Bell's Theorem Begs the Question

Basic Information

• Paper ID: 2302.09519
• Title: Bell's Theorem Begs the Question
• Author: Joy Christian (Einstein Centre for Local-Realistic Physics, Oxford)
• Classification: physics.gen-ph
• Publication Date: February 2023 (Latest version November 2025)
• Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.09519

Abstract

This paper argues that Bell's theorem is based on circular reasoning and represents a fundamentally flawed argument. The author contends that Bell's theorem unreasonably assumes the additivity of expectation values of non-commuting observables in dispersion-free states, which is equivalent to assuming the bound of the Bell-CHSH expectation value sum to be ±2. Once this oversight is corrected and local realism is properly implemented, the bound of the Bell-CHSH sum should be ±2√2 rather than ±2, thereby undermining Bell's theorem's conclusions. Therefore, Bell experiments exclude not local realism but the linear additivity of expectation values—which is inappropriate for non-commuting observables. The author also identifies similar oversights in GHZ variants and traces these issues to errors in von Neumann's theorem identified by Grete Hermann in the 1930s.

Research Background and Motivation

Research Problem

This paper aims to challenge one of the most important results in quantum mechanics foundations—Bell's theorem. Bell's theorem claims that any local causal realist hidden variable theory envisioned by Einstein cannot reproduce all predictions of quantum mechanics.

Problem Significance

Bell's theorem is widely regarded as one of the most important theoretical achievements of 20th-century physics, as it:

1. Is believed to fundamentally exclude local realism
2. Provides theoretical foundation for quantum nonlocality
3. Has influenced developments in quantum information and quantum computing
4. Shaped understanding of quantum mechanics' nature

Limitations of Existing Approaches

Although Bell's theorem has been widely accepted since 1964:

1. It has faced questions and challenges from the beginning (including multiple works by the author)
2. It relies on multiple implicit and explicit physical assumptions
3. Similar to von Neumann's theorem, it may contain subtle unreasonable assumptions
4. GHZ and Hardy variants similarly contain conceptual problems

Research Motivation

The author's core motivation is to:

1. Expose the circular reasoning (petitio principii) in Bell's theorem
2. Prove that the expectation value additivity assumption fails for non-commuting operators
3. Demonstrate that the correct local realist bound should be ±2√2 (Tsirel'son bound)
4. Defend hidden variable theories of local realism

Core Contributions

The main contributions of this paper include:

1. Identifying Circular Reasoning: Proving that the key step in Bell's theorem—the linear additivity assumption of expectation values (equation 23)—is equivalent to the conclusion to be proven (±2 bound), constituting circular reasoning.
2. Mathematical Proof: Through forward and reverse derivations, proving that assuming expectation value additivity is equivalent to assuming the ±2 bound, with both being necessary and sufficient conditions for each other.
3. Correct Eigenvalue Calculation: Deriving the correct eigenvalues of the sum operator (equation 40), including contributions from non-commuting parts, yielding the correct bound of ±2√2.
4. GHZ Variant Critique: Identifying the error in GHZ's argument of improperly applying the Product Rule to non-commuting operators, proving through direct calculation that the claimed contradiction does not exist.
5. Hardy Variant Reinterpretation: Arguing that Hardy's "proof of nonlocality" is actually an instance of the Kochen-Specker theorem, excluding non-contextuality rather than locality.
6. Historical Connection: Tracing errors in Bell's theorem, GHZ variants, and von Neumann's theorem to the same conceptual root—improper application of linear/multiplicative rules to non-commuting operators.

Detailed Methodology

Theoretical Framework

Formalization of Hidden Variable Theory

The author adopts von Neumann's formal framework:

• Quantum state: |ψ⟩ ∈ H (Hilbert space)
• Complete state: |ψ, λ⟩ := {|ψ⟩, λ} ∈ H ⊗ L (extended space)
• Dispersion-free condition: (ψ, λ|Ω|ψ, λ) = ω(λ), meaning observable Ω has a definite value in state |ψ, λ⟩

Fundamental assumption (equation 6):

⟨ψ|Ω|ψ⟩ = ∫_L (ψ, λ|Ω|ψ, λ) p(λ) dλ = ∫_L ω(λ) p(λ) dλ

For contextual hidden variable theory (equation 10):

⟨ψ|Ω(c)|ψ⟩ = ∫_L ω(c, λ) p(λ) dλ

where c denotes the measurement context.

