The quantum theory of the electromagnetic field in the Weyl-Wigner representation as a local realistic model

Emilio Santos

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 29 references

The quantum theory of the electromagnetic field in the Weyl-Wigner representation as a local realistic model

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The quantum vacuum, treated as real random radiation, yields a local model of photon-pair correlations.

desk verdict A candid but flawed continuation of Santos's WW-plus-zero-point-field program; the new Sec 4.4 detector model violates its own probability constraints because it feeds signed intensities into an exponential response, so the large-k limit is an artifact. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10023 v1 pith:SRW4PSAU submitted 2025-06-09 physics.gen-ph

Emilio Santos This is my paper

classification physics.gen-ph

keywords Weyl-Wignerrepresentationzero-pointfieldlocalrealismBellinequalitiesspontaneousparametricdown-conversionphoton-paircorrelationsphotodetectionstochasticelectrodynamics

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the Weyl-Wigner representation of the quantized electromagnetic field, together with the postulate that the vacuum is a real random radiation, gives a local realistic account of experiments with entangled photon pairs. The key step is a physical detection rule, $p(I)=1-\exp(-kI)$, so that at high sensitivity the coincidence-to-single ratio approaches $1$, matching the quantum prediction $P_{AB}\approx P_A\approx P_B$. If true, this removes the need to see a nonlocal influence: the strong correlations come from the zero-point field entering the down-conversion crystal and being balanced at each detector. The paper also claims that Bell's definition of local realism is too narrow for optical experiments, because a detector's response over a time window is a functional, not a single function, so the Clauser-Horne quantity can change sign with window duration.

What carries the argument

The carrying objects are the Weyl-Wigner transform and the vacuum Wigner function $W_0=\prod_j (2/\pi)\exp(-2|a_j|^2)$, which the paper interprets as a real random zero-point field. From this, spontaneous parametric down-conversion is described by classical mode transformations $b_s=a_s+\gamma a_i^*$ and $b_i=a_i+\gamma a_s^*$, so each output beam is the sum of a vacuum mode and a weak conjugate beam produced by the crystal. The detection machinery is the saturated photocount law $p(I)=1-\exp(-kI)$, which respects $0\le p(I)\le 1$, in place of the unphysical linear law $p(I)=KI$. The delicate balancing condition $\langle Y_A+I_s\rangle=0$ and $\langle Y_B+I_i\rangle=0$ is what cancels the zero-point background at each detector so that no rate remains when the pump is off.

What would settle it

Measure the conditional coincidence probability $P_{AB}/P_A$ in an SPDC pair-correlation experiment at fixed detector sensitivity while varying the pump power $|\gamma|^2$: the low-$k$ limit of this model predicts $P_{AB}/P_A\propto |\gamma|^2$, while the standard quantum detection rule predicts it equal to the detector efficiency and independent of pump power. In addition, with the pump off, any detection rate above the asserted zero-point balance would falsify the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the Wigner function of the vacuum, $W_0=\prod_j (2/\pi)\exp(-2|a_j|^2)$, can be read as a real stochastic radiation filling space, and that the Weyl-Wigner transform of the quantized field then behaves like classical Maxwell theory for free evolution and for macroscopic optical setups. Analyzing spontaneous parametric down-conversion in this picture, entanglement becomes a correlation between vacuum modes that cross the crystal and weak conjugate beams created by the pump. With the physically constrained detection probability $p(I)=1-\exp(-kI)$, the model gives $P_A=P_B$ and $P_{AB}/P_A\to 1$ as $k$ grows, reproducing the quantum results for single and coincidence rates. A secondary claim is that Bell's equations idealize detector responses as functions of hidden variables, whereas optical detection is a process over a time window, so the Clauser-Horne expression can depend on window duration; Bell's definition is therefore not general enough to rule out local realistic optical models.

