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

The Logical Necessity of Measurement Independence Violation in Local Realist Models

Dmytro Melnychenko

Published Mar 12, 2026• 0 citations
Publisher

Abstract

The Bell-CHSH formalism is often misinterpreted as a direct refutation of local realism (LR). This paper corrects that view by demonstrating a strict deductive necessity: once LR is assumed as a physical premise alongside empirical data, the violation of measurement independence (MI) is no longer a choice or a "loophole," but a mandatory logical consequence. The work formalizes the transition from a symmetric disjunction to a deterministic implication, proving that under LR, ¬MI is a theorem.

DOI
10.5281/zenodo.18973392

Related papers

Falsifiability Requires Measurement Independence

Dmytro Melnychenko

This note argues that Popperian falsifiability operationally requires Measurement Independence (MI). In Bell-type entanglement experiments, MI is not given but assumed a priori. Since Bell-CHSH correlations cannot be reproduced under Local Realism while preserving MI, any preservation of LR formally requires dependence between measurement settings and hidden variables. The note identifies an epistemic circularity: intervention independence is necessary for falsification, yet cannot itself be experimentally established within the same Bell framework without presupposing it.

•May 12, 2026•0 citations

A logical loophole in the derivation of the CHSH Bell-type inequality

G. Coddens

We point out a loophole in the derivation of the Bell inequalities in the form proposed by Clauser, Horne, Shimony and Holt (CHSH). In this derivation it is assumed that statistical independence is a necessary consequence of locality, but this is not a logical necessity.

arXiv:1309.6057•Sep 24, 2013•0 citations

Anti CHSH - Refutation Of The CHSH Inequality

Ilija Barukčić

Abstract: The principle of causality occupies an important place in the history of the philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics from the beginning. In last consequence, today’s Copenhagen dominated acausal interpretation of quantum mechanics casts doubt upon traditional views in the philosophy of nature and demands the revision of the principle of causality at a fundamental level of theoretical description in physics. Testing the mathematical and logical consistency of the quantum mechanical description of nature i. e. especially such as non-locality has become a subject of an ongoing dispute and research. Today, quantum-mechanical concepts i. e. such as non-locality refer to some mathematical foundations, especially to Bell's inequality and the CHSH inequality. Experimental data, analyzed by the help of Bell’s inequality or the CHSH inequality favor a quantum mechanical description of nature, over local hidden variable theories (often referred to as local realism). In general, the use of mathematically inconsistent methods can imply a waste of money, time and effort on this account. Under some certain conditions (the assumption of independence) Bell's theorem and the CHSH inequality are already refuted. The purpose of this publication is explore the terra incognita, the interior logic that may lie beyond Bell's original theorem and the CHSH-inequality and to refute both, Bell's original theorem and the CHSH-inequality under any circumstances by the proof that we can derive a logical contradiction out of Bell's inequalities. Thus far, accept Bell's theorem or the CHSH-inequality as correct,

•Nov 1, 2014•0 citations

Anti Chsh—Refutation of the Chsh Inequality

Ilija Barukčić

Today, quantum-mechanical concepts i.e. such as non-locality refer to some mathematical foundations, especially to Bell’s inequality and the Chsh inequality. Experimental data, analyzed while using Bell’s inequality or the Chsh inequality, favor a quantum mechanical description of nature over local hidden variable theories (often referred to as local realism). In general, the use of mathematically inconsistent methods can imply a waste of money, time and effort on this account. Under some certain conditions (the assumption of independence) Bell’s theorem and the Chsh inequality are already refuted. The purpose of this publication is to explore the terra incognita, the interior logic that may lie beyond Bell’s original theorem and the Chsh inequality and to refute both Bell’s original theorem and the Chsh inequality under any circumstances by the proof that we can derive a logical contradiction out of Bell’s inequalities. Thus far, if you accept Bell’s theorem or the Chsh inequality as correct, then you must accept too that +0 = +1, which is a logical contradiction. Bell’s theorem and the Chsh inequality are refuted in general. In this insight, it appears to be necessary to revisit the very foundations of quantum theory and of physics as such.

Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics•Jan 1, 2016•6 citations

EPR-Bell realism as a part of logic

I. Schmelzer

We argue that for the proof of Bell's theorem no assumptions about realism or free will are necessary. The key formula \[E(AB|a,b) = \int A(a,b,λ)B(a,b,λ)ρ(λ) dλ\] follows from the logic of plausible reasoning (the objective Bayesian interpretation of probability theory) taken alone, without any further assumptions about realism. The space $Λ$, usually interpreted as some space of `hidden variables', can be constructed for an arbitrary `field of discourse' using Stone's theorem. The rejection of superdeterminism follows from logical independence -- the non-existence of information which suggest a dependence -- of the free decisions of the experimenters from everything else. To prove the Bell inequality it is, then, sufficient to reduce this to \[E(AB|a,b) = \int A(a,λ)B(b,λ)ρ(λ) dλ.\] This follows for space-like separated measurements from Einstein causality alone. So, the consequence of the violation of Bell's inequality is that Einstein causality has been empirically falsified, without any loopholes left. We consider and reject the idea of weakening the logic of plausible reasoning could be used to create a loophole. Finally, we discuss what can be used to replace Einstein causality. While weak (signal) Einstein causality holds, it follows either from a notion of strong causality or from human inability to prepare states which violate quantum uncertainty, which makes it uninteresting for fundamental considerations. A notion of strong causality has either unacceptable causal loops or requires a hidden preferred frame. Given that a hidden preferred frame is completely compatible with modern physics, it is argued that this choice is preferable.

arXiv:1712.04334•Dec 9, 2017•2 citations

Contextuality or Nonlocality: What Would John Bell Choose Today?

Marian Kupczyński

A violation of Bell-CHSH inequalities does not justify speculations about quantum non-locality, conspiracy and retro-causation. Such speculations are rooted in a belief that setting dependence of hidden variables in a probabilistic model (called a violation of measurement independence (MI)) would mean a violation of experimenters’ freedom of choice. This belief is unfounded because it is based on a questionable use of Bayes Theorem and on incorrect causal interpretation of conditional probabilities. In Bell-local realistic model, hidden variables describe only photonic beams created by a source, thus they cannot depend on randomly chosen experimental settings. However, if hidden variables describing measuring instruments are correctly incorporated into a contextual probabilistic model a violation of inequalities and an apparent violation of no-signaling reported in Bell tests can be explained without evoking quantum non-locality. Therefore, for us, a violation of Bell-CHSH inequalities proves only that hidden variables have to depend on settings confirming contextual character of quantum observables and an active role played by measuring instruments. Bell thought that he had to choose between non-locality and the violation of experimenters’ freedom of choice. From two bad choices he chose non-locality. Today he would probably choose the violation of MI understood as contextuality.

