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/0607172

Anomalies in experimental data for the EPR-Bohm experiment: Are both classical and quantum mechanics wrong?

Guillaume Adenier, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

Published Jul 25, 2006• 6 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We analyze anomalies in data to test the violation of Bell's inequality for the EPR-Bohm experiment. We found that the experimental correlations for photon polarization have an intriguing property. In the experimental data there are visible non-negligible deviations of probabilities $P_{++}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β), P_{+-}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β), P_{-+}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β), P_{--}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β) $ from the predictions of quantum mechanics, namely, $P_{++}(α, β)=P_{--}(α, β)= {1/2}\cos^2(α-β)$ and $P_{+-}=P_{-+}(α, β)={1/2}\sin^2(α-β).$ However, in some mysterious way those deviations compensate each other and finally the correlation $E^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)= P_{++}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)- P_{+-}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)- P_{-+}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)+ P_{--}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)$ is in the complete agreement with the QM-prediction, namely, $E(α, β)= P_{++}(α, β)- P_{+-}(α, β)- P_{-+}(α, β)+ P_{--}(α, β)= \cos 2(α-β).$ Therefore such anomalies play no role in the Bell's inequality framework. Nevertheless, other linear combinations of experimental probabilities do not have such a compensation property. There can be found non-negligible deviations from predictions of quantum mechanics. Thus neither classical nor quantum model can pass the whole family of statistical tests given by all possible linear combinations of the EPR-Bohm probabilities. Does it mean that both models are wrong?

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0607172

Related papers

The EPR-Bohm Experiment from a Classical Viewpoint

Patrick Driessen

The EPR-Bohm experiment is studied in a classical model with hidden variables. The main hypothesis of Bell about this experiment must be modified in a non-trivial way to allow for the fact that our model is non-linear and so non fully deterministic. With our classical model, we then arrive at the same angular behaviour than the one that is predicted by Quantum Mechanics for the correlated measurement of spin projections on the polarizer axis. If the spin-spin interaction predicted by our particle model, or more precisely in the present case, the spin-polarizer field axis interaction, is not able to align the spin axis with the polarizer axis, then our classical result differs by a factor 3 from the quantum mechanical result. It is surprising to find that the angular behaviour is easier to reproduce by a classical model than the amount of probability. Naively, one would have expected the reverse.

•Mar 1, 2021•0 citations

Can violations of Bell's inequalities be considered as a final proof of quantum physics?

Francois B. Hénault

Nowadays, it is commonly admitted that the experimental violation of Bell’s inequalities that was successfully demonstrated in the last decades by many experimenters, are indeed the ultimate proof of quantum physics and of its ability to describe the whole microscopic world and beyond. But the historical and scientific story may not be envisioned so clearly: it starts with the original paper of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) aiming at demonstrating that the formalism of quantum theory is incomplete. It then goes through the works of D. Bohm, to finally proceed to the famous John Bell’s relationships providing an experimental setup to solve the EPR paradox. In this communication is proposed an alternative reading of this history, showing that modern experiments based on correlations between light polarizations significantly deviate from the original spirit of the EPR paper. It is concluded that current experimental violations of Bell’s inequalities cannot be considered as an ultimate proof of the completeness of quantum physics models.

arXiv:1310.2426•Proceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE•Oct 1, 2013•1 citation

Quantum entanglement in concept combinations

Diederik Aerts

Research in the application of quantum structures to cognitive science confirms that these structures quite systematically appear in the dynamics of concepts and their combinations and quantum-based models faithfully represent experimental data of situations where classical approaches are problematical. In this paper, we analyze the data we collected in an experiment on a specific conceptual combination, showing that Bell's inequalities are violated in the experiment. We present a new refined entanglement scheme to model these data within standard quantum theory rules, where 'entangled measurements and entangled evolutions' occur, in addition to the expected 'entangled states', and present a full quantum representation in complex Hilbert space of the data. This stronger form of entanglement in measurements and evolutions might have relevant applications in the foundations of quantum theory, as well as in the interpretation of nonlocality tests. It could indeed explain some non-negligible 'anomalies' identified in EPR-Bell experiments.

