Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 60 references

Three ways to find comfort with the Bell proof and the results of the Bell experiments

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-05-14 · grok-4.3

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

Pith's one-line read Bell experiment results can be accommodated without counterfactual definiteness or conspiratorial setting dependence.

desk verdict Three authors each sketch a personal way to drop both counterfactual definiteness and conspiracy while keeping the Bell data, with Jongejan adding a dimension-dependent geometric model. read the letter →

arxiv 2605.13154 v1 pith:5AX2OZF6 submitted 2026-05-13 quant-ph math.STstat.TH

Richard D Gill , Inge S. Helland , Bart Jongejan This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phmath.STstat.TH
keywords Bell'stheoremCHSHinequalitycounterfactualdefinitenessloophole-freeBelltestshiddenvariablemodelsquantumfoundationscausalinferenceaccessiblevariables
checked against alexander_duality_circle_linkingabsolute_floor_iff_bare_distinguishability
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 explores three distinct ways to reconcile the observed violations of Bell inequalities in recent loophole-free experiments with the rejection of two key classical assumptions: counterfactual definiteness and conspiratorial correlations between measurement settings and hidden states. Using causal graphs to formalize the classical part of Bell's theorem, the authors summarize the experimental confirmations and then present their individual reconstructions. Gill accepts non-local irreducible quantum randomness, viewing the locality-realism dichotomy as false. Helland builds the quantum formalism from a theory of accessible variables, concluding that observers face inherent limitations. Jongejan develops a geometric hidden-variable model where the CHSH violation strength depends on the dimension of space. These approaches matter because they provide coherent alternatives that fit the data without invoking conspiracy or abandoning statistical independence.

What carries the argument

Rejection of counterfactual definiteness paired with either accessible variables theory, geometric dimension dependence, or acceptance of non-local randomness to explain the CHSH violation.

What would settle it

Discovery of a remaining loophole in the experiments that allows a local realistic theory with conspiracy, or a quantum prediction that none of the three reconstructions can match.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Bell's theorem shows that no local realistic theory without conspiracy can match quantum predictions, and experiments confirm the violation. The authors each propose a coherent worldview that drops counterfactual definiteness and conspiratorial independence violation: one by accepting irreducible non-local randomness, one by limiting observers via accessible variables, and one by dimension-dependent geometric hidden variables that achieve Tsirelson's bound in three dimensions.

Load-bearing premise

The recent loophole-free Bell experiments have closed all relevant loopholes and the proposed reconstructions can be made consistent with quantum predictions.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents three personal reconstructions by Gill, Helland, and Jongejan for reconciling Bell's theorem with the results of loophole-free experiments, all rejecting both counterfactual definiteness and conspiratorial violation of statistical independence. After a joint causal-graph exposition of the classical assumptions, a summary of the experimental results, and a literature survey, each author outlines their view: Gill via irreducible non-local randomness, Helland via a theory of accessible variables that reconstructs the Hilbert-space formalism, and Jongejan via a geometric hidden-variable model in which the CHSH violation depends on the dimension of space (with Tsirelson's bound at three dimensions).

Significance. If the reconstructions can be shown to reproduce the full set of quantum predictions without additional constraints, the paper would supply concrete examples of coherent worldviews that accommodate the experimental data while dropping the usual assumptions, thereby clarifying options in the foundations debate. The joint causal-graph and experimental sections are standard and accurate; the individual sections remain at a conceptual level.