Standard Derivation of Bell's Theorem (Section IV)

EPR-Bohm Setup

Consider the singlet state:

|Ψ⟩ = 1/√2 {|k,+⟩₁⊗|k,-⟩₂ - |k,-⟩₁⊗|k,+⟩₂}

Locality condition (equation 18):

AB(a,b,λ) = A(a,λ)B(b,λ)

where A, B = ±1 are measurement outcomes.

Key Step: Expectation Value Additivity

The core of Bell's derivation is equation (23):

E(a,b) + E(a,b') + E(a',b) - E(a',b')
= ∫_L {AB(a,b,λ) + AB(a,b',λ) + A'B(a',b,λ) - A'B'(a',b',λ)} p(λ) dλ

This step converts the sum of four independent integrals into a single integral of a sum.

Deriving the ±2 Bound

Using the integrand:

A(a,λ){B(b,λ) + B(b',λ)} + A(a',λ){B(b,λ) - B(b',λ)}

Since B = ±1, if |B(b) + B(b')| = 2, then |B(b) - B(b')| = 0, and vice versa. Therefore, the absolute value of the integrand ≤ 2, yielding:

-2 ≤ E(a,b) + E(a,b') + E(a',b) - E(a',b') ≤ +2

Exposure of Circular Reasoning (Sections IV.2 and V)

Reverse Derivation

The author proves the converse direction: from the ±2 bound, one can derive expectation value additivity.

Key observation: The natural bound for the sum of four independent integrals is ±4 (each integral ±1). To compress the bound to ±2, the only legitimate way is:

∑∫ → ∫∑

that is, to assume expectation value additivity.

Equivalence Proof

Therefore, the author proves:

• Forward: Additivity ⇒ ±2 bound
• Reverse: ±2 bound ⇒ Additivity
• Conclusion: The two are necessary and sufficient conditions for each other, constituting circular reasoning

Correct Eigenvalues (Section VII)

Summation of Non-Commuting Operators

For the sum operator:

Ω̃(c̃) = σ₁·a⊗σ₂·b + σ₁·a⊗σ₂·b' + σ₁·a'⊗σ₂·b - σ₁·a'⊗σ₂·b'

These terms do not commute (equation 38):

[σ₁·a⊗σ₂·b, σ₁·a⊗σ₂·b'] = 2σ·{(a×b')×(a×b)} ≠ 0

Separation of Commuting and Non-Commuting Parts

Through detailed calculations in Appendix C, the sum operator can be written as:

Ω̃² = {commuting part}² + Θ̃

where Θ̃ = 2σ·n is the non-commuting part.

Correct Eigenvalues (Equation 40)

ω̃ = ±√[{AB + AB' + A'B - A'B'}² + (Ψ,λ|Θ̃|Ψ,λ)]

rather than Bell's incorrect simple sum:

ω̃ ≠ AB + AB' + A'B - A'B'  (incorrect)

Deriving the ±2√2 Bound

Through Appendix D's proof: 0 ≤ ||n|| ≤ 2, therefore:

-4 ≤ (Ψ,λ|Θ̃|Ψ,λ) ≤ +4

Combined with the ±2 bound from the commuting part:

-2√2 ≤ ω̃ ≤ +2√2

This is precisely the Tsirel'son bound!

