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/0208099

Comment on ``Experimental Simulation of Two-Particle Quantum Entanglement using Classical Fields''

Aloysius F. Kracklauer

Published Aug 15, 2002• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We assert that the reported results consitute an empirical counterexample to Bell's theorem
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0208099

Related papers

Quantum Solipsism and Nonlocality

Travis Norsen

J.S. Bell's remarkable 1964 theorem showed that any theory sharing the empirical predictions of orthodox quantum mechanics would have to exhibit a surprising – and, from the point of view of relativity theory, very troubling – kind of nonlocality. Unfortunately, even still on this 50th anniversary, many commentators and textbook authors continue to misrepresent Bell's theorem. In particular, one continues to hear the claim that Bell's result leaves open the option of concluding either nonlocality or the failure of some unorthodox “hidden variable” (or “determinism” or “realism”) premise. This mistaken claim is often based on a failure to appreciate the role of the earlier 1935 argument of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in Bell's reasoning. After briefly reviewing this situation, I turn to two alternative versions of quantum theory – the “many worlds” theory of Everett and the quantum Bayesian interpretation of Fuchs, Schack, Caves, and Mermin – that purport to provide actual counterexamples to Bell's claim that nonlocality is required to account for the empirically verified quantum predictions. After analyzing each theory's grounds for claiming to explain the EPR–Bell correlations locally, however, one can see that (despite a number of fundamental differences) the two theories share a common for-all-practical-purposes (FAPP) solipsistic character. This dramatically undermines such theories’ claims to provide a local explanation of the correlations and thus, by concretizing the ridiculous philosophical lengths to which one must go to elude Bell's own conclusion, reinforces the assertion that nonlocality really is required to coherently explain the empirical data. Introduction Fifty years ago, in 1964 [1], John Stewart Bell first proved the theorem that has become widely known as “Bell's Theorem” but that Bell himself instead referred to as the “locality inequality theorem” [2]. In Bell's own view, the theorem showed that the empirical predictions of local theories will be constrained by Bell's inequality (or as Bell himself preferred to call it, the “locality inequality”). Hence, nonlocality is a necessary feature of any theory that shares the empirical predictions of standard quantum mechanics.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Aug 31, 2016•22 citations

Comment on “Entangled Simultaneity: Testing Lorentz and Light Speed Invariance with Quantum and Classical Entanglement”

Justo Pastor Lambare

arXiv:2603.18100•International Journal of Theoretical Physics•Mar 16, 2026•0 citations

Reply to ‘‘Note on ‘Bell’s theorem and the foundation of quantum physics’ ’’ [Am. J. Phys. 5 6, 565 (1988)]

Henry Pierce Stapp

American Journal of Physics•Jun 1, 1988•4 citations

Failure of Bell's Theorem and the Local Causality of the Entangled Photons

Joy Christian

A counterexample to Bell's theorem is presented which uses a pair of photons instead of spin-1/2 particles used in our previous counterexamples. A locally causal protocol is provided for Alice and Bob, which allows them to simulate observing photon polarizations at various angles, and record their results as A=+/-1 in S^3 and B=+/-1 in S^3, respectively. When these results are compared, the correlations are seen to be exactly those predicted by quantum mechanics; namely cos 2(alpha - beta), where alpha and beta are the angles of polarizers. The key ingredient in our counterexample is the topology of 3-sphere, which remains closed under multiplication, thus preserving the locality condition of Bell.

arXiv:1005.4932•May 26, 2010•7 citations

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 Physics•Jan 1, 2019•4 citations

Comment on “A classical model of EPR Experiment with Quantum Mechanical Correlations and Bell Inequalities”

Alain Aspect

NATO ASI series. Series B : Physics•Jan 1, 1986•3 citations
J.S. Bell's remarkable 1964 theorem showed that any theory sharing the empirical predictions of orthodox quantum mechanics would have to exhibit a surprising – and, from the point of view of relativity theory, very troubling – kind of nonlocality. Unfortunately, even still on this 50th anniversary, many commentators and textbook authors continue to misrepresent Bell's theorem. In particular, one continues to hear the claim that Bell's result leaves open the option of concluding either nonlocality or the failure of some unorthodox “hidden variable” (or “determinism” or “realism”) premise. This mistaken claim is often based on a failure to appreciate the role of the earlier 1935 argument of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen in Bell's reasoning. After briefly reviewing this situation, I turn to two alternative versions of quantum theory – the “many worlds” theory of Everett and the quantum Bayesian interpretation of Fuchs, Schack, Caves, and Mermin – that purport to provide actual counterexamples to Bell's claim that nonlocality is required to account for the empirically verified quantum predictions. After analyzing each theory's grounds for claiming to explain the EPR–Bell correlations locally, however, one can see that (despite a number of fundamental differences) the two theories share a common for-all-practical-purposes (FAPP) solipsistic character. This dramatically undermines such theories’ claims to provide a local explanation of the correlations and thus, by concretizing the ridiculous philosophical lengths to which one must go to elude Bell's own conclusion, reinforces the assertion that nonlocality really is required to coherently explain the empirical data. Introduction Fifty years ago, in 1964 [1], John Stewart Bell first proved the theorem that has become widely known as “Bell's Theorem” but that Bell himself instead referred to as the “locality inequality theorem” [2]. In Bell's own view, the theorem showed that the empirical predictions of local theories will be constrained by Bell's inequality (or as Bell himself preferred to call it, the “locality inequality”). Hence, nonlocality is a necessary feature of any theory that shares the empirical predictions of standard quantum mechanics.
A counterexample to Bell's theorem is presented which uses a pair of photons instead of spin-1/2 particles used in our previous counterexamples. A locally causal protocol is provided for Alice and Bob, which allows them to simulate observing photon polarizations at various angles, and record their results as A=+/-1 in S^3 and B=+/-1 in S^3, respectively. When these results are compared, the correlations are seen to be exactly those predicted by quantum mechanics; namely cos 2(alpha - beta), where alpha and beta are the angles of polarizers. The key ingredient in our counterexample is the topology of 3-sphere, which remains closed under multiplication, thus preserving the locality condition of Bell.
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.