•Jan 1, 2014•84 citations

Complete account of randomness in the EPR-Bohm-Bell experiment

David Avis, Paul Fischer, Astrid Hilbert +1 more

We show that paradoxical consequences of violations of Bell's inequality are induced by the use of an unsuitable probabilistic description for the EPR-Bohm-Bell experiment. The conventional description (due to Bell) is based on a combination of statistical data collected for different settings of polarization beam splitters (PBSs). In fact, such data consists of some conditional probabilities which only partially define a probability space. Ignoring this conditioning leads to apparent contradictions in the classical probabilistic model (due to Kolmogorov). We show how to make a completely consistent probabilistic model by taking into account the probabilities of selecting the settings of the PBSs. Our model matches both the experimental data and is consistent with classical probability theory.

arXiv:0806.0445•Jun 3, 2008•2 citations

Bell Inequalities and Maximally Realistic Causal Quantum Mechanics

S. M. Roy

The De Broglie-Bohm (DeBB)\cite{DeBB} Causal Quantum Mechanics played a crucial role in Bell's discovery \cite{Bell1964} that quantum mechanics violates EPR local reality \cite{EPR1935}, and also in Bell's search for an exact quantum mechanics. The experiments of Aspect et al \cite{Aspect1981} confirm quantum correlations between plane polarizations of two photons and violation of Bell's inequalities by a factor $\sqrt 2 $. I prove that similar experiments with elliptic polarizers can also show quantum violations of Bell's inequality by the same factor. I summarize our construction of a maximally realistic causal quantum mechanics in $n-$dimensional configuration space \cite{Roy-Singh1995}. Phase space Bell inequalities and 'Marginal Theorems' \cite{Auberson2002} play a crucial role.

arXiv:2301.00119•Dec 31, 2022•0 citations

The EPR-B Paradox Resolution. Bell inequalities revisited.

Jaykov Foukzon, Менькова Елена Романовна, Alexander A Potapov

Abstract One of the Bell’s assumptions in the original derivation of his inequalities was the hypothesis of locality, i.e., the absence of the influence of two remote measuring instruments on one another. That is why violations of these inequalities observed in experiments are often interpreted as a manifestation of the nonlocal nature of quantum mechanics, or a refutation of a local realism. It is well known that the Bell’s inequality was derived in its traditional form, without resorting to the hypothesis of locality and without the introduction of hidden variables, the only assumption being that the probability distributions are nonnegative. This can therefore be regarded as a rigorous proof that the hypothesis of locality and the hypothesis of existence of the hidden variables not relevant to violations of Bell’s inequalities. The physical meaning of the obtained results is examined. Physical nature of the violation of the Bell inequalities is explained under new EPR-B nonlocality postulate. We show that the correlations of the observables involved in the Bohm–Bell type experiments can be expressed as correlations of classical random variables. The revisited Bell type inequality in canonical notatons reads 〈AB〉 + 〈A’B〉 + 〈AB’〉 − 〈A’B’〉 ⩽ 6.

