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

arXiv:quant-ph/0205032 · Philosophy of Science

A Loophole in Bell's Theorem? Parameter Dependence in the Hess-Philipp Model

Wayne C. Myrvold

Published Dec 1, 2003• 5 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

The hidden-variables model constructed by Karl Hess and Walter Philipp is claimed by its authors to exploit a “loophole” in Bell's theorem; according to Hess and Philipp, the parameters employed in their model extend beyond those considered by Bell. Furthermore, they claim that their model satisfies Einstein locality and is free of any “suspicion of spooky action at a distance.” Both of these claims are false; the Hess-Philipp model achieves agreement with the quantum-mechanical predictions, not by circumventing Bell's theorem, but via Parameter Dependence.

DOI
10.1086/377413

Related papers

No time loophole in Bell's theorem: The Hess–Philipp model is nonlocal

Richard David Gill, Gregor Weihs, Anton Zeilinger +1 more

Hess and Philipp recently claimed [(2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 14224-14227 and 14228-14233] that proofs of Bell's theorem have overlooked the possibility of time dependence in local hidden variables, hence the theorem has not been proven true. Moreover they present what is claimed to be a local realistic model of the EPR correlations. If this is true then Bell's theorem is not just unproven, but false. We refute both claims. First, we explain why time is not an issue in Bell's theorem, and second, we show that their hidden variables model violates Einstein separability. Hess and Philipp have overlooked the freedom of the experimenter to choose settings of a measurement apparatus at will: any setting could be in force during the same time period.

arXiv:quant-ph/0208187•Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences•Oct 31, 2002•34 citations

Comment on “Exclusion of time in the theorem of Bell” by K. Hess and W. Philipp

Richard David Gill, Gregor Weihs, Anton Zeilinger +1 more

A recent Letter by Hess and Philipp claims that Bell's theorem neglects the possibility of time-like dependence in local hidden variables, hence is not conclusive. Moreover the authors claim that they have constructed, in an earlier paper, a local realistic model of the EPR correlations. However, they themselves have neglected the experimenter's freedom to choose settings, while on the other hand, Bell's theorem can be formulated to cope with time-like dependence. This in itself proves that their toy model cannot satisfy local realism, but we also indicate where their proof of its local realistic nature fails.

arXiv:quant-ph/0204169•Europhysics Letters (EPL)•Jan 1, 2003•19 citations

THE HESS-PHILIPP MODEL IS NON-LOCAL

D. M. Appleby

Hess and Philipp have constructed what, they claim, is a local hidden variables model reproducing the empirical predictions of quantum mechanics. In this paper explicit expressions for the conditional probabilities for the outcomes of the measurements at the two detectors are calculated. These expressions provide a conclusive demonstration of the falsity of the authors' claim. The authors give two different accounts of their model. The published version omits a crucial detail. As a result it disagrees with quantum mechanics. It also violates signal locality. The unpublished version agrees with quantum mechanics. However, it violates the condition of parameter independence, as Myrvold has previously shown.

arXiv:quant-ph/0210145•International Journal of Quantum Information•Mar 1, 2003•1 citation

Bell's theorem and Bohr's principle that the measurement must be classical

Antoine Suárez

In a recent paper Karl Hess and Walter Philipp claim that hidden local variables cannot be ruled out. We argue that their claim is only valid if one gives up Bohr's principle that the measuring instruments must be classical, and this principle belongs to the foundations of scientific knowledge: Therefore, nonlocal influences can be considered demonstrated.

arXiv:quant-ph/0202134•Feb 23, 2002•0 citations

Bell's theorem and the problem of decidability between the views of Einstein and Bohr

K. Hess, Walter Philipp

Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) have designed a gedanken experiment that suggested a theory that was more complete than quantum mechanics. The EPR design was later realized in various forms, with experimental results close to the quantum mechanical prediction. The experimental results by themselves have no bearing on the EPR claim that quantum mechanics must be incomplete nor on the existence of hidden parameters. However, the well known inequalities of Bell are based on the assumption that local hidden parameters exist and, when combined with conflicting experimental results, do appear to prove that local hidden parameters cannot exist. This fact leaves only instantaneous actions at a distance (called "spooky" by Einstein) to explain the experiments. The Bell inequalities are based on a mathematical model of the EPR experiments. They have no experimental confirmation, because they contradict the results of all EPR experiments. In addition to the assumption that hidden parameters exist, Bell tacitly makes a variety of other assumptions; for instance, he assumes that the hidden parameters are governed by a single probability measure independent of the analyzer settings. We argue that the mathematical model of Bell excludes a large set of local hidden variables and a large variety of probability densities. Our set of local hidden variables includes time-like correlated parameters and a generalized probability density. We prove that our extended space of local hidden variables does permit derivation of the quantum result and is consistent with all known experiments.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences•Nov 27, 2001•59 citations