Critique of GHZ Variant (Section VIII)

GHZ Setup

Four-particle state:

|Ψz⟩ = 1/√2{|z,+⟩₁⊗|z,+⟩₂⊗|z,-⟩₃⊗|z,-⟩₄ - |z,-⟩₁⊗|z,-⟩₂⊗|z,+⟩₃⊗|z,+⟩₄}

GHZ's Erroneous Reasoning

GHZ claims to find a contradiction through the following steps:

1. From perfect correlations, derive equations (65a-d)
2. Multiply three equations (equations 76-79):

   ω(c')·ω(c'')·ω(c''') = (-1)×(-1)×(-1) = -1
   

3. Simplify to equation (80) and compare with (65d)
4. Derive A(2φ) = A(0) (equation 82)
5. Contradiction with A(π) = -A(0)

Error Identification

The key error is in step 2: applying the Product Rule to non-commuting operators.

The three operators Ω(c'), Ω(c''), Ω(c''') do not commute:

[Ω(c'), Ω(c'')] ≠ 0

Therefore:

ω̃(c̃) ≠ ω(c')·ω(c'')·ω(c''')  (equation 71)

Correct Calculation (Equations 91-98)

Through direct calculation of the product:

Ω̃ = Ω(c')Ω(c'')Ω(c''') = (σ·x)₁⊗(σ·x)₂⊗[σ·p(-φ)]₃⊗[σ·p(+φ)]₄

Satisfying the perfect correlation condition φ₁+φ₂-φ₃-φ₄=0, with eigenvalue -1.

Considering sign reversal under left-handed coordinate system:

ω̃ = A(0)B(0)C(+φ)D(+φ) = +1  (equation 101)

This yields A(2φ) = -A(0) (equation 89), consistent with A(π) = -A(0), with no contradiction!

Reinterpretation of Hardy Variant (Section IX)

The author proves that Hardy's argument is actually a manifestation of the Kochen-Specker theorem:

• Hardy claims to prove "nonlocality"
• But his reasoning ignores measurement context
• When context is properly considered, results under different contexts CU ≠ CD:

  U₁(CU,λ)U₂(CU,λ) = 0  vs  U₁(CD,λ)U₂(CD,λ) = 1
  

• This is not a contradiction, merely a manifestation of context dependence

Technical Innovations

1. Bidirectional Proof of Circular Reasoning

For the first time, systematically proving that the premises and conclusions of Bell's theorem are necessary and sufficient conditions for each other, revealing the essence of circular reasoning.

2. Explicit Calculation of Non-Commuting Parts

Through Clifford algebra methods, explicitly calculating the non-commuting part of the sum operator (equations 41-42) for the first time, which was missing from previous literature.

3. Geometric Interpretation

Tracing the ±2√2 bound to the geometric structure of physical space (Appendix D), rather than nonlocality.

4. Unified Historical Perspective

Tracing errors in Bell's theorem, GHZ variants, Hardy variants, and von Neumann's theorem to the same root—the problem identified by Grete Hermann in the 1930s.

5. Proper Treatment of Contextuality

Emphasizing that in contextual hidden variable theory, the value of an observable depends on the complete experimental context c, rather than being an intrinsic property.

Experimental Setup

This is purely theoretical work without experimental data. However, the author:

1. Cites Existing Experiments: Discusses the general setup of Bell experiments (Figure 1)
2. References Numerical Simulations: Cites numerical simulations in reference 13, showing that considering non-commutativity indeed yields the ±2√2 bound
3. Proposes Testable Predictions: In references 8,15, proposes macroscopic experimental designs that could test his quaternionic 3-sphere model

Experimental Results

Main Theoretical Results

1. Proof of Circular Reasoning

Theorem (Informal): In Bell's theorem's derivation, the expectation value additivity assumption (equation 23) and the ±2 bound (equation 26) are necessary and sufficient conditions for each other.

Proof Outline:

• Forward: Standard derivation in Section IV.1
• Reverse: Section IV.2 proves that from the ±2 bound, one can only obtain it through the additivity assumption
• Conclusion: Constitutes circular reasoning (petitio principii)

2. Derivation of Correct Bound

Theorem: When local realism is properly implemented, the bound of the Bell-CHSH correlation is:

-2√2 ≤ E(a,b) + E(a,b') + E(a',b) - E(a',b') ≤ +2√2

Derivation:

• Sum operator eigenvalues (equation 40)
• Non-commuting part bound (equation 45): -4 ≤ (Ψ,λ|Θ̃|Ψ,λ) ≤ +4
• Combined result (equations 46-48)

3. Resolution of GHZ Contradiction

Result: The contradiction claimed by GHZ stems from improper application of the Product Rule to non-commuting operators.