major comments (3)
  1. [Jongejan's section] Jongejan's geometric construction: the statement that Tsirelson's bound corresponds to three dimensions requires an explicit derivation showing that the model reproduces all two-qubit marginals, the full set of quantum correlations, and higher-order inequalities without imposing extra empirical restrictions on the accessible variables or the embedding.
  2. [Helland's section] Helland's accessible-variables derivation: the reconstruction of the Hilbert-space formalism must demonstrate that the observer limitation does not introduce effective setting dependence or restrict the allowed observables in a manner that would violate the no-conspiracy assumption while still matching all quantum predictions.
  3. [Gill's section] Gill's account of irreducible non-local randomness: the view needs to be shown to remain consistent with the joint causal-graph framework without reintroducing locality or realism issues that would undermine the explicit rejection of counterfactual definiteness.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Literature survey] The literature survey would benefit from explicit citations to quantitative comparisons of the three reconstructions with standard quantum predictions beyond CHSH.
  2. [Joint exposition] Notation for the causal graphs and accessible variables could be unified across the joint and individual sections for clarity.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive report. The comments correctly note that the individual sections are presented at a conceptual level. We address each major comment below, clarifying the intended scope of the paper while agreeing to add explicit statements about limitations and references to fuller derivations where they exist in the authors' prior work.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Jongejan's section] Jongejan's geometric construction: the statement that Tsirelson's bound corresponds to three dimensions requires an explicit derivation showing that the model reproduces all two-qubit marginals, the full set of quantum correlations, and higher-order inequalities without imposing extra empirical restrictions on the accessible variables or the embedding.

    Authors: The Jongejan section offers a geometric hidden-variable proposal in which CHSH violation strength is tied to the dimension of the embedding space, with Tsirelson's bound emerging at three dimensions. This is presented as an illustrative construction rather than a complete proof that all quantum marginals and higher-order inequalities are reproduced without further restrictions. We agree that an explicit derivation would be valuable and will revise the text to state clearly that the section outlines the geometric idea and refers to separate ongoing work for the full verification against the complete set of two-qubit predictions. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Helland's section] Helland's accessible-variables derivation: the reconstruction of the Hilbert-space formalism must demonstrate that the observer limitation does not introduce effective setting dependence or restrict the allowed observables in a manner that would violate the no-conspiracy assumption while still matching all quantum predictions.

    Authors: Helland's reconstruction starts from a theory of accessible variables and derives the Hilbert-space formalism together with a specific observer limitation. The limitation is formulated to be independent of the choice of measurement settings and is therefore compatible with the no-conspiracy assumption used in the joint causal-graph section. The section summarizes the main steps; the full technical development, including verification that all quantum predictions are recovered without additional empirical constraints, appears in Helland's earlier papers. We will add a short clarifying paragraph that points to those references and reiterates the independence from setting choice. revision: partial

  3. Referee: [Gill's section] Gill's account of irreducible non-local randomness: the view needs to be shown to remain consistent with the joint causal-graph framework without reintroducing locality or realism issues that would undermine the explicit rejection of counterfactual definiteness.

    Authors: Gill's contribution accepts irreducible non-local randomness while rejecting both counterfactual definiteness and conspiratorial dependence, exactly as required by the joint causal-graph exposition earlier in the manuscript. The causal-graph framework already encodes the absence of local causality and the rejection of counterfactual definiteness; the non-local randomness is introduced as the remaining degree of freedom that is consistent with those graphs. We will revise the section to include an explicit cross-reference to the causal-graph diagrams, making the compatibility more transparent without altering the underlying position. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; arguments rest on standard QM predictions and causal modeling

full rationale

The paper is expository and philosophical rather than predictive. It begins from the established CHSH violation in loophole-free experiments and Pearl-style causal graphs, then presents three independent reconstructions (Gill on non-local randomness, Helland on accessible variables yielding Hilbert space, Jongejan on dimension-dependent geometry). No step fits a parameter to a subset of data and renames the fit as a prediction, nor does any central claim reduce by definition or self-citation chain to its own inputs. Self-references to prior technical work serve only as background; the rejection of counterfactual definiteness and conspiratorial dependence follows directly from the experimental facts and the authors' stated metaphysical choices without circular closure.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 2 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper rests on standard quantum mechanics, Pearl-style causal graphs, and the reported experimental outcomes without introducing new free parameters or postulated entities.

assumptions (2)
  • domain assumption Quantum mechanics makes correct predictions for Bell experiments
    Invoked throughout the joint summary of experiments and theorem.
  • standard math Causal graphs correctly represent locality and statistical independence
    Used in the classical half of the exposition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Three ways to find comfort with the Bell proof and the results of the Bell experiments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5AX2OZF6

