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

On the Two Possible Interpretations of Bell Inequalities.

Jiří Souček

Published Feb 1, 2015• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

It is argued that the lesson we should learn from Bell inequalities (BI) is not that Quantum Mechanics (QM) is nonlocal, but that QM contains an error which must be corrected. 1

Related papers

A realistic interpretation for quantum mechanics

Adonai S. Sant’Anna

We propose a realistic and nonlocal interpretation for quantum mechanics, which requires new mathematical, physical and philosophical foundations for space-time. Our theory violates Bell's inequality. We also discuss the cat paradox.

arXiv:quant-ph/9809001•Sep 1, 1998•1 citation

A Critical Analysis of the Quantum Nonlocality Problem: On the Polemic Assessment of What Bell Did

Justo Pastor Lambare

Despite their Nobel prize-winning empirical verification, the interpretation of the Bell inequality remains controversial. The alleged nonlocal character of quantum mechanics is inextricably related to the formulation of the Bell theorem. However, as is usually presented, the relation disagrees with Bell's approach and is inappropriately posed. The departure from the clear line of reasoning that Bell tried to convey has contributed to a polarization of part of the scientific community. We review part of Bell's work and show how the correct appreciation of Bell's rationale calls for reformulating a widespread argument on quantum nonlocality, yielding a more balanced perspective of the problem. We highlight a more formal proof of quantum mechanics' violation of local causality. For completeness, we mention a few alternatives that may justify considering quantum mechanics as a local theory.

•Feb 19, 2024•0 citations

Interpretations of quantum mechanics, and interpretations of violation of Bell's inequality

De Muynck, W M

The discussion of the foundations of quantum mechanics is complicated by the fact that a number of different issues are closely entangled. Three of these issues are i) the interpretation of probability, ii) the choice between realist and empiricist interpretations of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics, iii) the distinction between measurement and preparation. It will be demonstrated that an interpretation of violation of Bell's inequality by quantum mechanics as evidence of non-locality of the quantum world is a consequence of a particular choice between these alternatives. Also a distinction must be drawn between two forms of realism, viz. a) realist interpretations of quantum mechanics, b) the possibility of hidden-variables (sub-quantum) theories.

•Feb 12, 2001•35 citations

The Bell Inequality and the Many-Worlds Interpretation

Lev Vaidman A

It is argued that the lesson we should learn from Bell's inequalities is not that quantum mechanics requires some kind of action at a distance, but that it leads us to believe in parallel worlds. Introduction Bell's work [1] led to a revolution in our understanding of nature. I remember attending my first physics conference, on “Microphysical Reality and Quantum Formalism,” in Urbino, 1985. Most of the talks were about Aspect's experiment [2] confirming the nonlocality of quantum mechanics based on experimental violations of Bell's inequalities. Although I did not share the skepticism of many speakers regarding the results of Aspect, I was not ready to accept that a local action in one place can instantaneously change anything at another place. So, while for the majority the lesson from Bell was that quantum mechanics requires some “spooky action at a distance”, I was led by Bell's result to an alternative revolutionary change in our view of nature. I saw no other way than accepting the manyworlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics [3, 4]. I shall start by presenting the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) [5] argument. Then I will present Bell's presented using the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger setup [6] in the form proposed by Mermin [7, 8]. The discussion of nonlocality will suggest that Bell's inequalities are the only manifestation of action at a distance in nature. The demonstration of the necessity of action at a distance will be done through a detailed analysis of the GHZ experiment. Then I shall show how multiple worlds resolve the problem of action at a distance. After discussing the issue of nonlocality in the MWI, I shall conclude by citing Bell's views on the MWI. EPR–Bell–GHZ The story of Bell cannot be told without first describing the EPR argument. Instead of following the historical route, I shall use the GHZ setup, which, in my view, is the clearest way to explain the EPR and Bell's discovery.

arXiv:1501.02691•Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 31, 2016•13 citations

Do the Experimental Violations of Bell Inequalities Require a Non-Local Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics？

Edward Edward, F�ry

量子光学学报•Jan 1, 2006•0 citations

Do Experimental Violations of Bell Inequalities Require a Nonlocal Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics? II: Analysis à la Bell

Edward S. Fry, Xinmei Qu, Marlan O. Scully

The Western Ontario series in philosophy of science•Jan 1, 2009•0 citations
Despite their Nobel prize-winning empirical verification, the interpretation of the Bell inequality remains controversial. The alleged nonlocal character of quantum mechanics is inextricably related to the formulation of the Bell theorem. However, as is usually presented, the relation disagrees with Bell's approach and is inappropriately posed. The departure from the clear line of reasoning that Bell tried to convey has contributed to a polarization of part of the scientific community. We review part of Bell's work and show how the correct appreciation of Bell's rationale calls for reformulating a widespread argument on quantum nonlocality, yielding a more balanced perspective of the problem. We highlight a more formal proof of quantum mechanics' violation of local causality. For completeness, we mention a few alternatives that may justify considering quantum mechanics as a local theory.
The discussion of the foundations of quantum mechanics is complicated by the fact that a number of different issues are closely entangled. Three of these issues are i) the interpretation of probability, ii) the choice between realist and empiricist interpretations of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics, iii) the distinction between measurement and preparation. It will be demonstrated that an interpretation of violation of Bell's inequality by quantum mechanics as evidence of non-locality of the quantum world is a consequence of a particular choice between these alternatives. Also a distinction must be drawn between two forms of realism, viz. a) realist interpretations of quantum mechanics, b) the possibility of hidden-variables (sub-quantum) theories.
It is argued that the lesson we should learn from Bell's inequalities is not that quantum mechanics requires some kind of action at a distance, but that it leads us to believe in parallel worlds. Introduction Bell's work [1] led to a revolution in our understanding of nature. I remember attending my first physics conference, on “Microphysical Reality and Quantum Formalism,” in Urbino, 1985. Most of the talks were about Aspect's experiment [2] confirming the nonlocality of quantum mechanics based on experimental violations of Bell's inequalities. Although I did not share the skepticism of many speakers regarding the results of Aspect, I was not ready to accept that a local action in one place can instantaneously change anything at another place. So, while for the majority the lesson from Bell was that quantum mechanics requires some “spooky action at a distance”, I was led by Bell's result to an alternative revolutionary change in our view of nature. I saw no other way than accepting the manyworlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics [3, 4]. I shall start by presenting the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen (EPR) [5] argument. Then I will present Bell's presented using the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger setup [6] in the form proposed by Mermin [7, 8]. The discussion of nonlocality will suggest that Bell's inequalities are the only manifestation of action at a distance in nature. The demonstration of the necessity of action at a distance will be done through a detailed analysis of the GHZ experiment. Then I shall show how multiple worlds resolve the problem of action at a distance. After discussing the issue of nonlocality in the MWI, I shall conclude by citing Bell's views on the MWI. EPR–Bell–GHZ The story of Bell cannot be told without first describing the EPR argument. Instead of following the historical route, I shall use the GHZ setup, which, in my view, is the clearest way to explain the EPR and Bell's discovery.