Journal of Physics Conference Series•Nov 1, 2019•0 citations
We analyze anomalies in data to test the violation of Bell's inequality for the EPR-Bohm experiment. We found that the experimental correlations for photon polarization have an intriguing property. In the experimental data there are visible non-negligible deviations of probabilities P++exp(α,β),P+−exp(α,β),P−+exp(α,β),P−−exp(α,β)P_{++}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β), P_{+-}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β), P_{-+}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β), P_{--}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β) P++exp​(α,β),P+−exp​(α,β),P−+exp​(α,β),P−−exp​(α,β) from the predictions of quantum mechanics, namely, P++(α,β)=P−−(α,β)=1/2cos⁡2(α−β)P_{++}(α, β)=P_{--}(α, β)= {1/2}\cos^2(α-β)P++​(α,β)=P−−​(α,β)=1/2cos2(α−β) and P+−=P−+(α,β)=1/2sin⁡2(α−β).P_{+-}=P_{-+}(α, β)={1/2}\sin^2(α-β).P+−​=P−+​(α,β)=1/2sin2(α−β). However, in some mysterious way those deviations compensate each other and finally the correlation Eexp(α,β)=P++exp(α,β)−P+−exp(α,β)−P−+exp(α,β)+P−−exp(α,β)E^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)= P_{++}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)- P_{+-}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)- P_{-+}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)+ P_{--}^{\rm{exp}}(α, β)Eexp(α,β)=P++exp​(α,β)−P+−exp​(α,β)−P−+exp​(α,β)+P−−exp​(α,β) is in the complete agreement with the QM-prediction, namely, E(α,β)=P++(α,β)−P+−(α,β)−P−+(α,β)+P−−(α,β)=cos⁡2(α−β).E(α, β)= P_{++}(α, β)- P_{+-}(α, β)- P_{-+}(α, β)+ P_{--}(α, β)= \cos 2(α-β).E(α,β)=P++​(α,β)−P+−​(α,β)−P−+​(α,β)+P−−​(α,β)=cos2(α−β). Therefore such anomalies play no role in the Bell's inequality framework. Nevertheless, other linear combinations of experimental probabilities do not have such a compensation property. There can be found non-negligible deviations from predictions of quantum mechanics. Thus neither classical nor quantum model can pass the whole family of statistical tests given by all possible linear combinations of the EPR-Bohm probabilities. Does it mean that both models are wrong?
The EPR-Bohm experiment is studied in a classical model with hidden variables. The main hypothesis of Bell about this experiment must be modified in a non-trivial way to allow for the fact that our model is non-linear and so non fully deterministic. With our classical model, we then arrive at the same angular behaviour than the one that is predicted by Quantum Mechanics for the correlated measurement of spin projections on the polarizer axis. If the spin-spin interaction predicted by our particle model, or more precisely in the present case, the spin-polarizer field axis interaction, is not able to align the spin axis with the polarizer axis, then our classical result differs by a factor 3 from the quantum mechanical result. It is surprising to find that the angular behaviour is easier to reproduce by a classical model than the amount of probability. Naively, one would have expected the reverse.
Nowadays, it is commonly admitted that the experimental violation of Bell’s inequalities that was successfully demonstrated in the last decades by many experimenters, are indeed the ultimate proof of quantum physics and of its ability to describe the whole microscopic world and beyond. But the historical and scientific story may not be envisioned so clearly: it starts with the original paper of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen (EPR) aiming at demonstrating that the formalism of quantum theory is incomplete. It then goes through the works of D. Bohm, to finally proceed to the famous John Bell’s relationships providing an experimental setup to solve the EPR paradox. In this communication is proposed an alternative reading of this history, showing that modern experiments based on correlations between light polarizations significantly deviate from the original spirit of the EPR paper. It is concluded that current experimental violations of Bell’s inequalities cannot be considered as an ultimate proof of the completeness of quantum physics models.
Research in the application of quantum structures to cognitive science confirms that these structures quite systematically appear in the dynamics of concepts and their combinations and quantum-based models faithfully represent experimental data of situations where classical approaches are problematical. In this paper, we analyze the data we collected in an experiment on a specific conceptual combination, showing that Bell's inequalities are violated in the experiment. We present a new refined entanglement scheme to model these data within standard quantum theory rules, where 'entangled measurements and entangled evolutions' occur, in addition to the expected 'entangled states', and present a full quantum representation in complex Hilbert space of the data. This stronger form of entanglement in measurements and evolutions might have relevant applications in the foundations of quantum theory, as well as in the interpretation of nonlocality tests. It could indeed explain some non-negligible 'anomalies' identified in EPR-Bell experiments.
We show that paradoxical consequences of violations of Bell's inequality are induced by the use of an unsuitable probabilistic description for the EPR-Bohm-Bell experiment. The conventional description (due to Bell) is based on a combination of statistical data collected for different settings of polarization beam splitters (PBSs). In fact, such data consists of some conditional probabilities which only partially define a probability space. Ignoring this conditioning leads to apparent contradictions in the classical probabilistic model (due to Kolmogorov). We show how to make a completely consistent probabilistic model by taking into account the probabilities of selecting the settings of the PBSs. Our model matches both the experimental data and is consistent with classical probability theory.
The De Broglie-Bohm (DeBB)\cite{DeBB} Causal Quantum Mechanics played a crucial role in Bell's discovery \cite{Bell1964} that quantum mechanics violates EPR local reality \cite{EPR1935}, and also in Bell's search for an exact quantum mechanics. The experiments of Aspect et al \cite{Aspect1981} confirm quantum correlations between plane polarizations of two photons and violation of Bell's inequalities by a factor $\sqrt 2 $. I prove that similar experiments with elliptic polarizers can also show quantum violations of Bell's inequality by the same factor. I summarize our construction of a maximally realistic causal quantum mechanics in n−n-n−dimensional configuration space \cite{Roy-Singh1995}. Phase space Bell inequalities and 'Marginal Theorems' \cite{Auberson2002} play a crucial role.
Abstract One of the Bell’s assumptions in the original derivation of his inequalities was the hypothesis of locality, i.e., the absence of the influence of two remote measuring instruments on one another. That is why violations of these inequalities observed in experiments are often interpreted as a manifestation of the nonlocal nature of quantum mechanics, or a refutation of a local realism. It is well known that the Bell’s inequality was derived in its traditional form, without resorting to the hypothesis of locality and without the introduction of hidden variables, the only assumption being that the probability distributions are nonnegative. This can therefore be regarded as a rigorous proof that the hypothesis of locality and the hypothesis of existence of the hidden variables not relevant to violations of Bell’s inequalities. The physical meaning of the obtained results is examined. Physical nature of the violation of the Bell inequalities is explained under new EPR-B nonlocality postulate. We show that the correlations of the observables involved in the Bohm–Bell type experiments can be expressed as correlations of classical random variables. The revisited Bell type inequality in canonical notatons reads 〈AB〉 + 〈A’B〉 + 〈AB’〉 − 〈A’B’〉 ⩽ 6.