Load-bearing premise

The model's agreement with quantum single rates depends on the exact cancellation of the zero-point background at each detector, $\langle Y_A+I_s\rangle=0$ and $\langle Y_B+I_i\rangle=0$, a condition the paper asserts rather than derives; if the balance is only approximate, the model predicts a spurious background rate when the pump is off and the coincidence-to-single ratio shifts away from the quantum value.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the model is right, the strong signal-idler correlations in SPDC experiments need no nonlocal influence; they follow from the zero-point field plus local saturated detection.
Quantum single and coincidence probabilities for the simplest pair-correlation experiment are reproduced to order $|\gamma|^2$, with the coincidence-to-single ratio approaching $1$ at high detector sensitivity $k$.
Since non-relativistic particle Wigner functions are not generally positive, the realistic interpretation via Weyl-Wigner is specific to the electromagnetic field; it does not extend to electrons or atoms.
The Clauser-Horne inequality cannot be read as a universal refutation of local realism for optics, because detector responses are time-window functionals and the Clauser-Horne quantity can change sign with window length.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Measured at fixed detector sensitivity, the low-$k$ limit of the model implies that the conditional coincidence probability $P_{AB}/P_A$ grows with pump power, whereas the standard quantum detection rule makes it equal to the detector efficiency and independent of pump power; a dedicated pump-power scan could distinguish the two.
If detector responses are genuinely functionals over time windows, published loophole-free Bell-test data should show a systematic drift of the Clauser-Horne quantity with the coincidence-window setting; reanalyzing existing data as a function of window length could test the claim without new experiments.
To turn the model into a complete theory, one would need to derive the zero-point cancellation condition from the crystal boundary conditions rather than assert it; the paper leaves that derivation open.
If a full local realistic model for polarization Bell tests could be built along these lines, it would reopen the loophole question in optics and would imply that the current consensus about a loophole-free refutation of local realism is too hasty.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

I'll be direct: the paper's newest positive claim, the "improved" detection model in Sec 4.4, doesn't work. The author replaces the linear detection rule with p(I)=1-exp(-kI), which is fine if I is nonnegative. But after the cancellation in eq. (42), the intensity entering the detector is I_A = I_s + |γ|² I_i − 1/2 (with Z_A dropped), and the beam distribution W in eq. (52) is a Gaussian over all real I_s, I_i. So I_A is negative on a set of nonzero probability. There, p(I_A) is negative and unbounded below as k grows, and the third term in eq. (55) diverges like exp[k²(1+|γ|²)²/(2α)] for fixed α. The claimed approach to P_A, P_AB → 1 is not a derived prediction; it rests on ignoring the negative-intensity tail. That's a load-bearing flaw for the section.

That said, the paper is not a wild mess. The WW-to-HS correspondence in Secs 3 and 4.3 is worked out consistently to order |γ|², and the author is unusually honest about what he has and hasn't shown: he flags the missing proof in Sec 2.4, the non-physical detection rule in Sec 5.2, and the inconclusiveness of Sec 5.3. The Sec 5.3 argument that Bell response functions should be time-window functionals rather than simple functions is a genuinely interesting thought, even if the illustrative example isn't extended to any real loophole-free experiment.

The other soft spots are proportionate: eq. (42), the cancellation of the zero-point background, is asserted rather than derived, which makes the single-rate agreement fragile; and the Bell-violating model in Sec 5.2 explicitly uses the unphysical linear rule, so it doesn't threaten the standard Bell conclusions. The free parameters (k, α, β) also mean the Sec 4.4 "agreement" is not a sharp prediction.

None of this kills the broader WW-plus-real-ZPF program—the author's claims for it are mostly modest. But the paper's main new model fails on its own terms, and a referee would need to send it back for a fix, not accept it as is. Still, it deserves a serious referee: the program is substantive, the literature engagement is honest, and the Sec 4.4 error is instructive rather than trivial. Someone working in stochastic optics or Bell foundations will want to read it.

Recommendation: send to peer review, but flag Sec 4.4 for a mandatory revision—either restrict the intensity distribution to positive support or redefine the detector response on the full real line so that the probability constraint (51) is satisfied.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper revisits the Weyl-Wigner (WW) representation of the quantized electromagnetic field and proposes that the vacuum is a real random radiation with Wigner distribution given by Eq. (10). It claims that this leads to a local realistic model of photon-pair correlation experiments: with the detector response p(I)=1-exp(-kI) in Eq. (53), the model is said to give P_AB/P_A approaching 1 for large k (Sec. 4.4), reproducing the quantum correlation pattern P_AB ≈ P_A ≈ P_B. A secondary claim is that Bell's definition of local realism (Eqs. (56)-(57)) is not general enough for optical experiments because detector responses are functionals over time windows, so the sign of the Clauser-Horne quantity C in Eq. (58) can depend on window duration (Sec. 5.3). The paper also contains a WW analysis of spontaneous parametric down-conversion correlations (Sec. 3.2.2) that reproduces the standard quantum results.

