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/0703244

Disproof of Bell's Theorem: Reply to Critics

Joy Christian

Published Mar 26, 2007• 7 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

This is a collection of my responses to the criticisms of my argument against the impossibility proof of John Bell, which aims to undermine any conceivable local realistic completion of quantum mechanics. I plan to periodically update this preprint instead of creating a new one for each response.
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0703244

Related papers

Refutation of Some Arguments Against my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Joy Christian

In a couple of recent preprints Moldoveanu has suggested that there are errors in my disproof of Bell's theorem. Here I show that this claim is false. In particular, I show that my local-realistic framework is incorrectly and misleadingly presented in both of his preprints. In addition there are a number of serious mathematical and conceptual errors in his discussion of my framework. For example, contrary to his claim, my framework is manifestly non-contextual. In particular, quantum correlations are understood within it as purely topological effects, not contextual effects.

arXiv:1110.5876•Oct 19, 2011•3 citations

On the failure of Bell's theorem

Gyula Bene

Using a new approach to quantum mechanics we revisit Hardy's proof for Bell's theorem and point out a loophole in it. We also demonstrate on this example that quantum mechanics is a local realistic theory.

arXiv:quant-ph/9706054•Jun 24, 1997•0 citations

Comment on: Disproof of Bell's Theorem by Clifford Algebra Valued Local Variables

Marcin Pawłowski

We ''save'' Bell's Theorem by showing a flaw in Christian's argument.

arXiv:quant-ph/0703218•Mar 23, 2007•0 citations

Bell's Theorem Refuted: Real Physics and Philosophy for Quantum Mechanics

Gordon Watson

Physics Essays•Sep 1, 1998•3 citations

Reply to Norsen's paper "Are there really two different Bell's theorems?"

Howard M. Wiseman, Eleanor Gilbert Rieffel

Yes. That is my polemical reply to the titular question in Travis Norsen's self-styled "polemical response to Howard Wiseman's recent paper." Less polemically, I am pleased to see that on two of my positions --- that Bell's 1964 theorem is different from Bell's 1976 theorem, and that the former does not include Bell's one-paragraph heuristic presentation of the EPR argument --- Norsen has made significant concessions. In his response, Norsen admits that "Bell's recapitulation of the EPR argument in [the relevant] paragraph leaves something to be desired," that it "disappoints" and is "problematic". Moreover, Norsen makes other statements that imply, on the face of it, that he should have no objections to the title of my recent paper ("The Two Bell's Theorems of John Bell"). My principle aim in writing that paper was to try to bridge the gap between two interpretational camps, whom I call 'operationalists' and 'realists', by pointing out that they use the phrase "Bell's theorem" to mean different things: his 1964 theorem (assuming locality and determinism) and his 1976 theorem (assuming local causality), respectively. Thus, it is heartening that at least one person from one side has taken one step on my bridge. That said, there are several issues of contention with Norsen, which we (the two authors) address after discussing the extent of our agreement with Norsen. The most significant issues are: the indefiniteness of the word 'locality' prior to 1964; and the assumptions Einstein made in the paper quoted by Bell in 1964 and their relation to Bell's theorem.

arXiv:1503.06978•International journal of quantum foundations•Mar 24, 2015•5 citations

Bell’s Theorem Tells Us Not What Quantum Mechanics Is, but What Quantum Mechanics Is Not

Marek Żukowski

arXiv:1501.05640•The frontiers collection•Nov 14, 2016•5 citations
In a couple of recent preprints Moldoveanu has suggested that there are errors in my disproof of Bell's theorem. Here I show that this claim is false. In particular, I show that my local-realistic framework is incorrectly and misleadingly presented in both of his preprints. In addition there are a number of serious mathematical and conceptual errors in his discussion of my framework. For example, contrary to his claim, my framework is manifestly non-contextual. In particular, quantum correlations are understood within it as purely topological effects, not contextual effects.
Yes. That is my polemical reply to the titular question in Travis Norsen's self-styled "polemical response to Howard Wiseman's recent paper." Less polemically, I am pleased to see that on two of my positions --- that Bell's 1964 theorem is different from Bell's 1976 theorem, and that the former does not include Bell's one-paragraph heuristic presentation of the EPR argument --- Norsen has made significant concessions. In his response, Norsen admits that "Bell's recapitulation of the EPR argument in [the relevant] paragraph leaves something to be desired," that it "disappoints" and is "problematic". Moreover, Norsen makes other statements that imply, on the face of it, that he should have no objections to the title of my recent paper ("The Two Bell's Theorems of John Bell"). My principle aim in writing that paper was to try to bridge the gap between two interpretational camps, whom I call 'operationalists' and 'realists', by pointing out that they use the phrase "Bell's theorem" to mean different things: his 1964 theorem (assuming locality and determinism) and his 1976 theorem (assuming local causality), respectively. Thus, it is heartening that at least one person from one side has taken one step on my bridge. That said, there are several issues of contention with Norsen, which we (the two authors) address after discussing the extent of our agreement with Norsen. The most significant issues are: the indefiniteness of the word 'locality' prior to 1964; and the assumptions Einstein made in the paper quoted by Bell in 1964 and their relation to Bell's theorem.