Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

A Stronger Bell Argument for Quantum Non-Locality

By Paul M Näger


It is widely accepted that the violation of Bell inequalities excludes local theories of the quantum realm. This paper presents a stronger Bell argument which even forbids certain non-local theories. The remaining non-local theories, which can violate Bell inequalities, are characterised by the fact that at least one of the outcomes in some sense probabilistically depends both on its distant as well as on its local parameter. While this is not to say that parameter dependence in the usual sense necessarily holds, it shows that the received analysis of quantum non-locality as “outcome dependence or parameter dependence” is deeply misleading about what the violation of Bell inequalities implies

Topics: Quantum Mechanics
Year: 2013
OAI identifier:
Provided by: PhilSci Archive

Suggested articles


  1. (1994). A neglected route to realism about quantum mechanics. doi
  2. (2006). A tutorial on learning causal in uence. In doi
  3. (1993). Against experimental metaphysics. In doi
  4. (1990). An exposition of Bell's theorem. In doi
  5. (1998). Aspects of quantum non-locality i: Superluminal signalling, action-at-a-distance, non-separability and holism. doi
  6. (1998). Aspects of quantum non-locality II: Superluminal causation and relativity. doi
  7. (2000). Attempt to resolve the EPR-Bell paradox via Reichenbach's concept of common cause.
  8. (1983). Bell's theorem and backwards-in-time causality. doi
  9. (1989). Bell's theorem: A guide to the implications. In doi
  10. (1935). Can quantum mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? doi
  11. (2000). Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. doi
  12. (2000). Causation, Prediction, and Search. doi
  13. (1984). Controllable and uncontrollable non-locality. doi
  14. (1992). David Lewis meets John Bell. doi
  15. (1985). Einstein on locality and separability. Studies in History and doi
  16. (1974). Experimental consequences of objective local theories. Physical Review D doi
  17. (1982). Experimental test of Bell's inequalities using time-varying analyzers. doi
  18. (2007). Formalizing the separability condition in bell's theorem. doi
  19. (1991). Holism and nonseparability. doi
  20. (1971). Introduction to the hidden-variable question. In B. d'Espagnat (Ed.), Foundations of quantum mechanics: doi
  21. (2009). Local causality and completeness: Bell vs. jarrett. doi
  22. (2005). Minimal assumption derivation of a Bell-type inequality.
  23. (2010). Non-local setting and outcome information for violation of Bell's inequality. doi
  24. (1989). Nonfactorizability, stochastic causality, and passion-at-a distance. In
  25. (1994). Nonseparable processes and causal explanation. doi
  26. (1970). On hidden variables and quantum mechanical probabilities. doi
  27. (1964). On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. doi
  28. (1984). On the physical signifance of the locality conditions in the Bell arguments. doi
  29. (2009). On the separability of physical systems. In doi
  30. (2011). Quantum non-locality and relativity : metaphysical intimations of modern physics. doi
  31. (1951). Quantum Theory. Englewood Clis:
  32. (1986). Relational holism and quantum mechanics.
  33. (1986). Relativity and quantum mechanics|con ict or peaceful coexistence? doi
  34. (1989). Relativity, relational holism and the Bell inequalities. In
  35. (1994). Space-like connections.
  36. (1989). The charybdis of realism: Epistemological implications of Bell's inequality. In doi
  37. (1975). The theory of local beables. doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.