@misc{pith2026260513154,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Three ways to find comfort with the Bell proof and the results of the Bell experiments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5AX2OZF6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2605.13154}
}
read the original abstract

Bell's theorem states that no description of a Bell experiment can be simultaneously local, realistic in the sense of counterfactual definiteness, and free of conspiracy between settings and hidden state. The recent generation of experiments has confirmed the predicted violation of the CHSH inequality, so one of the assumptions must be abandoned. Which one, and how one reconstructs a coherent worldview after doing so, is a question on which many authors disagree. This paper is written by three such authors. All three reject both counterfactual definiteness and conspiratorial violation of statistical independence of setting choices and state. After a joint exposition of the classical half of Bell's theorem in the language of Pearl-style causal graphs, a joint summary of the loophole-free experiments, and a joint survey of the recent literature, each author states where they have presently arrived. Gill accepts irreducible and non-local quantum randomness and finds the choice between locality and realism a false dichotomy. In his later works, Bell derives counterfactual definiteness from classical local causality, and that is what has to go. The metaphysical concepts "realism", "locality", "causality" need to be reconsidered. Helland reconstructs the Hilbert-space formalism from a theory of accessible variables, and from this theory he concludes that every observer must be limited in a specific sense. Jongejan proposes a geometric hidden-variable construction in which the degree of violation of the CHSH inequality depends on the number of dimensions of space, Tsirelson's bound corresponding to three dimensions. The authors conclude with a discussion.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.13154 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Spatio-temporal disposition of one trial of a Bell experiment. Distance (left to right) is so large [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Graphical model of one trial of a Bell experiment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The essential hardware for Carol’s experiment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Distribution of Eab(XY) for |K × L | = 30 × 30 settings. The distribution of Ea10b(XY) is in red. The distribution of Eab15 (XY) is in blue. The expectation value Ea10b15 (XY) is in black and its position and height are marked with black triangles. All other 841 expect…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Cumulative distribution functions nH (γ) for several values of n. 2H (γ) = 1−cos(γ) (40) 3H (γ) = 2 π (γ −sin(γ) cos(γ)) (41) 4H (γ) = 1−cos(γ)− 1 2 sin2 (γ) cos(γ) (42) Let us now associate four nodes labelled ap,bq,ar ,bs of the bipartite graph with four points on th…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Alice’s apparatus, cover over the fluid level gauge removed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The values of λA and λB for the first hundred trials in a run of Carol’s experiment that has been simulated on a computer, for key choices (a10,b15). The horizontal and vertical green lines represent Alice’s and Bob’s green fluid columns observed during a single trial.…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Observations by Alice and Bob as explained by a shared hidden parameter. A 4-loop has a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

  • Foundation/AlexanderDuality.lean alexander_duality_circle_linking echoes
    ?
    echoes

    ECHOES: this paper passage has the same mathematical shape or conceptual pattern as the Recognition theorem, but is not a direct formal dependency.

    Jongejan proposes a geometric hidden-variable construction in which the degree of violation of the CHSH inequality depends on the number of dimensions of space, Tsirelson’s bound corresponding to three dimensions.

  • Foundation/AbsoluteFloorClosure.lean absolute_floor_iff_bare_distinguishability echoes
    ?
    echoes

    ECHOES: this paper passage has the same mathematical shape or conceptual pattern as the Recognition theorem, but is not a direct formal dependency.

