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

Abstract

We reject unjustified criticism of our published article [2209.07992] by Gill and Lambare [arXiv:2211.02481, arXiv:2208.09930]. They completely misinterpret the content and conclusions of this article. They construct a counterfactual probabilistic model in which random variables representing outcomes of four experiments performed using incompatible experimental settings are jointly distributed. Thus, CHSH inequalities trivially hold for all finite samples generated by their model. Their model defines a probabilistic coupling for our model describing only the raw data from Bell tests. The existence of this coupling does not invalidate the derivation of the contextual probabilistic model describing the final data from Bell tests. Only these final data are used to test Bell inequalities. Inequalities cannot be derived because our model violates statistical independence. Our contextual model allows to explain in a local and causal way the violation of inequalities and the apparent violation of no-signaling reported in these experiments.

arXiv comment3 pages, 3 equations and 33 references

References in corpus (16)

• Experimental loophole-free violation of a Bell inequality using entangled electron spins separated by 1.3 km
• Violation of Bell's inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions
• Loopholes in Bell Inequality Tests of Local Realism
• Is the Fair Sampling Assumption supported by EPR Experiments?
• Necessary and Sufficient Conditions for Extended Noncontextuality in a Broad Class of Quantum Mechanical Systems
• Contextuality is About Identity of Random Variables
• Bohm-Bell type experiments: Classical probability approach to (no-)signaling and applications to quantum physics and psychology
• Is the Moon there if nobody looks: Bell Inequalities and Physical Reality
• Analysis of assumptions of recent tests of local realism
• The contextuality loophole is fatal for Bell inequalities: Reply to a comment by I. Schmelzer
• A Note on Bell's Theorem Logical Consistency
• Contextuality-by-Default description of Bell tests: Contextuality as the rule not as an exception
• Contextuality or nonlocality; what would John Bell choose today?
• Comment on Causal Networks and Freedom of Choice in Bell's Theorem
• Kupczynski's Contextual Locally Causal Probabilistic Models are constrained by Bell's theorem
• Is the Moon there if nobody looks: A reply to Gill and Lambare