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 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. (shrink)

We present a pragmatic analysis of the different meanings assigned to the term “local realism” in the context of the empirical violations of Bell-type inequalities since its inception in the late 1970s. We point out that most of them are inappropriate and arise from a deeply ingrained prejudice that originated in the celebrated 1935 paper by Einstein-Podolski-Rosen. We highlight the correct connotation that arises once we discard unnecessary metaphysics.

A discussion of Nieuwenhuizen’s description for the hidden variables of the detectors in the derivation of Bell’s theorem is presented. This description prevents Bell’s inequalities from being effected. However it will be argued, on mathematical and physical bases, that the flaws attributed by Nieuwenhuizen to Bell’s probability distribution function are unjustified.

A common mistake present in the derivation of the usually known as the CHSH form of Bell’s inequalities is pointed out. References and comments to the correct approach are given. This error does not alter the final result and only affects the logical consistency of the derivation, but since it seems to be a widespread misconception regarding the roll and interpretation of the of use of hidden variables in Bell’s theorem it is considered to be of general interest.

In a recent article 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.

A rational approach to the Fermi-Walker transport equation is proposed by deriving it from a condition of “non-rotation”. First, the condition is applied to a tetrad basis and then generalized to an arbitrary space-time four-vector. The method is conceptually simple and apart from the use of tetrad bases in four-dimensional space-time, does not require the effort of visualizing abstract geometrical constructs in spaces of more than three dimensions. The argument develops in the context of the flat space-time of special relativity (...) theory but the final result can be immediately extended to curved space-time. (shrink)