    Helland reconstructs the Hilbert-space formalism from a theory of accessible variables... every observer must be limited in a specific sense... impossible to consider all the variables X1, X2, Y1 and Y2 at the same time

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The violation of B ell inequalities in the macroworld

    Diederik Aerts, Sven Aerts, Jan Broekaert, and Liane Gabora. The violation of B ell inequalities in the macroworld. Foundations of Physics, 30 0 (9): 0 1387--1414, Sep 2000. ISSN 1572-9516. doi:10.1023/A:1026449716544

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1026449716544

  2. [2]

    Towards a quantum evolutionary scheme: V iolating B ell's inequalities in language

    Diederik Aerts, Marek Czachor, and Bart D'Hooghe. Towards a quantum evolutionary scheme: V iolating B ell's inequalities in language. In Nathalie Gontier, Jean Paul Van Bendegem, and Diederik Aerts, editors, Evolutionary Epistemology, Language and Culture: A Non-Adaptationist, Systems Theoretical Approach, pages 453--478. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, ...

    work page doi:10.1007/1-4020-3395-8_20 2006

  3. [3]

    Z ukowski

    Sven Aerts, Paul Kwiat, Jan- ke Larsson, and Marek \. Z ukowski. Two-photon F ranson-type experiments and local realism. Phys. Rev. Lett., 83: 0 2872--2875, Oct 1999. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.83.2872

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.83.2872 1999

  4. [4]

    Experimental test of bell’s inequalities using time-varying analyzers,

    Alain Aspect, Jean Dalibard, and G\'erard Roger. Experimental test of B ell's inequalities using time-varying analyzers. Phys. Rev. Lett., 49: 0 1804--1807, Dec 1982 a . doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.1804

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.49.1804 1982

  5. [5]

    Experimental realization of einstein-podolsky-rosen-bohm gedanken- experiment: A new violation of bell’s inequalities

    Alain Aspect, Philippe Grangier, and G\'erard Roger. Experimental R ealization of E instein- P odolsky- R osen- B ohm G edankenexperiment: A N ew V iolation of B ell's I nequalities. Phys. Rev. Lett., 49: 0 91--94, Jul 1982 b . doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.91

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.49.91 1982

  6. [6]

    Barr, Marco Fabbrichesi, Roberto Floreanini, Emidio Gabrielli, and Luca Marzola

    Alan J. Barr, Marco Fabbrichesi, Roberto Floreanini, Emidio Gabrielli, and Luca Marzola. Quantum entanglement and B ell inequality violation at colliders. Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 139: 0 104--134, 2024. ISSN 0146-6410. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2024.104134. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146641024000383

    work page doi:10.1016/j.ppnp.2024.104134 2024

  7. [7]

    V. P. Belavkin. Nondemolition principle of quantum measurement theory. Foundations of Physics, 24 0 (5): 0 685--714, May 1994. ISSN 1572-9516. doi:10.1007/BF02054669. URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02054669

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02054669 1994

  8. [8]

    J. S. Bell. On the E instein P odolsky R osen paradox. Physics Physique Fizika, 1: 0 195--200, Nov 1964. doi:10.1103/PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195

    work page doi:10.1103/physicsphysiquefizika.1.195 1964

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    J. S. Bell. E instein- P odolsky- R osen experiments. Epistemological Lett., 9: 0 11--24, 1976. URL https://www.informationphilosopher.com/solutions/scientists/bell/EPR_Experiments.pdf

    1976

  2. [10]

    J. S. Bell. La nouvelle cuisine. In John Stewart Bell, editor, Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechanics: collected papers on quantum philosophy, pages 232--248. Cambridge University Press, 2004 a . doi:10.1017/CBO9780511815676.026. URL https://cqi.inf.usi.ch/qic/Bell1990.pdf

    2004 doi

  3. [11]

    J. S. Bell. Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2 edition, 2004 b

    2004

  4. [12]

    Quantum theory

    David Bohm. Quantum theory. Journal of the Franklin Institute, 252 0 (2): 0 207, 1951. ISSN 0016-0032. doi:doi.org/10.1016/0016-0032(51)90963-5. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0016003251909635

    1951 doi

  5. [13]

    Bell nonlocality

    Nicolas Brunner, Daniel Cavalcanti, Stefano Pironio, Valerio Scarani, and Stephanie Wehner. Bell nonlocality. Rev. Mod. Phys., 86: 0 419--478, Apr 2014. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.86.419

    2014 doi

  6. [14]

    Busemeyer and Peter D

    Jerome R. Busemeyer and Peter D. Bruza. Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 8 2012. ISBN 9780511997716. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511997716

