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/0206046

Logical Inconsistencies in Proofs of the Theorem of Bell

K. Hess, Walter Philipp

Published Jun 7, 2002• 1 citation
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We discuss a class of proofs of Bell-type inequalities that are based on tables of potential outcomes. These proofs state in essence: if one can only imagine (or write down in a table) the potential outcome of a hidden parameter model for EPR experiments then a contradiction to experiment and quantum mechanics follows. We show that these proofs do not contain hidden variables that relate to time or, if they do, lead to logical contradictions that render them invalid.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0206046

Related papers

Exclusion of time 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 suggests to many that only instantaneous action at a distance can explain Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen (EPR) type of experiments. We show that Bell-type theories and proofs leading to the well-known inequalities completely exclude a large class of time dependencies in their considerations. Owing to the fact that the electrodynamics of moving bodies cannot be described by time-independent theories or models, we conclude that the Bell theorem cannot describe the physics of EPR experiments. We also show how hidden parameter theories that include time can obtain the quantum result.

Europhysics Letters (EPL)•Mar 1, 2002•46 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

Bell’s theorem: Critique of proofs with and without inequalities

K. Hess

Most of the standard proofs of the Bell theorem are based on the Kolmogorov axioms of probability theory. We show that these proofs contain mathematical steps that cannot be reconciled with the Kolmogorov axioms. Specifically we demonstrate that these proofs ignore the conclusion of a theorem of Vorob'ev on the consistency of joint distributions. As a consequence Bell's theorem stated in its full generality remains unproven, in particular, for extended parameter spaces that are still objective local and that include instrument parameters that are correlated by both time and instrument settings. Although the Bell theorem correctly rules out certain small classes of hidden variables, for these extended parameter spaces the standard proofs come to a halt. The Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) approach is based on similar fallacious arguments. For this case we are able to present an objective local computer experiment that simulates the experimental test of GHZ performed by Pan, Bouwmeester, Daniell, Weinfurter and Zeilinger and that directly contradicts their claim that Einstein-local elements of reality can neither explain the results of quantum mechanical theory nor their experimental results.

arXiv:quant-ph/0410015•AIP conference proceedings•Jan 1, 2005•87 citations

Hidden variables in quantum logic approach reexamined

Jarosław Pykacz, Emilio Santos

Various impossibility proofs for hidden variables theories produced within the quantum logic approach are analyzed. A very general form of n-term Bell-type inequalities is given. From these inequalities a new impossibly proof for hidden variables theories able to reproduce all numerical results of quantum mechanics follows.

Journal of Mathematical Physics•May 1, 1991•27 citations

A Probability Model for the Bell Experiment

Kees van Hee, Kees van Berkel, J. de Graaf

The Bell inequality constrains the outcomes of measurements on pairs of distant entangled particles. The Bell contradiction states that the Bell inequality is inconsistent with the calculated outcomes of these quantum experiments. This contradiction led many to question the underlying assumptions, viz. so-called realism and locality. The probability model underlying the Bell inequality is generally left implicit. We propose an explicit probability model for the CHSH version of the Bell experiment. This model has only two simultaneously observable detector settings per measurement, and therefore does not assume realism. The quantum expectation now becomes a conditional expectation, given the two detector settings. This probability model is in full agreement with both quantum mechanics and experiments. As a result, the model satisfies the Bell inequality; there are no so-called violations. We extend this model to include a hidden variable. This extended model is not Bell-separable. This non-separability implies that the model is non-deterministic or non-local (or both).

arXiv:2302.05174•Quantum Reports•Feb 14, 2026•0 citations
We discuss a class of proofs of Bell-type inequalities that are based on tables of potential outcomes. These proofs state in essence: if one can only imagine (or write down in a table) the potential outcome of a hidden parameter model for EPR experiments then a contradiction to experiment and quantum mechanics follows. We show that these proofs do not contain hidden variables that relate to time or, if they do, lead to logical contradictions that render them invalid.
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 suggests to many that only instantaneous action at a distance can explain Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen (EPR) type of experiments. We show that Bell-type theories and proofs leading to the well-known inequalities completely exclude a large class of time dependencies in their considerations. Owing to the fact that the electrodynamics of moving bodies cannot be described by time-independent theories or models, we conclude that the Bell theorem cannot describe the physics of EPR experiments. We also show how hidden parameter theories that include time can obtain the quantum result.
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.
Most of the standard proofs of the Bell theorem are based on the Kolmogorov axioms of probability theory. We show that these proofs contain mathematical steps that cannot be reconciled with the Kolmogorov axioms. Specifically we demonstrate that these proofs ignore the conclusion of a theorem of Vorob'ev on the consistency of joint distributions. As a consequence Bell's theorem stated in its full generality remains unproven, in particular, for extended parameter spaces that are still objective local and that include instrument parameters that are correlated by both time and instrument settings. Although the Bell theorem correctly rules out certain small classes of hidden variables, for these extended parameter spaces the standard proofs come to a halt. The Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger (GHZ) approach is based on similar fallacious arguments. For this case we are able to present an objective local computer experiment that simulates the experimental test of GHZ performed by Pan, Bouwmeester, Daniell, Weinfurter and Zeilinger and that directly contradicts their claim that Einstein-local elements of reality can neither explain the results of quantum mechanical theory nor their experimental results.
The Bell inequality constrains the outcomes of measurements on pairs of distant entangled particles. The Bell contradiction states that the Bell inequality is inconsistent with the calculated outcomes of these quantum experiments. This contradiction led many to question the underlying assumptions, viz. so-called realism and locality. The probability model underlying the Bell inequality is generally left implicit. We propose an explicit probability model for the CHSH version of the Bell experiment. This model has only two simultaneously observable detector settings per measurement, and therefore does not assume realism. The quantum expectation now becomes a conditional expectation, given the two detector settings. This probability model is in full agreement with both quantum mechanics and experiments. As a result, the model satisfies the Bell inequality; there are no so-called violations. We extend this model to include a hidden variable. This extended model is not Bell-separable. This non-separability implies that the model is non-deterministic or non-local (or both).