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

Non-violations in Bell's Inequality

Ian Miller

Published May 2, 2023• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The asserted violations of Bell's Inequality arise from the use of mixed frames of reference that violate the derivation of the inequality. Accordingly, entangled pairs may still follow local physics.
DOI
10.36227/techrxiv.22721110.v1

Related papers

Non-violations in Bell's Inequality

Ian Miller

The asserted violations of Bell's Inequality arise from the use of mixed frames of reference that violate the derivation of the inequality. Accordingly, entangled pairs may still follow local physics.

•Jun 14, 2023•0 citations

Non-violations in Bell's Inequality

Ian Miller

The asserted violations of Bell's Inequality arise from the use of mixed frames of reference that violate the derivation of the inequality. Accordingly, entangled pairs may still follow local physics.

•May 2, 2023•0 citations

Non-Violations in Bell's Inequality

Intuitively, violations of Bell's inequality make no sense because one cannot violate a mathematical relationship unless it is wrong, or has been misused. However, the rotating polarizer experiment has been argued to provide such violations, and it is asserted this requires non-locality. It is shown here that at least one form of the inequality is violated because the results violate a condition used in deriving the inequality. The problem arises from mixed frames of reference being utilized, and if an external reference frame is employed, such as a polarized source, the inequality should be complied with. This could be verified by experiment. It is also important to resolve this as entanglement is to be potentially involved equipment such as quantum computing. Correct understanding may assist in such design.

Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics•Jun 7, 2023•0 citations

A note on the violation of Bell's inequality

Thomas Schürmann

With Bell's inequalities one has a formal expression to show how essentially all local theories of natural phenomena that are formulated within the framework of realism may be tested using a simple experimental arrangement. For the case of entangled pairs of spin-1/2 particles we propose an alternative measurement setup which is consistent to the necessary assumptions corresponding to the derivation of the Bell inequalities. We find that the Bell inequalities are never violated with respect to our suggested measurement process.

arXiv:1703.10030•Mar 17, 2017•1 citation

What Bell did

Tim Maudlin

On the 50th anniversary of Bell's monumental 1964 paper, there is still widespread misunderstanding about exactly what Bell proved. This misunderstanding derives in turn from a failure to appreciate the earlier argument of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. I retrace the history and logical structure of these arguments in order to clarify the proper conclusion, namely that any world that displays violations of Bell's inequality for experiments done far from one another must be non-local. Since the world we happen to live in displays such violations, actual physics is non-local. This article is part of a special issue of Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical devoted to '50 years of Bell's theorem'.

arXiv:1408.1826•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Oct 9, 2014•162 citations

Violation of Bell Inequalities: Mapping the Conceptual Implications

Brian Drummond

This short article concentrates on the conceptual aspects of the violation of Bell inequalities, and acts as a map to the 265 cited references. The article outlines (a) relevant characteristics of quantum mechanics, such as statistical balance and entanglement, (b) the thinking that led to the derivation of the original Bell inequality, and (c) the range of claimed implications, including realism, locality and others which attract less attention. The main conclusion is that violation of Bell inequalities appears to have some implications for the nature of physical reality, but that none of these are definite. The violations constrain possible prequantum (underlying) theories, but do not rule out the possibility that such theories might reconcile at least one understanding of locality and realism to quantum mechanical predictions. Violation might reflect, at least partly, failure to acknowledge the contextuality of quantum mechanics, or that data from different probability spaces have been inappropriately combined. Many claims that there are definite implications reflect one or more of (i) imprecise non-mathematical language, (ii) assumptions inappropriate in quantum mechanics, (iii) inadequate treatment of measurement statistics and (iv) underlying philosophical assumptions.

arXiv:2106.14767•Jun 28, 2021•3 citations
Intuitively, violations of Bell's inequality make no sense because one cannot violate a mathematical relationship unless it is wrong, or has been misused. However, the rotating polarizer experiment has been argued to provide such violations, and it is asserted this requires non-locality. It is shown here that at least one form of the inequality is violated because the results violate a condition used in deriving the inequality. The problem arises from mixed frames of reference being utilized, and if an external reference frame is employed, such as a polarized source, the inequality should be complied with. This could be verified by experiment. It is also important to resolve this as entanglement is to be potentially involved equipment such as quantum computing. Correct understanding may assist in such design.
With Bell's inequalities one has a formal expression to show how essentially all local theories of natural phenomena that are formulated within the framework of realism may be tested using a simple experimental arrangement. For the case of entangled pairs of spin-1/2 particles we propose an alternative measurement setup which is consistent to the necessary assumptions corresponding to the derivation of the Bell inequalities. We find that the Bell inequalities are never violated with respect to our suggested measurement process.
On the 50th anniversary of Bell's monumental 1964 paper, there is still widespread misunderstanding about exactly what Bell proved. This misunderstanding derives in turn from a failure to appreciate the earlier argument of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen. I retrace the history and logical structure of these arguments in order to clarify the proper conclusion, namely that any world that displays violations of Bell's inequality for experiments done far from one another must be non-local. Since the world we happen to live in displays such violations, actual physics is non-local. This article is part of a special issue of Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical devoted to '50 years of Bell's theorem'.
This short article concentrates on the conceptual aspects of the violation of Bell inequalities, and acts as a map to the 265 cited references. The article outlines (a) relevant characteristics of quantum mechanics, such as statistical balance and entanglement, (b) the thinking that led to the derivation of the original Bell inequality, and (c) the range of claimed implications, including realism, locality and others which attract less attention. The main conclusion is that violation of Bell inequalities appears to have some implications for the nature of physical reality, but that none of these are definite. The violations constrain possible prequantum (underlying) theories, but do not rule out the possibility that such theories might reconcile at least one understanding of locality and realism to quantum mechanical predictions. Violation might reflect, at least partly, failure to acknowledge the contextuality of quantum mechanics, or that data from different probability spaces have been inappropriately combined. Many claims that there are definite implications reflect one or more of (i) imprecise non-mathematical language, (ii) assumptions inappropriate in quantum mechanics, (iii) inadequate treatment of measurement statistics and (iv) underlying philosophical assumptions.