    2012 doi

  7. [15]

    Proposed B ell experiment with genuine energy-time entanglement

    Ad\'an Cabello, Alessandro Rossi, Giuseppe Vallone, Francesco De Martini, and Paolo Mataloni. Proposed B ell experiment with genuine energy-time entanglement. Phys. Rev. Lett., 102: 0 040401, Jan 2009. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.040401

    2009 doi

  8. [16]

    John F. Clauser. Bell's theorem, B ell inequalities, and the ``probability normalization loophole''. In Reinhold Bertlmann and Anton Zeilinger, editors, Quantum [Un]Speakables II: Half a Century of Bell's Theorem, pages 451--484. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 11 201...

    2017 doi

  9. [17]

    Clauser and Michael A

    John F. Clauser and Michael A. Horne. Experimental consequences of objective local theories. Phys. Rev. D, 10: 0 526--535, Jul 1974. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.10.526

    1974 doi

  10. [18]

    Clauser, Michael A

    John F. Clauser, Michael A. Horne, Abner Shimony, and Richard A. Holt. Proposed E xperiment to T est L ocal H idden- V ariable T heories. Phys. Rev. Lett., 23: 0 880--884, Oct 1969. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.23.880

    1969 doi

  11. [19]

    J. W. Dunne. An Experiment with Time. A . & C . B lack, 1 edition, 1927. ISBN 1-57174-234-4. URL https://archive.org/details/experimentwithti0000unse_n2w4/page/n5/mode/2up

    1927

  12. [20]

    Eberhard

    Philippe H. Eberhard. Background level and counter efficiencies required for a loophole-free E instein- P odolsky- R osen experiment. Phys. Rev. A, 47: 0 R747--R750, Feb 1993. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.47.R747

    1993 doi

  13. [21]

    Einstein, B

    A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen. Can Q uantum- M echanical D escription of P hysical R eality B e C onsidered C omplete? Phys. Rev., 47: 0 777--780, May 1935. doi:10.1103/PhysRev.47.777

    1935 doi

  14. [22]

    Hidden variables, joint probability, and the bell inequalities

    Arthur Fine. Hidden variables, joint probability, and the bell inequalities. Phys. Rev. Lett., 48: 0 291--295, Feb 1982. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.48.291

    1982 doi

  15. [23]

    J. D. Franson. B ell inequality for position and time. Phys. Rev. Lett., 62: 0 2205--2208, May 1989. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.62.2205

    1989 doi

  16. [24]

    Beyond B ell's theorem: correlation scenarios

    Tobias Fritz. Beyond B ell's theorem: correlation scenarios. New Journal of Physics, 14 0 (10): 0 103001, oct 2012. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/14/10/103001

    2012 doi

  17. [25]

    Beyond B ell's theorem ii: Scenarios with arbitrary causal structure

    Tobias Fritz. Beyond B ell's theorem ii: Scenarios with arbitrary causal structure. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 341 0 (2): 0 391--434, Jan 2016. ISSN 1432-0916. doi:10.1007/s00220-015-2495-5

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    Richard D. Gill. Accardi contra B ell (cum mundi): T he I mpossible C oupling, 2002. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0110137

    2002 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Richard D. Gill. Statistics, causality and bell’s theorem. Statistical Science, 29 0 (4), November 2014. ISSN 0883-4237. doi:10.1214/14-sts490

    2014 doi

  20. [28]

    Richard D. Gill. Gull’s theorem revisited. Entropy, 24 0 (5): 0 679, May 2022 a . ISSN 1099-4300. doi:10.3390/e24050679

    2022 doi

  21. [29]

    Richard D. Gill. Schr \"o dinger’s C at meets O ccam’s R azor. Entropy, 24 0 (11), 2022 b . ISSN 1099-4300. doi:10.3390/e24111586. URL https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/24/11/1586

    2022 doi

  22. [30]

    Richard D. Gill. Bell's theorem is an exercise in the statistical theory of causality, 2023 a . URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.05569

