the property which the three-setting model has.

Bell nonlocality and Kochen-Specker contextuality are among the main topics in the foundations of quantum theory. Both of them are related to stronger-than-classical correlations, with the former usually referring to spatially separated systems, while the latter considers a single system. In recent works, a unified framework for these phenomena was presented. This article reviews, expands, and obtains new results regarding this framework. Contextual and disturbing features inside the local models are explored, which allows for the definition of different local sets with a non-trivial relation among them. The relations between the set of quantum correlations and these local sets are also considered, and post-quantum local behaviours are found. Moreover, examples of correlations that are both local and non-contextual but such that these two classical features cannot be expressed by the same hidden variable model are shown. Extensions of the Fine-Abramsky-Brandenburger theorem are also discussed.

I demonstrate that Bell's theorem is based on circular reasoning and thus a fundamentally flawed argument. It unjustifiably assumes the additivity of expectation values for dispersion-free states of contextual hidden variable theories for non-commuting observables involved in Bell-test experiments, which is tautologous to assuming the bounds of ±2 on the Bell-CHSH sum of expectation values. Its premises thus assume in a different guise the bounds of ±2 it sets out to prove. Consequently, what is ruled out by the Bell-test experiments is not local realism but the additivity of expectation values, which does not hold for non-commuting observables in any hidden variable theories to begin with.

I demonstrate that Bell's theorem is based on circular reasoning and thus a fundamentally flawed argument. It unjustifiably assumes the additivity of expectation values for dispersion-free states of contextual hidden variable theories for non-commuting observables involved in Bell-test experiments, which is tautologous to assuming the bounds of ±2 on the Bell-CHSH sum of expectation values. Its premises thus assume in a different guise the bounds of ±2 it sets out to prove. Consequently, what is ruled out by the Bell-test experiments is not local realism but the additivity of expectation values, which does not hold for non-commuting observables in any hidden variable theories to begin with.

I demonstrate that Bell's theorem is based on circular reasoning and thus a fundamentally flawed argument. It unjustifiably assumes the additivity of expectation values for dispersion-free states of contextual hidden variable theories for non-commuting observables involved in Bell-test experiments, which is tautologous to assuming the bounds of ±2 on the Bell-CHSH sum of expectation values. Its premises thus assume in a different guise the bounds of ±2 it sets out to prove. Consequently, what is ruled out by the Bell-test experiments is not local realism but the additivity of expectation values, which does not hold for non-commuting observables in any hidden variable theories to begin with.