Significance. If the central model were sound, the paper would make a significant contribution: a concrete local realistic model for a quantum-optics correlation experiment and a substantive challenge to the generality of Bell inequalities. The paper is transparent in distinguishing physical from unphysical detection rules and in acknowledging that earlier models use non-physical response functions. The WW-to-HS correspondence calculations in Sec. 3.2.2 are internally consistent and reproduce the quantum single and coincidence rates, which is a genuine strength. However, the central local model of Sec. 4.4 is invalidated by a sign error in a Gaussian integral and by the application of the detector response to signed intensities, so the claimed agreement with quantum correlations is not established. The exact cancellation condition in Eq. (42) is also asserted without derivation. These are load-bearing difficulties for the paper's main thesis.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 4.4, Eqs. (52)-(55)] The detector response p(I)=1-exp(-kI) is evaluated on the signed intensity I_A = I_s + |\gamma|^2 I_i - 1/2 (after dropping Z_A), which is negative on a set of nonzero probability under the Gaussian W in Eq. (52). On that support p(I) < 0, violating the paper's own physicality constraint Eq. (51). Moreover, the Gaussian integral in the third term of Eq. (55) is computed with the wrong sign: the exact value is exp[-k|\gamma|^2 + k^2(1+|\gamma|^2)^2/(2\alpha)], which diverges as k\to\infty for fixed \alpha. Consequently, the printed probabilities do not remain in [0,1], and the claimed large-k limit P_A,P_AB\to 1, used to reproduce the quantum correlation pattern, is an artifact of the integration error rather than a valid local realistic prediction.
[Sec. 4.3, Eq. (42)] The exact cancellation condition \langle Y_A+I_s\rangle =0 (and similarly for B) is postulated without derivation. Y_A is the vacuum intensity at Alice excluding the incident mode; the condition requires that the mean vacuum background exactly balances the incoming vacuum-mode intensity I_s so that no dark rate remains when \gamma=0. This is an engineered normalization that is not a consequence of Maxwell electrodynamics or of the WW transform. If the balance is only approximate, the model predicts a spurious background rate and the ratio P_AB/P_A shifts away from the quantum value. In addition, the factor-1/2 discrepancy between Eq. (47) and the WW result Eq. (29) is not resolved by the paper's assertion that it derives from a choice of units, because the units were already fixed by Eq. (12).
[Sec. 5.3, Eqs. (56)-(70)] The argument that Bell's definition of local realism is not general enough does not follow from the time-window example. The example shows that the coincidence-to-single ratio increases with window duration, but Bell's inequality holds for the probabilities of detection events within any fixed time window; the dependence of the outcome on the whole trajectory \lambda(t) can be absorbed by redefining the hidden variable and the response functions, which remain in [0,1]. The conclusion that 'a local realistic model violating a Bell inequality might be possible' is therefore not supported by the presented reasoning, and no such model is constructed. This weakens the abstract's claim to give arguments against the generality of Bell's definition.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and throughout] There are numerous typos ('constrast', 'defintion', 'suggets', 'analized', 'essencial', 'strightforward') that should be corrected in a revision.
[Sec. 4.3, Eq. (47)] The factor-1/2 discrepancy between the local model's single rate and the quantum result Eq. (29) deserves a more careful discussion; it does not appear to be a mere choice of units but a consequence of the different detection postulates.
[Sec. 4.4, Eqs. (54)-(55)] The statement that 'Both single and coincidence detection probabilities remain in the interval [0,1] for all values of k' should be verified numerically, since the corrected Gaussian integral for the third term of Eq. (55) grows without bound.
[References] Some references are self-citations ([8]-[10], [19], [26]); please ensure all citations are complete and the reliance on self-published work is minimized.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model's correlations follow from explicitly stated postulates; the Sec 4.4 detection rule has a support/sign error but that is a validity flaw, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained at the level where the paper makes its load-bearing moves. Section 2.4 derives the WW vacuum distribution (10), the Moyal-evolution statement (15), and the identity (16) directly from the Weyl transform, with prior citations only as background. The local models in Sections 4.3 and 4.4 introduce their postulates explicitly: the cancellation condition (42) is stated as an assumption ('except for the condition that the averages fulfil ...'), the beam intensity distribution (32) is introduced as 'I propose', and the detection response (53) is chosen with a free parameter k. The resulting integrals (47)-(49) and (54)-(55) are logical consequences of these postulates, not re-statements of the quantum rates; no experimental data are fitted anywhere. The paper's self-citations ([8]-[10], [18], [26]) are contextual and do not supply a uniqueness theorem or a load-bearing prior result. Two non-circular weaknesses should nevertheless be flagged. First, eq (42) is an engineered normalization that cancels the zero-point background, and it is asserted rather than derived from Maxwell theory or the WW transform; it is an input to the model, but the paper labels it as an assumption. Second, the assertion that p(I)=1-exp(-kI) 'never' violates the constraints (51) is false on the support of W in eq (52), because I_s and I_i range over all reals and the effective intensity I_A=I_s+|gamma|^2 I_i-1/2 can be negative, making p(I)<0. That is a sign/support error in the Sec 4.4 model, not a circularity in the derivation chain. The central claim therefore has independent content and is not equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on four load-bearing postulates beyond standard WW machinery: (1) Fock states are mathematical fictions and physical states must have positive Wigner functions; (2) the vacuum is a real random field with the specific distribution (10); (3) the zero-point background at each detector cancels the vacuum-mode intensity exactly (eq. 42); (4) detector response is a nonlinear saturation function of integrated intensity with free parameters. The free parameters k, alpha, beta carry much of the model's agreement with experiment.

