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/0306171 · Physical Review Letters

Comment on “Bell’s Theorem without Inequalities and without Probabilities for Two Observers”

Luca Marinatto

Published Jun 23, 2003• 5 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In this Comment we show that Cabello's argument [Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1911 (2001)] which proves the nonlocal feature of any classical model of quantum mechanics based on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) criterion of elements of reality, must involve at least four distant observers rather than the two employed by the author. Moreover we raise a remark on the necessity of performing a real experiment confirming Cabello's argument.

DOI
10.1103/physrevlett.90.258901

Related papers

Comment on “Bell's Theorem without Inequalities and without Alignments”

Luca Marinatto

In this Comment we show that Cabello's proof of Bell's theorem without inequalities [Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 230403 (2003)] does not exhibit two of the three "remarkable properties" which the proof is claimed to possess. More precisely it is our purpose to show that property (c) of Cabello's proof, stating that ``local observables can be measured by means of tests on individual qubits" is definitely false since it has been obtained by a wrong use of the basic rules of the quantum formalism, while property (b), stating that ``distant local setups do not need to be aligned since the require perfect correlations are achieved for any local rotation of the setups", is also wrong due to the failure of validity of property (c).

arXiv:quant-ph/0409129•Physical Review Letters•Sep 17, 2004•1 citation

Cabello Replies:

Adán Cabello

It is shown that Marinatto's claim [Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 258901 (2003)] that the proof of "Bell's theorem without inequalities and without probabilities for two observers" [A. Cabello, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1911 (2001)] requires four spacelike separated observers rather than two is unjustified.

arXiv:quant-ph/0306180•Physical Review Letters•Jun 23, 2003•5 citations

The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Argument and the Bell Inequalities

László E. Szabó

In 1935 Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) published an important paper in which they claimed that the whole formalism of quantum mechanics together with what they called "Reality Criterion" imply that quantum mechanics cannot be complete. That is, there must exist some elements of reality that are not described by quantum mechanics. There must be, they concluded, a more complete description of physical reality behind quantum mechanics. There must be a state, a hidden variable, characterizing the state of affairs in the world in more details than the quantum mechanical state, something that also reflects the missing elements of reality. Under some further but quite plausible assumptions, this conclusion implies that in some spin-correlation experiments the measured quantum mechanical probabilities should satisfy particular inequalities (Bell-type inequalities). The paradox consists in the fact that quantum probabilities do not satisfy these inequalities. And this paradoxical fact has been confirmed by several laboratory experiments in the last three decades. The problem is still open and hotly debated among both physicists and philosophers. It has motivated a wide range of research from the most fundamental quantum mechanical experiments through foundations of probability theory to the theory of stochastic causality as well as the metaphysics of free will.

arXiv:0712.1318•Dec 9, 2007•12 citations

Comment on “Experimental test of nonlocal quantum correlation in relativistic configurations”

Suresh Chandra Tiwari

A recent experiment by Zbinden et al. [Phys. Rev A 63, 02111 (2001)] purports to test compatibility between relativity and quantum mechanics in the classic Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) setting. We argue that relativity has no role in the EPR argument based solely on nonrelativistic quantum formalism. It is suggested that this interesting experiment may have significance to address fundamental questions on quantum probability.

arXiv:quant-ph/0108127•Physical Review A•Dec 5, 2001•0 citations

Bell theorem without inequalities for two spinless particles

Herbert Joseph Bernstein, Daniel M. Greenberger, Michael Horne +1 more

We use the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger [in Bell's Theorem, Quantum Theory,and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1989)] approach to present three demonstrations of the failure of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) [Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935)] local realism for the case of two spinless particles in a two-particle interferometer. The original EPR assumptions of locality and reality do not suffice for this. First, we use the EPR assumptions of locality and reality to establish that in a two-particle interferometer, the path taken by each particle is an element of reality. Second, we supplement the EPR premises by the postulate that when the path taken by a particle is an element of reality, all paths not taken are empty. We emphasize that our approach is not applicable to a single-particle interferometer because there the path taken by the particle cannot be established as an element of reality. We point out that there are real conceptual differences between single-particle, two-particle, and multiparticle interferometry.