    2023

  23. [31]

    Richard D. Gill. Optimal statistical analyses of B ell experiments, 2023 b . URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.00702

    2023

  24. [32]

    Gill and Justo Pastor Lambare

    Richard D. Gill and Justo Pastor Lambare. Kupczynski's contextual locally causal probabilistic models are constrained by bell's theorem, 2023. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.09930

    2023

  25. [33]

    Marissa Giustina, Marijn A. M. Versteegh, S \"o ren Wengerowsky, Johannes Handsteiner, Armin Hochrainer, Kevin Phelan, Fabian Steinlechner, Johannes Kofler, Jan- ke Larsson, Carlos Abell \'a n, Waldimar Amaya, Valerio Pruneri, Morgan W. Mitchell, J \"o rn Beyer, Thomas Gerrits...

    2015 doi

  26. [34]

    Greenberger, Michael A

    Daniel M. Greenberger, Michael A. Horne, and Anton Zeilinger. Going beyond bell's theorem. In Menas Kafatos, editor, Bell's Theorem, Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe, pages 69--72. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1989. ISBN 978-94-017-0849-4. doi:10.1007/978-94-...

    1989 doi

  27. [35]

    I. S. Helland. Epistemic Processes. A Basis for Statistics and Quantum Theory. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2 edition, 2021. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-81923-1

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    I. S. Helland. The B ell experiment and the limitations of actors. Foundations of Physics, 52 0 (55): 0 1--22, 2022 a . doi:10.1007/s10701-022-00572-y

    2022 doi

  29. [37]

    I. S. Helland. On constructing quantum theory from two related maximal conceptual variables. International Journal of Theoretical Physics, 61: 0 69--80, 2022 b . doi:10.1007/s10773-022-05047-4. Correction (2023). 62, 51

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    I. S. Helland. An explanation of the B ell experiment. Journal of Modern and Applied Physics, 6 0 (2): 0 1--5, 2023. URL https://www.pulsus.com/scholarly-articles/on-the-bell-experiment-and-quantum--foundation.pdf

    2023

  31. [39]

    I. S. Helland. An alternative foundation of quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics, 54 0 (3): 0 1--45, 2024 a . doi:10.1007/s10701-023-00735-5

    2024 doi

  32. [40]

    I. S. Helland. Some mathematical issues regarding a new approach towards quantum foundation. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 66, 2025. doi:10.1063/5.0251682

    2025 doi

  33. [41]

    Inge S. Helland. On probabilities in quantum mechanics. APL Quantum, 1, 2024 b . doi:10.1063/5.0218982. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.17717

    2024 doi

  34. [42]

    Inge S. Helland. The final version of a recent approach towards quantum foundation, 2026. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.05675

    2026 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Hensen, H

    B. Hensen, H. Bernien, A. E. Dr \'e au, A. Reiserer, N. Kalb, M. S. Blok, J. Ruitenberg, R. F. L. Vermeulen, R. N. Schouten, C. Abell \'a n, W. Amaya, V. Pruneri, M. W. Mitchell, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, D. Elkouss, S. Wehner, T. H. Taminiau, and R. Hanson. Loophole-free B ...

    2015 doi

  36. [44]

    Mitchell

    Johannes Kofler, Marissa Giustina, Jan- ke Larsson, and Morgan W. Mitchell. Requirements for a loophole-free photonic B ell test using imperfect setting generators. Physical Review A, 93 0 (3), March 2016. ISSN 2469-9934. doi:10.1103/physreva.93.032115

    2016 doi

  37. [45]

    Is the moon there if nobody looks: Bell inequalities and physical reality

    Marian Kupczynski. Is the moon there if nobody looks: Bell inequalities and physical reality. Frontiers in Physics, 8: 0 1--13, September 2020. ISSN 2296-424X. doi:10.3389/fphy.2020.00273

    2020 doi

  38. [46]

    Loopholes in B ell inequality tests of local realism

    Jan- ke Larsson. Loopholes in B ell inequality tests of local realism. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 47 0 (42): 0 424003, October 2014. ISSN 1751-8121. doi:10.1088/1751-8113/47/42/424003

