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/0211119

Response to Comment by Myrvold and Appleby

K. Hess, Walter Philipp

Published Nov 19, 2002• 1 citation
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Myrvold and Appleby claim that our model for EPR experiments is non-local and that previous proofs of the Bell theorem go through even if our setting and time dependent instrument parameters are included. We show that their claims are false.
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0211119

Related papers

Response to ‘‘Comment on ‘Bell’s theorem and the foundation of quantum physics’ ’’ [Am. J. Phys. 5 5, 1142 (1987)]

Henry Pierce Stapp

The principle of EPR locality is discussed. (AIP) e

American Journal of Physics•Dec 1, 1987•0 citations

Local Realism Generalized, EPR Refined, Bell's Theorem Refuted

Gordon Watson

This open letter challenges Annals of Physics' Editors and Bell's supporters on this front: in the context of Bell's theorem -- after AoP (2016:67) -- ‘it's a proven scientific fact that a violation of local realism has been demonstrated theoretically and experimentally.' We show that such claims under the Bellian canon are curtailed by its foundation on a naive realism that is known to be false; ie, under Bohr's old insight (in our terms), a test may disturb the tested system. Further: (i) We define a general all-embracing local realism -- CLR, commonsense local realism -- the union of local-causality (no causal influence propagates superluminally) and physical-realism (some physical properties change interactively). (ii) Under CLR, with EPR-based variables (and without QM), a thought-experiment delivers a local-realistic account of EPRB and GHZ in 3-space. (iii) Under EPR, mixing common-sense with undergrad math/physics in the classical way so favored by Einstein, we interpret QM locally and realistically. (iv) We find the flaw in Bell's theorem: Bell's 1964:(14a) ≠ Bell's 1964:(14b) under EPRB. (v) EPR (1935) famously argue that additional variables will bring locality and causality to QM's completion; we show that they are right. (vi) Even more famously, Bell (1964) cried ‘impossible' against such variables; we give the shortest possible refutation of his claim. (vii) Using Bell's (1988:88) moot gloss on a fragment of von Neumann's work, we conclude: ‘There's nothing to Bell's theorem -- nor Bellian variants like CHSH (1969), Mermin (1990), Peres (1995); nor Bellian endorsements like those by Bricmont, du Sautoy, Goldstein et al., Maudlin, Norsen, Shimony -- it's not just flawed, it's silly; its assumptions nonsense; it's not merely false but foolish' and misleading. (viii) Our results accord with common-sense, QM, Einstein's principles, EPR's belief and Bell's hopes and expectations.

•Nov 1, 2016•0 citations

Comment on Mermin's Recent Proof of the Theorem of Bell

K. Hess, Walter Philipp

Mermin states in a recent paper that his nontechnical version of Bell's theorem stands and is not invalidated by time and setting dependent instrument parameters as claimed in one of our previous papers. We identify a number of misinterpretations (of our definitions) and mathematical inconsistencies in Mermin's paper and show that Mermin's conclusions are therefore not valid: his proof does not go forward if certain possible time dependencies are taken into account.

arXiv:quant-ph/0207110•Jul 18, 2002•0 citations

Reply to ‘‘Comment on ‘Bell’s theorem and the foundations of quantum physics’ ’’ [Am. J. Phys. 5 6, 567 (1988)]

Henry Pierce Stapp

EPR locality is discussed from the point of view of determinism. (AIP)

American Journal of Physics•Jun 1, 1988•3 citations

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
This open letter challenges Annals of Physics' Editors and Bell's supporters on this front: in the context of Bell's theorem -- after AoP (2016:67) -- ‘it's a proven scientific fact that a violation of local realism has been demonstrated theoretically and experimentally.' We show that such claims under the Bellian canon are curtailed by its foundation on a naive realism that is known to be false; ie, under Bohr's old insight (in our terms), a test may disturb the tested system. Further: (i) We define a general all-embracing local realism -- CLR, commonsense local realism -- the union of local-causality (no causal influence propagates superluminally) and physical-realism (some physical properties change interactively). (ii) Under CLR, with EPR-based variables (and without QM), a thought-experiment delivers a local-realistic account of EPRB and GHZ in 3-space. (iii) Under EPR, mixing common-sense with undergrad math/physics in the classical way so favored by Einstein, we interpret QM locally and realistically. (iv) We find the flaw in Bell's theorem: Bell's 1964:(14a) ≠ Bell's 1964:(14b) under EPRB. (v) EPR (1935) famously argue that additional variables will bring locality and causality to QM's completion; we show that they are right. (vi) Even more famously, Bell (1964) cried ‘impossible' against such variables; we give the shortest possible refutation of his claim. (vii) Using Bell's (1988:88) moot gloss on a fragment of von Neumann's work, we conclude: ‘There's nothing to Bell's theorem -- nor Bellian variants like CHSH (1969), Mermin (1990), Peres (1995); nor Bellian endorsements like those by Bricmont, du Sautoy, Goldstein et al., Maudlin, Norsen, Shimony -- it's not just flawed, it's silly; its assumptions nonsense; it's not merely false but foolish' and misleading. (viii) Our results accord with common-sense, QM, Einstein's principles, EPR's belief and Bell's hopes and expectations.
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.