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

A Criticism of the article

Daniel V. Tausk

Published Sep 23, 2008• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

I make some critical comments on the article An experimental test of non-local realism, by S. Groblacher, T. Paterek, R. Kaltenbaek, C. Brukner, M. Zukowski, M. Aspelmeyer, & A. Zeilinger, Nature 446, p. 871-875 (2007). This article makes incorrect claims concerning Bell's theorem. Moreover, I point to the fact that a hypothesis referred to as realism in the article (Groblacher et al.) is not used in the deduction of Leggett's inequality.

Related papers

A Criticism of the article "An experimental test of non-local realism"

Daniel V. Tausk

I make some critical comments on the article "An experimental test of non-local realism", by S. Groblacher, T. Paterek, R. Kaltenbaek, C. Brukner, M. Zukowski, M. Aspelmeyer, & A. Zeilinger, Nature 446, p. 871-875 (2007). This article makes incorrect claims concerning Bell's theorem. Moreover, I point to the fact that a hypothesis referred to as "realism" in the article (Groblacher et al.) is not used in the deduction of Leggett's inequality.

arXiv:0809.4000•Sep 23, 2008•1 citation

Comments on "An experimental test of non-local realism" by S. Groeblacher, T. Paterek, R. Kaltenbaek, C. Brukner, M. Zukowski, M. Aspelmeyer, and A. Zeilinger, Nature 446 (2007), 871-875

Stephen Parrott

A simple proof of a key inequality required by the paper's analysis is presented. An introductory section discussing the paper's setup may be helpful to some readers. An alternative statistical analysis is suggested.

arXiv:0707.3296•Jul 23, 2007•0 citations

Comments on "An experimental test of non-local realism" by S. Groeblacher, T. Paterek, R. Kaltenbaek, C. Bruckner, M. Zukovski, M. Aspelmeyer, and A. Zeilinger, Nature 446 (2007), 871-875

Stephen Parrott

A simple proof of a key inequality required by the paper's analysis is presented. An introductory section discussing the paper's setup may be helpful to some readers. An alternative statistical analysis is suggested.

•Jul 23, 2007•29 citations

Grblacher's Experiment and Its Significances

Huang Zheng-xin

A recent experiment by S.Grblacher,A.Zeilinger and colleagues [Nature,446,871-875(2007)] is performed to have tested the new inequality proposed by A.Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism but relaxes the reliance on locality.They claim that a class of important non-local realism is excluded.This paper summarizes some historical background,major content and consequences of Grblacher's experiment,then,points out that this experiment has important significances for physics and for philosophy.

Ziran bianzhengfa yanjiu•Jan 1, 2007•0 citations

On Bell, Suarez-Scarani, and Leggett experiments: Reply to a comment, and proposal for a new experiment

Antoine Suárez

It is shown that the before-before (or Suarez-Scarani) experiment refutes hidden variable models with a deterministic ("realistic") nonlocal part, and the experimental violation of Leggett-type inequalities models with a random nonlocal part and a biased random local one. Therefore the claim that Groeblacher et al. present "an experimental test of nonlocal realism" [Nature, 446, 871-875 (2007)] is misleading, and Marek Zukowski's comment [arXiv:0809.0072v1] misses the point. A new experiment is proposed.