Correct Calculation (equations 87-90):

A(2φ) = -A(0)  (correct)
A(π) = -A(0)   (EPR perfect correlation)

Both are consistent, no contradiction.

Case Studies

Case 1: Commuting vs. Non-Commuting Operators

The author uses spin-1/2 particle examples to illustrate:

• σx and σy eigenvalues are both ±1
• But σx + σy eigenvalues are ±√2
• Therefore: (±1) + (±1) ≠ ±√2

This clearly shows why expectation value additivity fails for non-commuting operators.

Case 2: Failure of Statistical Argument

The author discusses in Section V a common statistical defense:

• Claim: One can independently perform four sub-experiments, then add the averaged values
• Refutation: This ignores the non-commutativity of observables
• Numerical verification: Considering non-commutativity indeed yields ±2√2

Key Findings

1. Additivity Only Holds for Commuting Operators: Equation (43) explicitly shows that for non-commuting operators:

   ω̃(c̃,λ) ≠ ω₁(c₁,λ) + ω₂(c₂,λ) + ...
   

2. Geometric Origin: The ±2√2 bound originates from the geometry of physical space (bounds on vector n), not from nonlocality.
3. True Requirements of Realism: Realism requires all observables (including sum operators) to have definite values, but does not require these values to add linearly.
4. Historical Consistency: The error in Bell's theorem shares the same source as the error in von Neumann's theorem—improper application of linear rules to non-commuting operators.

Related Work

History of Hidden Variable Theory

1. von Neumann's Theorem (1932)
   • Claim: All hidden variable theories are impossible
   • Error: Assumes all operator expectation functions are linear
   • Critics: Grete Hermann (1935), Bell (1966), Mermin & Schack (2018)
2. Bell's Theorem (1964)
   • Claim: Local hidden variable theories are impossible
   • This paper's argument: Commits a similar error to von Neumann
   • History: Faced questions from the beginning
3. Kochen-Specker Theorem (1967)
   • Excludes: Non-contextual hidden variable theories
   • Allows: Contextual hidden variable theories
   • Relation to this paper: Supports the author's contextual stance

Variants of Bell's Theorem

1. Clauser-Horne (1974)
   • Similar inequality-based approach to Bell
   • This paper's assessment: Has the same defects
2. GHZ (1990)
   • No inequalities, claims algebraic contradiction
   • This paper's critique: Improper use of Product Rule
3. Hardy (1993)
   • Claims "proof of nonlocality"
   • This paper's reinterpretation: Actually an instance of Kochen-Specker theorem

Author's Previous Work

The author has developed a local realist framework based on quaternionic 3-sphere in multiple papers:

• 5,6: Basic model
• 10,14,16: Comprehensive framework
• 15: Symmetric derivation of singlet correlations
• 24: Reproducing GHZ and Hardy predictions

Supporting Literature

1. Grete Hermann (1935): First to identify improper handling of non-commuting operators in von Neumann's theorem
2. Bohm & Bub (1966): Discussion of nonlinear forms of expectation functions
3. Shimony (1984): Discussion of contextual hidden variable theory

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

The author draws six core conclusions (Section X):

1. Prerequisite Requirements: Bell's theorem's derivation must conform to the formal requirements of contextual hidden variable theory (prescription 10)
2. Additivity is an Assumption: Equation (23) is an additional assumption, valid only for commuting operators, and contradicts realism
3. Nonlinear Nature: In dispersion-free states, expectation values of non-commuting observables do not add linearly
4. Correct Bound: Using correct eigenvalues (equation 40), the bound is ±2√2
5. Logical Circularity: The additivity assumption and ±2 bound are necessary and sufficient conditions for each other
6. Physical Meaning: Equation (23) is only valid for classical physics and commuting operators

Summary Statement:

"Bell's theorem assumes its conclusion in a different guise, and is thus invalid on logical grounds."

