arXiv subjects
Publications and source records attributed to Justo Pastor Lambare.
In his 1972 book Science At the Crossroads, Helbert Dingle attacked the consistency of special relativity through a fallacious argument championed by the crank community even to this day. Dingle's affair is a curious chapter in the history of physics and, more generally, science. We briefly review Dingle's case from a historical and didactic perspective.
Despite their Nobel Prize-winning empirical falsification, the interpretation of Bell's inequality remains a subject of controversy. This article discusses and attempts to clarify the reasons John S. Bell and A. Einstein claimed that quantum entanglement implies puzzling nonlocal correlations that Einstein famously termed ``spooky action at a distance.'' The issue remains notoriously controversial and has roughly divided the scientific community into localists and nonlocalists. Without taking a stance on either side in the long-standing, polarized debate, we examine Bell's actual argument and highlight how his reasoning differs from the current orthodoxy.
In this comment, we demonstrate that the claim by Spavieri et al., asserting that Wang et al.'s interferometric experiment disproves the special theory of relativity by revealing that simultaneity must be an absolute concept independent of the observer's state of motion, is based on circular reasoning and therefore constitutes a logical fallacy.
We critically discuss the apparent lack of logical rigor pervading the debate on quantum nonlocality. Strong convictions often prevail over rational assessment, leading to the acceptance of loose ideas that become entrenched dogmas. The lack of sound rationales and adherence to the rules of logical inference lead to widely adopted antinomies that receive little conceptual scrutiny.
In a recent article [Phys. Rev. A 111, 022204 (2025)], Genovese and Piacentini analyzed recent experiments measuring what they call "the entire Bell-CHSH parameter". They claimed those experiments may have implications for interpreting loophole-fee tests of the Bell-CHSH inequality. We explain that the Bell-CHSH inequality is not based on the entire Bell parameter, so these experiments are unrelated to their empirical tests and cannot close eventual loopholes that still might persist. We point out that the physical meaning of these new experiments measuring the entire Bell parameter could be interpreted differently.
In a sequence of papers, Marian Kupczynski has argued that Bell's theorem can be circumvented if one takes correct account of contextual setting-dependent parameters describing measuring instruments. We show that this is not true. Despite first appearances, Kupczynksi's concept of a contextual locally causal probabilistic model is mathematically a special case of a Bell local hidden variables model. Thus, even if one takes account of contextuality in the way he suggests, the Bell-CHSH inequality can still be derived. Violation thereof by quantum mechanics cannot be easily explained away: quantum mechanics and local realism (including Kupczynski's claimed enlargement of the concept) are not compatible with one another. Further inspection shows that Kupczynski is actually falling back on the detection loophole. Since 2015, numerous loophole-free experiments have been performed, in which the Bell-CHSH inequality is violated, so despite any other possible imperfections of such experiments, Kupczynski's escape route for local realism is not available
The view exists that the Bell inequality is a mere inconsistent application of classical concepts to a well-established quantum world. In the article, ``Nonlocality claims are inconsistent with Hilbert-space quantum mechanics'' [Phys. Rev. A, 101, 022117, (2020)], Robert B. Griffiths advocates for quantum theory's locality. Although R. B. Griffiths presents valuable insights in favor of quantum mechanics' local character, he argues the Bell inequality is an inconsistent application of classical physics to quantum mechanics. We explain why a correct assessment of the Bell inequality does not in fact conflict with Griffiths's views of quantum locality and, on the contrary, it already contemplates them. Hence, Bell inequality inconsistency is not necessary for Griffiths's quantum locality to hold.
We formally prove the existence of an enduring incongruence pervading a widespread interpretation of the Bell inequality and explain how to rationally avoid it with a natural assumption justified by explicit reference to a mathematical property of Bell's probabilistic model. Although the amendment does not alter the relevance of the theorem regarding local realism, it brings back Bell theorem from the realm of philosophical discussions about counterfactual conditionals to the concrete experimental arena.
Counterfactual definiteness is supposed to underlie the Bell theorem. An old controversy exists among those who reject the theorem implications by rejecting counterfactual definiteness and those who claim that, since it is a direct consequence of locality, it cannot be independently rejected. We propose a different approach for solving this contentious issue by realizing that counterfactual definiteness is an unnecessary and inconsistent assumption. Counterfactual definiteness is not equivalent to realism or determinism neither it follows from locality. It merely reduces to an incongruent application of counterfactual reasoning. Being incompatible with falsifiability, it constitutes an unjustified assumption that goes against the scientific method's rigor. Correct formulations of the Bell theorem's bases show it is absent either as a fundamental hypothesis or as a consequence of something else. Most importantly, we present a coherent Bell inequality derivation carefully devised to show explicitly and convincingly the absence of incompatible experiments or counterfactual reasoning. Thus, even admitting that counterfactual definiteness could be a consistent assumption, the necessary conclusion is that it is irrelevant for the inequality formulation and can be safely ignored when discussing Bell's inequality philosophical and physical implications.
In a recent article (Found Sci (2020) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-020-09666-0) Marek Czachor claims that the Bell inequality cannot be proved because variables of complementary measurements cannot be added or multiplied. Even though he has correctly identified the problems existing with the orthodox interpretation of the Bell inequality and dealt with them in an original way, the interpretation he addresses do not pertain to the original formulation given by John Stewart Bell.