free parameters (5)

k = unspecified; k > 0, agreement reached in the limit of large k
Detector saturation parameter in p(I) = 1 - exp(-kI) (eq. 53). The model matches the quantum correlation pattern P_AB approx P_A only asymptotically; the value is not set by any independent measurement (Sec 4.4).
alpha = unspecified; assumed large (Sec 4.4)
Width of the Gaussian beam-intensity distribution W_beam (eq. 32), said to depend on the number of plane waves determined by the apertures; no value or measurement is given.
beta = unspecified
Width of the Gaussian distribution for the zero-point fluctuation variables Z_A and Z_B (eq. 45); a free shape parameter of the engineered vacuum background.
gamma = |gamma| << 1, |gamma|^2 << 1 (small)
Amplitude gain of the linearized SPDC map (eq. 19). Standard experimental parameter (pump strength, crystal nonlinearity), not fitted to data, but it sets the scale of the predicted detection rates.
eta (detection efficiency) = threshold around 0.828 for Bell violation in the Sec 5.2 model
Standard experimental detection efficiency used in eq. (69) to compute the Bell-violation threshold; an input parameter, not fitted to data.

assumptions (6)

standard math The Weyl-Wigner transform (eq. 7) is invertible and maps operator products to symmetrized phase-space functions (eq. 8).
Invoked throughout Secs 2.3-3.2 to translate HS detection rules into WW form; standard Weyl calculus from refs 21-24.
domain assumption For quadratic Hamiltonians the Moyal evolution reduces to classical Maxwell evolution, so the field plus macroscopic bodies evolves causally and classically (Sec 2.4, eq. 15).
Bridges QED to classical electrodynamics; standard for quadratic H, but the extension to interacting macroscopic bodies is a modeling assumption (Sec 4.1).
ad hoc to paper Fock states are mathematical concepts devoid of physical reality; physical states in WW must be positive probability distributions (Abstract; Sec 2.4).
The enabling interpretational premise of the paper; it is what makes the WW reading 'realistic'. The author concedes no complete proof exists that positive-WW states suffice for all experiments (Sec 2.4).
ad hoc to paper The vacuum is a real random radiation filling space, with Wigner distribution W0 (eq. 10) and mean energy h-bar*omega_j/2 per mode (eq. 11).
The paper's central ontological postulate, inherited from the stochastic-electrodynamics program (refs 8, 9, 19, 26); standard QED treats these fluctuations without the real-field ontology.
ad hoc to paper The ZPF contributions at the detectors cancel the incoming vacuum-mode intensities exactly (eq. 42).
Asserted in Sec 4.3 to remove the gamma = 0 detection background; without it the model predicts spurious single rates. This is the weakest load-bearing premise.
domain assumption Beam intensities are Gaussian-distributed with mean 1/2 and width alpha (eq. 32), and detector response is a function of integrated intensity only, p(I) = 1 - exp(-kI) (eq. 53).
Central-limit reasoning for many-mode beams plus a saturation model for photocounting; plausible but chosen for tractability and to match the correlation pattern.