    2014 doi

  39. [47]

    What bell did

    Tim Maudlin. What bell did. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 47 0 (42): 0 424010, October 2014. ISSN 1751-8121. doi:10.1088/1751-8113/47/42/424010

    2014 doi

  40. [48]

    N. D. Mermin. Is the moon there when nobody looks? Physics Today, 38: 0 38--47, 1985. URL https://www.yorku.ca/koniuk/PHYS5000/mermin85.pdf

    1985

  41. [49]

    David Mermin

    N. David Mermin. Bringing home the atomic world: Quantum mysteries for anybody. American Journal of Physics, 49: 0 940--943, 1981. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:122724592

    1981

  42. [50]

    Superdeterminism without conspiracy, 2024

    Tim Palmer. Superdeterminism without conspiracy, 2024. URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.11262

    2024

  43. [51]

    CAUSALITY: MODELS, REASONING, AND INFERENCE

    Judea Pearl. CAUSALITY: MODELS, REASONING, AND INFERENCE. Cambridge University Press, 2009. URL https://bayes.cs.ucla.edu/BOOK-2K/

    2009

  44. [52]

    Quantum nonlocality as an axiom

    Sandu Popescu and Daniel Rohrlich. Quantum nonlocality as an axiom. Foundations of Physics, 24: 0 379--385, 1994. doi:10.1007/BF02058098

    1994 doi

  45. [53]

    Event-ready B ell test using entangled atoms simultaneously closing detection and locality loopholes

    Wenjamin Rosenfeld, Daniel Burchardt, Robert Garthoff, Kai Redeker, Norbert Ortegel, Markus Rau, and Harald Weinfurter. Event-ready B ell test using entangled atoms simultaneously closing detection and locality loopholes. Physical Review Letters, 119 0 (1), July 2017. ISSN 107...

    2017 doi

  46. [54]

    Schweder and N

    T. Schweder and N. L. Hjort. Confidence, Likelihood, Probability. Statistical Inference with Confidence Distributions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016. ISBN 9780521861601. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139046671

    2016 doi

  47. [55]

    Shalm, Evan Meyer-Scott, Bradley G

    Lynden K. Shalm, Evan Meyer-Scott, Bradley G. Christensen, Peter Bierhorst, Michael A. Wayne, Martin J. Stevens, Thomas Gerrits, Scott Glancy, Deny R. Hamel, Michael S. Allman, Kevin J. Coakley, Shellee D. Dyer, Carson Hodge, Adriana E. Lita, Varun B. Verma, Camilla Lambrocco,...

    2015 doi

  48. [56]

    Susskind and A

    L. Susskind and A. Friedman. Quantum Mechanics. The Theoretical Minimum. Basic Books, New York, 2014. ISBN 978-0465028115

    2014

  49. [57]

    Intuition, introspection and observation in linguistic inquiry

    Klaas Willems. Intuition, introspection and observation in linguistic inquiry. Language Sciences, 34 0 (6): 0 665--681, 2012. ISSN 0388-0001. doi:10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.008. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0388000112000575. Converging data sources in ...

    2012 doi

  50. [58]

    The two bell's theorems of john bell

    H M Wiseman. The two bell's theorems of john bell. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 47 0 (42): 0 424001, October 2014. ISSN 1751-8121. doi:10.1088/1751-8113/47/42/424001

    2014 doi

  51. [59]

    The measurement problem: Decoherence and convivial solipsism

    Herv\'e Zwirn. The measurement problem: Decoherence and convivial solipsism. Foundations of Physics, 46 0 (6): 0 635--667, 2016. doi:10.1007/s10701-016-9999-5

    2016 doi

  52. [60]

    Nonlocality versus modified realism

    Herv\'e Zwirn. Nonlocality versus modified realism. Foundations of Physics, 50 0 (1): 0 1--26, 2020. doi:10.1007/s10701-019-00314-7

    2020 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed May 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.