Limitations

Although the author does not explicitly discuss limitations, several can be identified:

1. Controversial Nature: Challenges the widely accepted Bell's theorem, facing enormous resistance
2. Mathematical Complexity: The quaternionic and Clifford algebra framework is unfamiliar to most physicists
3. Experimental Verification: The author's alternative theory has not yet received decisive experimental verification
4. Mainstream Acceptance: Published on arXiv rather than mainstream journals, reflecting acceptance issues

Future Directions

1. Experimental Testing: Macroscopic experiments proposed by the author in 8,15
2. Generalization: Extending the analysis to other quantum correlation experiments
3. Mathematical Refinement: Further developing the Clifford algebra framework
4. Educational Promotion: Changing standard understanding of Bell's theorem

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

1. Logical Rigor

• Bidirectional Proof: Forward and reverse derivations proving circular reasoning, logically complete
• Mathematical Detail: Calculations in appendices are thorough and verifiable
• Historical Consistency: Tracing errors in multiple theorems to the same root

2. Conceptual Clarity

• Clear Distinction: Different treatment of commuting vs. non-commuting operators
• Contextuality Emphasis: Proper understanding of contextual hidden variable theory
• Physical Intuition: Using simple examples (spin operators) to explain abstract concepts

3. Technical Innovation

• Explicit Calculation: Complete derivation of non-commuting parts (Appendix C)
• Geometric Interpretation: Connecting quantum bounds to space geometry
• Unified Framework: Handling Bell, GHZ, and Hardy variants

4. Academic Courage

Daring to challenge one of the most sacred theorems in physics, demonstrating scientific critical spirit

Shortcomings

1. Mainstream Acceptance Issues

• Publication Venue: arXiv rather than peer-reviewed journals
• Classification Controversy: physics.gen-ph often viewed as non-mainstream
• Limited Citations: Rarely cited in mainstream quantum foundations literature

2. Persuasiveness of Arguments

• Definition of Circular Reasoning: Whether it truly constitutes circular reasoning is disputed
  • Counter-argument: Additivity may be a mathematical property, not a physical assumption
  • Author's view: For non-commuting operators, additivity requires physical justification
• Definition of Realism: The author's understanding of realism may differ from mainstream
  • Mainstream: All observables simultaneously have definite values (excluded by Kochen-Specker)
  • Author: Contextually definite values (viewed by mainstream as non-standard)

3. Disputed Technical Details

Dispute Point A: Correctness of Equation (40) The author claims:

ω̃ = ±√[{sum of eigenvalues}² + ⟨Θ̃⟩]

But:

• Are these truly the eigenvalues of the sum operator?
• Should the expectation value ⟨Θ̃⟩ appear in the eigenvalue expression?
• Eigenvalues should be state-independent, but this includes state-dependent terms

Dispute Point B: Statistical Argument The author criticizes the statistical defense in Section V, but:

• Bell experiments indeed perform four groups of measurements at different times
• The statistical independence assumption p(λ|a,b) = p(λ) is standard
• The author's criticism may conflate eigenvalue and expectation value levels

4. Problems with GHZ Analysis

• Derivation of Equation (87): Logical jump from "not -1" to "must be +1"
• Context Confusion: The author himself compares results across different contexts
• Interpretation of Direct Calculation: While equations (91-98) are correct, their interpretation is disputed

5. Relationship with Experiments

• Experimental Results: Bell experiments indeed observe violations of ±2 bound
• Author's Explanation: Claims experiments exclude additivity rather than locality
• Problem: How to experimentally distinguish these two interpretations?

