The Contextuality Loophole is Fatal for the Derivation of Bell Inequalities: Reply to a Comment by I. Schmelzer

Ilya Schmelzer wrote recently: Nieuwenhuizen argued that there exists some “contextuality loophole” in Bell’s theorem. This claim in unjustified. It is made clear that this arose from attaching a meaning to the title and the content of the paper different from the one intended by Nieuwenhuizen. “Contextual loophole” means only that if the supplementary parameters describing measuring instruments are correctly introduced, Bell and Bell-type inequalities may not be proven. It is also stressed that a hidden variable model suffers from a “contextuality loophole” if it tries to describe different sets of incompatible experiments using a unique probability space and a unique joint probability distribution.

[1]  H. De Raedt,et al.  Possible experience: From Boole to Bell , 2009, 0907.0767.

[2]  M. Kupczynski,et al.  Entanglement and Bell Inequalities , 2004 .

[3]  R. B. Lindsay,et al.  Essays 1958-1962 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge , 1987 .

[4]  Marian Kupczynski,et al.  EPR paradox, quantum nonlocality and physical reality , 2016, 1602.02959.

[5]  T. Nieuwenhuizen,et al.  Is the Contextuality Loophole Fatal for the Derivation of Bell Inequalities? , 2011 .

[6]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  Contextual Approach to Quantum Formalism , 2009 .

[7]  About a “Contextuality Loophole” in Bell’s Theorem Claimed to Exist by Nieuwenhuizen , 2016, 1610.09642.

[8]  Armen E. Allahverdyan,et al.  Understanding quantum measurement from the solution of dynamical models , 2011, 1107.2138.

[9]  E. Wigner.  On Hidden Variables and Quantum Mechanical Probabilities , 1970 .

[10]  A. Peres.  Unperformed experiments have no results , 1978 .

[11]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  Nonlocality as well as rejection of realism are only sufficient (but non-necessary!) conditions for violation of Bell's inequality , 2009, Inf. Sci..

[12]  Marian Kupczynski.  Bell Inequalities, Experimental Protocols and Contextuality , 2014 .

[13]  Andrei Khrennikov,et al.  Bell's inequality: Physics meets Probability , 2007, 0709.3909.

[14]  Armen E. Allahverdyan,et al.  72 57 v 1 [ qu an tph ] 2 8 M ar 2 01 3 Statistical theory of ideal quantum measurement processes , 2014 .

[15]  Karl Hess,et al.  Bell’s theorem: Critique of proofs with and without inequalities , 2005 .

[16]  Marian Kupczynski.  Seventy Years of the EPR Paradox , 2006 .

[17]  N. Bohr.  II - Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete? , 1935 .

[18]  Karl Hess,et al.  Hidden assumptions in the derivation of the theorem of Bell , 2011, 1108.3583.

[19]  W. H. Furry.  Remarks on Measurements in Quantum Theory , 1936 .

[20]  W. H. Furry.  Note on the Quantum-Mechanical Theory of Measurement , 1936 .

[21]  Andrei Khrennikov.  Bell's Inequality: Nonlocalty, “Death of Reality”, or Incompatibility of Random Variables? , 2007 .

[22]  R. Mcweeny.  On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox , 2000 .

[23]  E. Specker,et al.  The Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics , 1967 .

[24]  T. Nieuwenhuizen,et al.  Where Bell went wrong , 2008, 0812.3058.

[25]  W. M. de Muynck,et al.  Interpretations of quantum mechanics, joint measurement of incompatible observables, and counterfactual definiteness , 1994 .

[26]  I. Pitowsky,et al.  George Boole's ‘Conditions of Possible Experience’ and the Quantum Puzzle , 1994, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

[27]  J. Bell.  BERTLMANN'S SOCKS AND THE NATURE OF REALITY , 1981 .