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/0211188

Proof of Bell's Inequalities for Generalized Hidden Variables Models

Angel G Valdenebro

Published Nov 28, 2002• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Several authors have recently claimed that Bell's inequalities (BI) do not apply to certain types of generalized local hidden variables (HV) models. These claims are rejected, by means of a proof of BI valid for a very broad class of local HV models (deterministic or stochastic, with or without memory, time dependent or time independent, setting dependent or setting independent, and even allowing classical communication between the wings of the experiment). The precise meaning of the locality requirement is clarified during the proof. The exact roles of the two assumptions that amount to Bell's locality (parameter independence and outcome independence) are explicitly shown, using each one of them in a different step of the proof. using each one of them in a different step of the proof.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0211188

Related papers

A local hidden-variable model violating Bell's inequalities: a reply to Matzkin

R. N. Nijhoff

Recently, Matzkin claimed the construction of a hidden variable (HV) model which is both local and equivalent with the quantum-mechanical predictions. In this paper we will briefly present this HV model and argue, by identifying an extra non-local "hidden" HV, why this model is not local

arXiv:0807.1815•Jul 11, 2008•2 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: What it Takes

Jeremy Butterfield

I compare deterministic and stochastic hidden variable models of the Bell experiment, exphasising philosophical distinctions between the various ways of combining conditionals and probabilities. I make four main claims. (1) Under natural assumptions, locality as it occurs in these models is equivalent to causal independence, as analysed (in the spirit of Lewis) in terms of probabilities and conditionals. (2) Stochastic models are indeed more general than deterministic ones. (3) For factorizable stochastic models, relativity's lack of superluminal causation does not favour locality over completeness. (4) If we prohibit all superluminal causation, then the violation of the Bell inequality teaches us a lesson, besides quantum mechanics' familiar ones that quantities can lack precise values and that pairs of quantities can lack joint probabilities: namely, some pairs of events are not screened off by their common past.

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science•Mar 1, 1992•80 citations

Test of the physical significance of Bell non-locality

Carlos Vieira, Ravishankar Ramanathan, Adán Cabello

Loophole-free violations of Bell inequalities imply that at least one of the assumptions behind local hidden-variable theories must fail. Here, we show that, if only one fails, then it has to fail completely, therefore excluding models that partially constrain freedom of choice or allow for partial retrocausal influences, or allow partial instantaneous actions at a distance. Specifically, we show that (i) any hidden-variable theory with outcome independence (OI) and arbitrary joint relaxation of measurement independence (MI) and parameter independence (PI) can be experimentally excluded in a Bell-like experiment with many settings on high-dimensional entangled states, and (ii) any hidden-variable theory with MI, PI and arbitrary relaxation of OI can be excluded in a Bell-like experiment with many settings on qubit-qubit entangled states. Loophole-free violations of Bell inequalities imply that at least one of the assumptions formalising local hidden-variable theories must fail. Here, the authors show that, if only one is false, then it has to fail completely, therefore excluding models that allow partial instantaneous actions at a distance, partially constrain freedom of choice or allow for partial retrocausal influences.

arXiv:2402.00801•Nature Communications•May 12, 2025•8 citations

On The Significance of Bell's Locality Condition

Afshin Shafiee, Golshani, Mehdi

Reviewing the general representation of a stochastic local hidden variables theory in the context of an ideal Bohm's version of the EPR experiment, we show explicitly that the violation of Bell's locality condition is due to the assumption of ``outcome independence'' at the hidden variables level. Also, we show that if we introduce determinism, the assumption of outcome independence will be allowed.

arXiv:quant-ph/0002060•Feb 23, 2000•1 citation

Assumptions underlying Bell s inequalities

Angel G Valdenebro

There are several versions of Bell's inequalities (BI), proved in different contexts, using different sets of assumptions. The discussions of their experimental violation often disregard some required assumptions and loosely use formulations of others. The issue, to judge from recent publications, continues to cause misunderstandings. We present a very simple but general proof of BI, identifying explicitly the complete set of assumptions required.

arXiv:quant-ph/0208161•European Journal of Physics•Sep 1, 2002•22 citations
Several authors have recently claimed that Bell's inequalities (BI) do not apply to certain types of generalized local hidden variables (HV) models. These claims are rejected, by means of a proof of BI valid for a very broad class of local HV models (deterministic or stochastic, with or without memory, time dependent or time independent, setting dependent or setting independent, and even allowing classical communication between the wings of the experiment). The precise meaning of the locality requirement is clarified during the proof. The exact roles of the two assumptions that amount to Bell's locality (parameter independence and outcome independence) are explicitly shown, using each one of them in a different step of the proof. using each one of them in a different step of the proof.
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.
I compare deterministic and stochastic hidden variable models of the Bell experiment, exphasising philosophical distinctions between the various ways of combining conditionals and probabilities. I make four main claims. (1) Under natural assumptions, locality as it occurs in these models is equivalent to causal independence, as analysed (in the spirit of Lewis) in terms of probabilities and conditionals. (2) Stochastic models are indeed more general than deterministic ones. (3) For factorizable stochastic models, relativity's lack of superluminal causation does not favour locality over completeness. (4) If we prohibit all superluminal causation, then the violation of the Bell inequality teaches us a lesson, besides quantum mechanics' familiar ones that quantities can lack precise values and that pairs of quantities can lack joint probabilities: namely, some pairs of events are not screened off by their common past.
Loophole-free violations of Bell inequalities imply that at least one of the assumptions behind local hidden-variable theories must fail. Here, we show that, if only one fails, then it has to fail completely, therefore excluding models that partially constrain freedom of choice or allow for partial retrocausal influences, or allow partial instantaneous actions at a distance. Specifically, we show that (i) any hidden-variable theory with outcome independence (OI) and arbitrary joint relaxation of measurement independence (MI) and parameter independence (PI) can be experimentally excluded in a Bell-like experiment with many settings on high-dimensional entangled states, and (ii) any hidden-variable theory with MI, PI and arbitrary relaxation of OI can be excluded in a Bell-like experiment with many settings on qubit-qubit entangled states. Loophole-free violations of Bell inequalities imply that at least one of the assumptions formalising local hidden-variable theories must fail. Here, the authors show that, if only one is false, then it has to fail completely, therefore excluding models that allow partial instantaneous actions at a distance, partially constrain freedom of choice or allow for partial retrocausal influences.