Impact Assessment

Potential Positive Impact

1. Conceptual Clarification: Prompts reconsideration of Bell's theorem's assumptions
2. Teaching Value: Emphasizes special nature of non-commuting operators
3. Alternative Framework: Provides possible path for local realism
4. Interdisciplinary: Connects quantum foundations, algebra, and geometry

Actual Impact Limitations

1. Mainstream Resistance: Quantum foundations community largely rejects
2. Insufficient Experimental Support: No decisive experiments supporting author's alternative theory
3. Technical Barriers: Complexity of quaternions and Clifford algebras
4. Paradigm Inertia: Extremely difficult to change standard understanding of Bell's theorem

Applicable Scenarios

Suitable Readers

1. Quantum Foundations Researchers: Scholars interested in Bell's theorem's foundational assumptions
2. Hidden Variable Theory Enthusiasts: Researchers seeking possibilities for local realism
3. Mathematical Physicists: Those interested in Clifford algebras and geometric algebra
4. Philosophy of Science Scholars: Researchers studying quantum mechanics interpretations

Unsuitable Scenarios

1. Standard Quantum Information: Mainstream quantum computing and quantum communication research
2. Experimental Physics: Actual design and execution of Bell experiments
3. Quantum Technology Applications: Practical technologies based on quantum entanglement

Reproducibility

Theoretical Verifiability

• Mathematical Derivations: Calculations in appendices can be independently verified
• Logical Arguments: Circular reasoning proofs can be checked
• GHZ Calculations: Algebra in equations (91-98) can be repeated

Experimental Testability

The author proposes in other papers:

• Macroscopic rotation experiments 8
• Predictions of quaternionic 3-sphere model 15
• But experiments have not yet been implemented

Critical Reflection

Nature of Core Dispute

The core of the Bell's theorem dispute concerns understanding of realism and locality:

Standard View:

• Realism = All observables simultaneously have definite values
• Kochen-Specker theorem excludes this form of realism
• Bell's theorem further requires locality
• Conclusion: Local realism is impossible

Author's View:

• Realism = Contextually definite values
• Kochen-Specker only excludes non-contextuality
• Bell's theorem incorrectly assumes additivity
• Conclusion: Contextual local realism remains possible

Philosophical Dimension

This dispute involves deeper philosophical questions:

1. Nature of Realism: Do physical quantities have observation-independent values?
2. Status of Contextuality: Does context dependence undermine realism?
3. Mathematics and Physics: Does mathematical additivity necessarily correspond to physical additivity?

Sociological Dimension

The author faces challenges that are not merely scientific but sociological:

• Paradigm Lock-in: Bell's theorem has become textbook content in quantum mechanics
• Career Risk: Academic risks of challenging mainstream views
• Publication Difficulty: Mainstream journals may reject publication
• Peer Review: Reviewers typically hold standard views

Selected References

Key Historical Literature

1. Bell (1964): Original Bell's theorem
2. von Neumann (1932): Mathematical foundations
3. Hermann (1935): Critique of von Neumann
4. Kochen & Specker (1967): Contextuality theorem

Author's Related Work

5. Christian (2019): Quaternionic model IEEE Access
6. Christian (2018): Clifford algebra framework R. Soc. Open Sci.
7. Christian (2024): Symmetric derivation of singlet correlations Int. J. Theor. Phys.

Modern Discussions

8. Mermin & Schack (2018): Modern analysis of von Neumann's theorem
9. Shimony (1984): Contextual hidden variable theory

Summary Assessment

This is a highly controversial yet technically rigorous paper. Author Joy Christian challenges one of the most important results in quantum mechanics foundations with great courage and detailed mathematical analysis.

The paper's core value lies in:

1. Forcing reconsideration of implicit assumptions in Bell's theorem
2. Clearly distinguishing different treatment of commuting vs. non-commuting operators
3. Providing detailed mathematical derivations and historical connections
4. Demonstrating scientific critical spirit

Main limitations include:

1. Mainstream quantum foundations community has not accepted it
2. Some key argumentative points remain disputed
3. Lacks decisive experimental support
4. The definition of "circular reasoning" may be overstated

Final Assessment: Regardless of whether one agrees with the author's conclusions, this paper deserves serious consideration. The question it raises—whether expectation values of non-commuting operators should add linearly—is a profound conceptual issue worthy of deep thought by quantum foundations researchers. Even if the author ultimately proves wrong, the process itself will deepen our understanding of Bell's theorem and quantum mechanics foundations. This is how scientific progress occurs.