Physical Review A•Jan 1, 1993•62 citations

Elements of reality in quantum mechanics

Geoff Beck

The notion of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) "element of reality" is much discussed in the literature on the foundations of quantum mechanics. Recently, it has become particularly relevant due to a proposed criterion of the physical reality of a given quantum mechanical observable [A. L. O. Bilobran and R. M. Angelo, Europhys. Lett. 112, 40005 (2015)]. We examine this proposal and its consequently related measure of non-locality [V. S. Gomez and R. M. Angelo, Phys. Rev. A 97, 012123, (2018)] and argue that the criterion is ill-described as quantifying physical reality without introducing serious inconsistency with the basic notions of realism that under-gird enquiry. We agree that this reality criterion demonstrates, along with the famous GHZ results, that general quantum observable values make for poor elements of reality. However, we also argue that this does not mean no such elements of reality are to be found in quantum theory. By arguing for, and adopting, probability distributions as these elements of reality instead, we demonstrate that the criterion of physical reality is actually one of observable predictability. We then examine the relationship of realism-based non-locality to the Bell form and find that, despite the flawed premise, this measure does indeed codify non-locality that is not captured by Bell inequalities.

arXiv:1807.06374•Jul 17, 2018•2 citations
In this Comment we show that Cabello's argument [Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1911 (2001)] which proves the nonlocal feature of any classical model of quantum mechanics based on Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) criterion of elements of reality, must involve at least four distant observers rather than the two employed by the author. Moreover we raise a remark on the necessity of performing a real experiment confirming Cabello's argument.
In this Comment we show that Cabello's proof of Bell's theorem without inequalities [Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 230403 (2003)] does not exhibit two of the three "remarkable properties" which the proof is claimed to possess. More precisely it is our purpose to show that property (c) of Cabello's proof, stating that ``local observables can be measured by means of tests on individual qubits" is definitely false since it has been obtained by a wrong use of the basic rules of the quantum formalism, while property (b), stating that ``distant local setups do not need to be aligned since the require perfect correlations are achieved for any local rotation of the setups", is also wrong due to the failure of validity of property (c).
In 1935 Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) published an important paper in which they claimed that the whole formalism of quantum mechanics together with what they called "Reality Criterion" imply that quantum mechanics cannot be complete. That is, there must exist some elements of reality that are not described by quantum mechanics. There must be, they concluded, a more complete description of physical reality behind quantum mechanics. There must be a state, a hidden variable, characterizing the state of affairs in the world in more details than the quantum mechanical state, something that also reflects the missing elements of reality. Under some further but quite plausible assumptions, this conclusion implies that in some spin-correlation experiments the measured quantum mechanical probabilities should satisfy particular inequalities (Bell-type inequalities). The paradox consists in the fact that quantum probabilities do not satisfy these inequalities. And this paradoxical fact has been confirmed by several laboratory experiments in the last three decades. The problem is still open and hotly debated among both physicists and philosophers. It has motivated a wide range of research from the most fundamental quantum mechanical experiments through foundations of probability theory to the theory of stochastic causality as well as the metaphysics of free will.
We use the Greenberger-Horne-Zeilinger [in Bell's Theorem, Quantum Theory,and Conceptions of the Universe, edited by M. Kafatos (Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, 1989)] approach to present three demonstrations of the failure of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) [Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935)] local realism for the case of two spinless particles in a two-particle interferometer. The original EPR assumptions of locality and reality do not suffice for this. First, we use the EPR assumptions of locality and reality to establish that in a two-particle interferometer, the path taken by each particle is an element of reality. Second, we supplement the EPR premises by the postulate that when the path taken by a particle is an element of reality, all paths not taken are empty. We emphasize that our approach is not applicable to a single-particle interferometer because there the path taken by the particle cannot be established as an element of reality. We point out that there are real conceptual differences between single-particle, two-particle, and multiparticle interferometry.
The notion of the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) "element of reality" is much discussed in the literature on the foundations of quantum mechanics. Recently, it has become particularly relevant due to a proposed criterion of the physical reality of a given quantum mechanical observable [A. L. O. Bilobran and R. M. Angelo, Europhys. Lett. 112, 40005 (2015)]. We examine this proposal and its consequently related measure of non-locality [V. S. Gomez and R. M. Angelo, Phys. Rev. A 97, 012123, (2018)] and argue that the criterion is ill-described as quantifying physical reality without introducing serious inconsistency with the basic notions of realism that under-gird enquiry. We agree that this reality criterion demonstrates, along with the famous GHZ results, that general quantum observable values make for poor elements of reality. However, we also argue that this does not mean no such elements of reality are to be found in quantum theory. By arguing for, and adopting, probability distributions as these elements of reality instead, we demonstrate that the criterion of physical reality is actually one of observable predictability. We then examine the relationship of realism-based non-locality to the Bell form and find that, despite the flawed premise, this measure does indeed codify non-locality that is not captured by Bell inequalities.