arXiv:quant-ph/0006014 · Foundations of probability and physics

Refutation of Bell's Theorem

Guillaume Adenier

Published Dec 1, 2001• 12 citations

Abstract

Bell's Theorem was developed on the basis of considerations involving a linear combination of spin correlation functions, each of which has a distinct pair of arguments. The simultaneous presence of these different pairs of arguments in the same equation can be understood in two radically different ways: either as `strongly objective,' that is, all correlation functions pertain to the same set of particle pairs, or as `weakly objective,' that is, each correlation function pertains to a different set of particle pairs. It is demonstrated that once this meaning is determined, no discrepancy appears between local realistic theories and quantum mechanics: the discrepancy in Bell's Theorem is due only to a meaningless comparison between a local realistic inequality written within the strongly objective interpretation (thus relevant to a single set of particle pairs) and a quantum mechanical prediction derived from a weakly objective interpretation (thus relevant to several different sets of particle pairs).

DOI: 10.1142/9789812810809_0002

Related papers

Collapse of Bell’s Theorem

Guangye Chen

Bell’s theorem founded on Bell’s inequalities asserts that no local realistic theories can reproduce all quantum mechanical predictions for spin correlation of particle pairs. It is pointed out that the assumption of setting-independent probability makes Bell’s inequalities not impose constraint on all local realistic models and thus constitutes a theoretical loophole of Bell’s theorem. A counterexample is presented by showing that a local realistic model with appropriate probability density reproduces all quantum mechanical predictions. It becomes clear that experiments violate Bell’s inequalities because the real correlation functions are not constrained by these inequalities. It is also exposed that, rigorous logical reasoning of counter factual deduction does not permit to exclude any premises of Bell’s inequalities by a certain amount of experimental violations of these inequalities.

Journal of Modern PhysicsJan 1, 20194 citations

Probabilistic Analysis of the EPR-Bohm Experiment

Guillaume Adenier

Jan 1, 20070 citations

Bell's Theorem without Inequalities: On the Inception and Scope of the GHZ Theorem

Olival Freire, Osvaldo Frota Pessoa Junior

Introduction Since its inception, fifty years ago, Bell's theorem has had a long history not only of experimental tests but also of theoretical developments. Studying pairs of correlated quantummechanical particles separated in space, in a composite “entangled” state, Bell [1] showed that the joint ascription of hidden variables and locality to the system led to an inequality that is violated by the predictions of quantum mechanics. Fifteen years later, experiments confirmed the predictions of quantum mechanics, ruling out a large class of local realist theories. One of the most meaningful theoretical developments that followed Bell's work was the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger (GHZ) theorem, also known as Bell's theorem without inequalities. In 1989, the American physicists Daniel Greenberger and Michael Horne, who had been working on Bell's theorem since the late 1960s, together with the Austrian physicist Anton Zeilinger, introduced a novelty into the testing of entanglement, extending Bell's theorem in a different and interesting direction. According to Franck Laloë [2], For many years, everyone thought that Bell had basically exhausted the subject by considering all really interesting situations, and that two-spin systems provided the most spectacular quantum violations of local realism. It therefore came as a surprise to many when in 1989 Greenberger, Horne, and Zeilinger (GHZ) showed that systems containing more than two correlated particles may actually exhibit even more dramatic violations of local realism. The trio analyzed the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen 1935 argument once again and were able to write what are now called Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger (GHZ) entangled states, involving three or four correlated spin-1/2 particles, leading to conflicts between local realist theories and quantum mechanics. However, unlike Bell's theorem, the conflict now was not of a statistical nature, as was the case with Bell's theorem, insofar as measurements on a single GHZ state could lead to conflicting predictions with local realistic models [3–5]. In this paper we present the history of the creation of this theorem and analyze its scope.

Cambridge University Press eBooksAug 31, 20161 citation

Inequality-free proof of Bell's theorem

Andrea Aiello

Bell's theorem supposedly demonstrates an irreconcilable conflict between quantum mechanics and local realistic hidden-variable theories. Most proofs of Bell's theorem, are based on inequalities. In this paper we present an alternative proof which does not involve inequalities, but only a direct comparison between correlation functions calculated using quantum mechanics on the one hand, and those calculated according to local realistic hidden-variable theories on the other. Our proof is based on a physically motivated use of Fourier series for periodic functions, and confirms that local realistic hidden-variable theories are incompatible with quantum mechanics.

arXiv:2410.17912Physical Review AMar 4, 20250 citations

Critique of the Papers of Fine and Suppes

Abner Shimony

‘Bell's Theorem’ is the collective name for a family of arguments, which more accurately should be referred to as ‘Theorems of Bell's Type’, all being variants of the remarkable argument given by J. S. Bell (1964). All of these arguments have the format E & H → I, where E is a description of a type of experimental setup involving pairs of particles emitted from a common source, H is a physical hypothesis which typically expresses some version of “realism” and some version of “locality”, and I is an inequality concerning correlations between particles of a pair. There are differences among theorems of Bell's type regarding the details of the inequality I , which are important in actually carrying out experimental tests. There are differences regarding the arrow—i.e., the procedure whereby I is inferred from E & H.

PSA Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science AssociationJan 1, 19809 citations

Are there really two different Bell's theorems?

Travis Norsen

This is a polemical response to Howard Wiseman's recent paper, "The two Bell's theorems of John Bell". Wiseman argues that, in 1964, Bell established a conflict between the quantum mechanical predictions and the joint assumptions of determinism and (what is now usually known as) "parameter independence". Only later, in 1976, did Bell, according to Wiseman, first establish a conflict between the quantum mechanical predictions and locality alone (in the specific form that Bell would sometimes call "local causality"). Thus, according to Wiseman, the long-standing disagreements about what, exactly, Bell's theorem does and does not prove can be understood largely as miscommunications resulting from the fact that there are really two quite distinct "Bell's theorems". My goal here is to lay out what Wiseman briefly describes as an "alternate reading" of Bell's 1964 paper, according to which (quoting Wiseman here) "the first paragraph of Bell's `Formulation' section [should be seen] as an essential part of his 1964 theorem, the first part of a two-part argument." I will argue in particular that this "alternate reading" is the correct way to understand Bell's 1964 paper and that Wiseman's reading is strongly inconsistent with the available evidence.

arXiv:1503.05017International journal of quantum foundationsMar 17, 201516 citations