arXiv:0809.3502•Sep 20, 2008•0 citations

Local Realism Generalized, EPR Refined, Bell's Theorem Refuted

Gordon Watson

This open letter challenges Annals of Physics' Editors and Bell's supporters on this front: in the context of Bell's theorem -- after AoP (2016:67) -- ‘it's a proven scientific fact that a violation of local realism has been demonstrated theoretically and experimentally.' We show that such claims under the Bellian canon are curtailed by its foundation on a naive realism that is known to be false; ie, under Bohr's old insight (in our terms), a test may disturb the tested system. Further: (i) We define a general all-embracing local realism -- CLR, commonsense local realism -- the union of local-causality (no causal influence propagates superluminally) and physical-realism (some physical properties change interactively). (ii) Under CLR, with EPR-based variables (and without QM), a thought-experiment delivers a local-realistic account of EPRB and GHZ in 3-space. (iii) Under EPR, mixing common-sense with undergrad math/physics in the classical way so favored by Einstein, we interpret QM locally and realistically. (iv) We find the flaw in Bell's theorem: Bell's 1964:(14a) ≠ Bell's 1964:(14b) under EPRB. (v) EPR (1935) famously argue that additional variables will bring locality and causality to QM's completion; we show that they are right. (vi) Even more famously, Bell (1964) cried ‘impossible' against such variables; we give the shortest possible refutation of his claim. (vii) Using Bell's (1988:88) moot gloss on a fragment of von Neumann's work, we conclude: ‘There's nothing to Bell's theorem -- nor Bellian variants like CHSH (1969), Mermin (1990), Peres (1995); nor Bellian endorsements like those by Bricmont, du Sautoy, Goldstein et al., Maudlin, Norsen, Shimony -- it's not just flawed, it's silly; its assumptions nonsense; it's not merely false but foolish' and misleading. (viii) Our results accord with common-sense, QM, Einstein's principles, EPR's belief and Bell's hopes and expectations.

•Nov 1, 2016•0 citations
I make some critical comments on the article An experimental test of non-local realism, by S. Groblacher, T. Paterek, R. Kaltenbaek, C. Brukner, M. Zukowski, M. Aspelmeyer, & A. Zeilinger, Nature 446, p. 871-875 (2007). This article makes incorrect claims concerning Bell's theorem. Moreover, I point to the fact that a hypothesis referred to as realism in the article (Groblacher et al.) is not used in the deduction of Leggett's inequality.
A recent experiment by S.Grblacher,A.Zeilinger and colleagues [Nature,446,871-875(2007)] is performed to have tested the new inequality proposed by A.Leggett in 2003 that relies only on realism but relaxes the reliance on locality.They claim that a class of important non-local realism is excluded.This paper summarizes some historical background,major content and consequences of Grblacher's experiment,then,points out that this experiment has important significances for physics and for philosophy.
It is shown that the before-before (or Suarez-Scarani) experiment refutes hidden variable models with a deterministic ("realistic") nonlocal part, and the experimental violation of Leggett-type inequalities models with a random nonlocal part and a biased random local one. Therefore the claim that Groeblacher et al. present "an experimental test of nonlocal realism" [Nature, 446, 871-875 (2007)] is misleading, and Marek Zukowski's comment [arXiv:0809.0072v1] misses the point. A new experiment is proposed.
This open letter challenges Annals of Physics' Editors and Bell's supporters on this front: in the context of Bell's theorem -- after AoP (2016:67) -- ‘it's a proven scientific fact that a violation of local realism has been demonstrated theoretically and experimentally.' We show that such claims under the Bellian canon are curtailed by its foundation on a naive realism that is known to be false; ie, under Bohr's old insight (in our terms), a test may disturb the tested system. Further: (i) We define a general all-embracing local realism -- CLR, commonsense local realism -- the union of local-causality (no causal influence propagates superluminally) and physical-realism (some physical properties change interactively). (ii) Under CLR, with EPR-based variables (and without QM), a thought-experiment delivers a local-realistic account of EPRB and GHZ in 3-space. (iii) Under EPR, mixing common-sense with undergrad math/physics in the classical way so favored by Einstein, we interpret QM locally and realistically. (iv) We find the flaw in Bell's theorem: Bell's 1964:(14a) ≠ Bell's 1964:(14b) under EPRB. (v) EPR (1935) famously argue that additional variables will bring locality and causality to QM's completion; we show that they are right. (vi) Even more famously, Bell (1964) cried ‘impossible' against such variables; we give the shortest possible refutation of his claim. (vii) Using Bell's (1988:88) moot gloss on a fragment of von Neumann's work, we conclude: ‘There's nothing to Bell's theorem -- nor Bellian variants like CHSH (1969), Mermin (1990), Peres (1995); nor Bellian endorsements like those by Bricmont, du Sautoy, Goldstein et al., Maudlin, Norsen, Shimony -- it's not just flawed, it's silly; its assumptions nonsense; it's not merely false but foolish' and misleading. (viii) Our results accord with common-sense, QM, Einstein's principles, EPR's belief and Bell's hopes and expectations.