arXiv:2202.09639•Entropy•Feb 2, 2023•20 citations
The Bell-CHSH formalism is often misinterpreted as a direct refutation of local realism (LR). This paper corrects that view by demonstrating a strict deductive necessity: once LR is assumed as a physical premise alongside empirical data, the violation of measurement independence (MI) is no longer a choice or a "loophole," but a mandatory logical consequence. The work formalizes the transition from a symmetric disjunction to a deterministic implication, proving that under LR, ¬MI is a theorem.
This note argues that Popperian falsifiability operationally requires Measurement Independence (MI). In Bell-type entanglement experiments, MI is not given but assumed a priori. Since Bell-CHSH correlations cannot be reproduced under Local Realism while preserving MI, any preservation of LR formally requires dependence between measurement settings and hidden variables. The note identifies an epistemic circularity: intervention independence is necessary for falsification, yet cannot itself be experimentally established within the same Bell framework without presupposing it.
Abstract: The principle of causality occupies an important place in the history of the philosophical interpretation of quantum mechanics from the beginning. In last consequence, today’s Copenhagen dominated acausal interpretation of quantum mechanics casts doubt upon traditional views in the philosophy of nature and demands the revision of the principle of causality at a fundamental level of theoretical description in physics. Testing the mathematical and logical consistency of the quantum mechanical description of nature i. e. especially such as non-locality has become a subject of an ongoing dispute and research. Today, quantum-mechanical concepts i. e. such as non-locality refer to some mathematical foundations, especially to Bell's inequality and the CHSH inequality. Experimental data, analyzed by the help of Bell’s inequality or the CHSH inequality favor a quantum mechanical description of nature, over local hidden variable theories (often referred to as local realism). In general, the use of mathematically inconsistent methods can imply a waste of money, time and effort on this account. Under some certain conditions (the assumption of independence) Bell's theorem and the CHSH inequality are already refuted. The purpose of this publication is explore the terra incognita, the interior logic that may lie beyond Bell's original theorem and the CHSH-inequality and to refute both, Bell's original theorem and the CHSH-inequality under any circumstances by the proof that we can derive a logical contradiction out of Bell's inequalities. Thus far, accept Bell's theorem or the CHSH-inequality as correct,
Today, quantum-mechanical concepts i.e. such as non-locality refer to some mathematical foundations, especially to Bell’s inequality and the Chsh inequality. Experimental data, analyzed while using Bell’s inequality or the Chsh inequality, favor a quantum mechanical description of nature over local hidden variable theories (often referred to as local realism). In general, the use of mathematically inconsistent methods can imply a waste of money, time and effort on this account. Under some certain conditions (the assumption of independence) Bell’s theorem and the Chsh inequality are already refuted. The purpose of this publication is to explore the terra incognita, the interior logic that may lie beyond Bell’s original theorem and the Chsh inequality and to refute both Bell’s original theorem and the Chsh inequality under any circumstances by the proof that we can derive a logical contradiction out of Bell’s inequalities. Thus far, if you accept Bell’s theorem or the Chsh inequality as correct, then you must accept too that +0 = +1, which is a logical contradiction. Bell’s theorem and the Chsh inequality are refuted in general. In this insight, it appears to be necessary to revisit the very foundations of quantum theory and of physics as such.
We argue that for the proof of Bell's theorem no assumptions about realism or free will are necessary. The key formula E(AB∣a,b)=∫A(a,b,λ)B(a,b,λ)ρ(λ)dλE(AB|a,b) = \int A(a,b,λ)B(a,b,λ)ρ(λ) dλE(AB∣a,b)=∫A(a,b,λ)B(a,b,λ)ρ(λ)dλ follows from the logic of plausible reasoning (the objective Bayesian interpretation of probability theory) taken alone, without any further assumptions about realism. The space ΛΛΛ, usually interpreted as some space of `hidden variables', can be constructed for an arbitrary `field of discourse' using Stone's theorem. The rejection of superdeterminism follows from logical independence -- the non-existence of information which suggest a dependence -- of the free decisions of the experimenters from everything else. To prove the Bell inequality it is, then, sufficient to reduce this to E(AB∣a,b)=∫A(a,λ)B(b,λ)ρ(λ)dλ.E(AB|a,b) = \int A(a,λ)B(b,λ)ρ(λ) dλ.E(AB∣a,b)=∫A(a,λ)B(b,λ)ρ(λ)dλ. This follows for space-like separated measurements from Einstein causality alone. So, the consequence of the violation of Bell's inequality is that Einstein causality has been empirically falsified, without any loopholes left. We consider and reject the idea of weakening the logic of plausible reasoning could be used to create a loophole. Finally, we discuss what can be used to replace Einstein causality. While weak (signal) Einstein causality holds, it follows either from a notion of strong causality or from human inability to prepare states which violate quantum uncertainty, which makes it uninteresting for fundamental considerations. A notion of strong causality has either unacceptable causal loops or requires a hidden preferred frame. Given that a hidden preferred frame is completely compatible with modern physics, it is argued that this choice is preferable.
A violation of Bell-CHSH inequalities does not justify speculations about quantum non-locality, conspiracy and retro-causation. Such speculations are rooted in a belief that setting dependence of hidden variables in a probabilistic model (called a violation of measurement independence (MI)) would mean a violation of experimenters’ freedom of choice. This belief is unfounded because it is based on a questionable use of Bayes Theorem and on incorrect causal interpretation of conditional probabilities. In Bell-local realistic model, hidden variables describe only photonic beams created by a source, thus they cannot depend on randomly chosen experimental settings. However, if hidden variables describing measuring instruments are correctly incorporated into a contextual probabilistic model a violation of inequalities and an apparent violation of no-signaling reported in Bell tests can be explained without evoking quantum non-locality. Therefore, for us, a violation of Bell-CHSH inequalities proves only that hidden variables have to depend on settings confirming contextual character of quantum observables and an active role played by measuring instruments. Bell thought that he had to choose between non-locality and the violation of experimenters’ freedom of choice. From two bad choices he chose non-locality. Today he would probably choose the violation of MI understood as contextuality.