invented entities (1)

The real vacuum (zero-point) field
purpose: A random radiation filling all of space that seeds spontaneous parametric down-conversion, supplies the shared randomness correlating signal and idler beams, and, through eq. (42), cancels the gamma = 0 background so that weak signals are detectable (Secs 2.4, 4.2, 4.3).
The paper provides no falsifiable handle on the reality of this field beyond the models it constructs, and all reproduced predictions are already-known quantum predictions. Vacuum fluctuations have external empirical support (Casimir effect, Lamb shift, spontaneous emission), but the specific ontology of a real classical-like stochastic field filling space is not independently tested in this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The quantum theory of the electromagnetic field in the Weyl-Wigner representation as a local realistic model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SRW4PSAU

@misc{pith2026250610023,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The quantum theory of the electromagnetic field in the Weyl-Wigner representation as a local realistic model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SRW4PSAU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10023}
}

read the original abstract

I revisit the Wigner (or Weyl-Wigner, WW) representation of the quantum electromagnetic field. I show that, assuming that Fock states are just mathematical concepts devoid of physical reality, WW suggests a realistic interpretation which turns out to be (classical) Maxwell theory with the assumption that there is a random radiation filling space, the vacuum field. I elucidate why, in sharp constrast, non-relativistic quantum mechanics of particles does not admit a realistic interpretation via WW. I interpret experiments involving entangled light beams within WW, in particular optical tests of Bell inequalities. I show that WW provides clues in order to construct local model for those experiments. I give arguments why Bell defintion of local realism is not general enough.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[1]

J. S. Bell: On the Einstein, Podolski, Rosen paradox. Physics 1, 195-200 (1964)

work page 1964
[2]

J. S. Bell: Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics, Cambridge University, 1987. This book reproduces most of Bell articles on founda- tions

work page 1987
[3]

L. K. Shalm, et al. : Strong Loophole-Free Test of Local Realism”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250402 (2015)

work page 2015
[4]

Giustina, et al.: Significant-Loophole-Free Test of Bell’s Theorem with Entangled Photons”

M. Giustina, et al.: Significant-Loophole-Free Test of Bell’s Theorem with Entangled Photons”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250401 (2015)

work page 2015
[5]

Nature 557 (7704), 212216 (2018)

The BIG Bell Test Collaboration; Challenging local realism with human choices. Nature 557 (7704), 212216 (2018)

work page 2018
[6]

Wiseman: Death by experiment for local realism

H. Wiseman: Death by experiment for local realism. Nature 526, 687 (2015)

work page 2015
[7]

Aspect: Closing the door on Einstein and Bohr’s quantum debate

A. Aspect: Closing the door on Einstein and Bohr’s quantum debate. Physics 8, 123 (2015)

work page 2015
[8]

Santos: Local realistic interpretation of entangled photon pairs in the Weyl-Wigner formalism

E. Santos: Local realistic interpretation of entangled photon pairs in the Weyl-Wigner formalism. Front. Phys. 8, 191 (2020)

work page 2020

Show all 29 references

[9]

Santos: Local model of entangled photon experiments compatible with quantum predictions based on the reality of the vacuum fields

E. Santos: Local model of entangled photon experiments compatible with quantum predictions based on the reality of the vacuum fields. Found. Phys. 50, 1587-1607 (2020). 41

2020
[10]

Santos: Realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics

E. Santos: Realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics . Cambridge Scholars Publishing. 2022

2022
[11]

K. R. Popper: Conjectures and refutations. The growth of Scientific discvery. Basic books. New York, 1972

1972
[12]

Bunge: Foundations of physics

M. Bunge: Foundations of physics . Springer-Verlag. 2012

2012
[13]

Pais: Subtle is the Lord

A. Pais: Subtle is the Lord... The science and life of Albert Einstein. Oxford U. P. 1982

1982
[14]

Freire, editor: The Oxford handbook of The history of quantum in- terpretations

O. Freire, editor: The Oxford handbook of The history of quantum in- terpretations. Oxford U.P. 2022

2022
[15]