A possible loophole in the theorem of Bell

K. Hess, Walter Philipp

The celebrated inequalities of Bell are based on the assumption that local hidden parameters exist. When combined with conflicting experimental results, these inequalities appear to prove that local hidden parameters cannot exist. This contradiction suggests to many that only instantaneous action at a distance can explain the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen type of experiments. We show that, in addition to the assumption that hidden parameters exist, Bell tacitly makes a variety of other assumptions that contribute to his being able to obtain the desired contradiction. For instance, Bell assumes that the hidden parameters do not depend on time and are governed by a single probability measure independent of the analyzer settings. We argue that the exclusion of time has neither a physical nor a mathematical basis but is based on Bell's translation of the concept of Einstein locality into the language of probability theory. Our additional set of local hidden variables includes time-like correlated parameters and a generalized probability density. We prove that our extended space of local hidden variables does not permit Bell-type proofs to go forward.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences•Nov 27, 2001•81 citations
The hidden-variables model constructed by Karl Hess and Walter Philipp is claimed by its authors to exploit a “loophole” in Bell's theorem; according to Hess and Philipp, the parameters employed in their model extend beyond those considered by Bell. Furthermore, they claim that their model satisfies Einstein locality and is free of any “suspicion of spooky action at a distance.” Both of these claims are false; the Hess-Philipp model achieves agreement with the quantum-mechanical predictions, not by circumventing Bell's theorem, but via Parameter Dependence.
Hess and Philipp recently claimed [(2001) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 14224-14227 and 14228-14233] that proofs of Bell's theorem have overlooked the possibility of time dependence in local hidden variables, hence the theorem has not been proven true. Moreover they present what is claimed to be a local realistic model of the EPR correlations. If this is true then Bell's theorem is not just unproven, but false. We refute both claims. First, we explain why time is not an issue in Bell's theorem, and second, we show that their hidden variables model violates Einstein separability. Hess and Philipp have overlooked the freedom of the experimenter to choose settings of a measurement apparatus at will: any setting could be in force during the same time period.
A recent Letter by Hess and Philipp claims that Bell's theorem neglects the possibility of time-like dependence in local hidden variables, hence is not conclusive. Moreover the authors claim that they have constructed, in an earlier paper, a local realistic model of the EPR correlations. However, they themselves have neglected the experimenter's freedom to choose settings, while on the other hand, Bell's theorem can be formulated to cope with time-like dependence. This in itself proves that their toy model cannot satisfy local realism, but we also indicate where their proof of its local realistic nature fails.
Hess and Philipp have constructed what, they claim, is a local hidden variables model reproducing the empirical predictions of quantum mechanics. In this paper explicit expressions for the conditional probabilities for the outcomes of the measurements at the two detectors are calculated. These expressions provide a conclusive demonstration of the falsity of the authors' claim. The authors give two different accounts of their model. The published version omits a crucial detail. As a result it disagrees with quantum mechanics. It also violates signal locality. The unpublished version agrees with quantum mechanics. However, it violates the condition of parameter independence, as Myrvold has previously shown.
Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) have designed a gedanken experiment that suggested a theory that was more complete than quantum mechanics. The EPR design was later realized in various forms, with experimental results close to the quantum mechanical prediction. The experimental results by themselves have no bearing on the EPR claim that quantum mechanics must be incomplete nor on the existence of hidden parameters. However, the well known inequalities of Bell are based on the assumption that local hidden parameters exist and, when combined with conflicting experimental results, do appear to prove that local hidden parameters cannot exist. This fact leaves only instantaneous actions at a distance (called "spooky" by Einstein) to explain the experiments. The Bell inequalities are based on a mathematical model of the EPR experiments. They have no experimental confirmation, because they contradict the results of all EPR experiments. In addition to the assumption that hidden parameters exist, Bell tacitly makes a variety of other assumptions; for instance, he assumes that the hidden parameters are governed by a single probability measure independent of the analyzer settings. We argue that the mathematical model of Bell excludes a large set of local hidden variables and a large variety of probability densities. Our set of local hidden variables includes time-like correlated parameters and a generalized probability density. We prove that our extended space of local hidden variables does permit derivation of the quantum result and is consistent with all known experiments.
The celebrated inequalities of Bell are based on the assumption that local hidden parameters exist. When combined with conflicting experimental results, these inequalities appear to prove that local hidden parameters cannot exist. This contradiction suggests to many that only instantaneous action at a distance can explain the Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen type of experiments. We show that, in addition to the assumption that hidden parameters exist, Bell tacitly makes a variety of other assumptions that contribute to his being able to obtain the desired contradiction. For instance, Bell assumes that the hidden parameters do not depend on time and are governed by a single probability measure independent of the analyzer settings. We argue that the exclusion of time has neither a physical nor a mathematical basis but is based on Bell's translation of the concept of Einstein locality into the language of probability theory. Our additional set of local hidden variables includes time-like correlated parameters and a generalized probability density. We prove that our extended space of local hidden variables does not permit Bell-type proofs to go forward.