Einstein, B

A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, N. Rosen: Can quantum-mechanical descrip- tion of physical reality be considered complete?. Phys. Rev. 47, 777-780 (1935)

1935
[16]

Grangier, G

P. Grangier, G. Roger, A. Aspect: Experimental evidence for a photon anticorrelation effect on a beam splitter: a new light on single-photon interference. Europhys. Lett. 1, 173 (1986)

1986
[17]

A. I. Lvovsky, H. Hansen, T. Aichele, O. Benson, J. Mlynek and S. Schiller: Quantum state reconstruction of the single-photon Fock state. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 050402 (2001)

2001
[18]

T. W. Marshall, E. Santos: Stochastic optics: a reaffirmation of the wave nature of light. Found. Phys. 18, 185-223 (1988)

1988
[19]

Santos: Stochastic interpretation of quantum mechanics assuming that vacuum fields are real

E. Santos: Stochastic interpretation of quantum mechanics assuming that vacuum fields are real. Foundations 1, 1-34 (2022)

2022
[20]

Rovelli: Helgoland

C. Rovelli: Helgoland. Rowohlt Verlag GmbH. 2021

2021
[21]

H. Weyl, Z. Phys. 46, 1 (1927). H. Weyl. The Theory of Groups and Quantum Mechanics. Dover, New York, 1931. (German original, 1928)

1927
[22]

E. P. Wigner. On the quantum correction for thermodynamic equilib- rium. Phys. Rev. 40, 749 (1932)

1932
[23]

Hillery, R

M. Hillery, R. F. O´Connell, M. O. Scully, E. P. Wigner: Distribution functions in physics. Fundamentals. Phys. Rep. 106, 121-168 (1984). 42

1984
[24]

C. K. Zachos, D. B. Fairlie, T. L. Curtright. Quantum Mechanics in Phase Space. World Scientic, Singapore, 2005

2005
[25]

F. Soto, P. Claverie: Some properties of the smoothed Wigner function. J. Math. Phys. 24, 97 (1983)

1983
[26]

Santos: On the analogy between stochastic electrodynamics and non- relativistic quantum electrodynamics

E. Santos: On the analogy between stochastic electrodynamics and non- relativistic quantum electrodynamics. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 1302 (2020)

2020
[27]

Dechoum, T

K. Dechoum, T. W. Marshall, E. Santos: Parametric up and dawn con- version in the Wigner representation of quantum optics. J. Mod. Optics 47, 1273-1287 (2000)

2000
[28]

J.. F. Clauser and M. A. Horne: Experimental consequences of objective local theories. Phys. Rev. D 10, 526 (1974)

1974
[29]

J. S. Bell: The theory of local beables. TH-2053-CERN (1975). Repro- duced in [2] 43

1975

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

J. S. Bell: On the Einstein, Podolski, Rosen paradox. Physics 1, 195-200 (1964)

work page 1964

[2] [2]

J. S. Bell: Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics, Cambridge University, 1987. This book reproduces most of Bell articles on founda- tions

work page 1987

[3] [3]

L. K. Shalm, et al. : Strong Loophole-Free Test of Local Realism”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250402 (2015)

work page 2015

[4] [4]

Giustina, et al.: Significant-Loophole-Free Test of Bell’s Theorem with Entangled Photons”

M. Giustina, et al.: Significant-Loophole-Free Test of Bell’s Theorem with Entangled Photons”. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250401 (2015)

work page 2015

[5] [5]

Nature 557 (7704), 212216 (2018)

The BIG Bell Test Collaboration; Challenging local realism with human choices. Nature 557 (7704), 212216 (2018)

work page 2018

[6] [6]

Wiseman: Death by experiment for local realism

H. Wiseman: Death by experiment for local realism. Nature 526, 687 (2015)

work page 2015

[7] [7]

Aspect: Closing the door on Einstein and Bohr’s quantum debate

A. Aspect: Closing the door on Einstein and Bohr’s quantum debate. Physics 8, 123 (2015)

work page 2015

[8] [8]

Santos: Local realistic interpretation of entangled photon pairs in the Weyl-Wigner formalism

E. Santos: Local realistic interpretation of entangled photon pairs in the Weyl-Wigner formalism. Front. Phys. 8, 191 (2020)

work page 2020