Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1503.06413 · The frontiers collection

Causarum Investigatio and the Two Bell’s Theorems of John Bell

Howard M. Wiseman, Eric G. Cavalcanti

Published Nov 15, 2016• 50 citations
arXivHTMLPDF
DOI
10.1007/978-3-319-38987-5_6

Related papers

On the sufficiency of Bell’s conditions

D. Gutkowski, G. Masotto, M. V. Valdes

Il Nuovo cimento della Società italiana di fisica. B/Il Nuovo cimento B•Apr 1, 1979•4 citations

Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell

N. David Mermin

Although skeptical of the prohibitive power of no-hidden-variables theorems, John Bell was himself responsible for the two most important ones. I describe some recent versions of the lesser known of the two (familiar to experts as the "Kochen-Specker theorem") which have transparently simple proofs. One of the new versions can be converted without additional analysis into a powerful form of the very much better known "Bell's Theorem," thereby clarifying the conceptual link between these two results of Bell.

arXiv:1802.10119•Reviews of Modern Physics•Jul 1, 1993•1,076 citations

Comments on the Significance of Bell's Theorem

Arthur I. Fine

Physical Review Letters•Nov 15, 1982•8 citations

International conference on Bell's theorem and the foundations of modern physics, Palazzo del Ridotto, Cesena, Italy, 7-10 October 1991

J. S. Bell, Alwyn van der Merwe, F. Selleri +1 more

John Stewart Bell and the debate on the significance of his contributions to the foundations of quantum mechanics, M.Jammer John Bell as a deep critical testimony of modern physics, V. de Alfaro magic moments with John Bell, R. Bertlmann what if Bell had come before Copenhagen?, J. Cushing quantum mechanics vs. realism in the context of two-state oscillations, D. Home one or two bell theorems?, B. Despagnat self interference of two photons, J. Rarity polarization correlation analysis of the simultaneous two-photon emission of metastable hydrogen, H. Kleinpoppen unneeded use of Bell inequalities conceals the physics in the EPR subject, O. Piccioni Bell's other theorem and its connection with nonlocality - Part 1 H. Brown Bell's other theorem and its connection with nonlocality - Part 2 A. Elby historical reflections on the notion of an objective reality, P .Feyerabend interference, indistinguishability and nonlocality, L. Mandel quantum physics from the viewpoint of realism, F. Selleri (Part contents).

WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•Jan 1, 1992•3 citations

THE BELL THEOREM

Reinhart Kögerler

•Jan 1, 1986•0 citations

Are there really two different Bell's theorems?

Travis Norsen

This is a polemical response to Howard Wiseman's recent paper, "The two Bell's theorems of John Bell". Wiseman argues that, in 1964, Bell established a conflict between the quantum mechanical predictions and the joint assumptions of determinism and (what is now usually known as) "parameter independence". Only later, in 1976, did Bell, according to Wiseman, first establish a conflict between the quantum mechanical predictions and locality alone (in the specific form that Bell would sometimes call "local causality"). Thus, according to Wiseman, the long-standing disagreements about what, exactly, Bell's theorem does and does not prove can be understood largely as miscommunications resulting from the fact that there are really two quite distinct "Bell's theorems". My goal here is to lay out what Wiseman briefly describes as an "alternate reading" of Bell's 1964 paper, according to which (quoting Wiseman here) "the first paragraph of Bell's `Formulation' section [should be seen] as an essential part of his 1964 theorem, the first part of a two-part argument." I will argue in particular that this "alternate reading" is the correct way to understand Bell's 1964 paper and that Wiseman's reading is strongly inconsistent with the available evidence.

arXiv:1503.05017•International journal of quantum foundations•Mar 17, 2015•16 citations
Although skeptical of the prohibitive power of no-hidden-variables theorems, John Bell was himself responsible for the two most important ones. I describe some recent versions of the lesser known of the two (familiar to experts as the "Kochen-Specker theorem") which have transparently simple proofs. One of the new versions can be converted without additional analysis into a powerful form of the very much better known "Bell's Theorem," thereby clarifying the conceptual link between these two results of Bell.
John Stewart Bell and the debate on the significance of his contributions to the foundations of quantum mechanics, M.Jammer John Bell as a deep critical testimony of modern physics, V. de Alfaro magic moments with John Bell, R. Bertlmann what if Bell had come before Copenhagen?, J. Cushing quantum mechanics vs. realism in the context of two-state oscillations, D. Home one or two bell theorems?, B. Despagnat self interference of two photons, J. Rarity polarization correlation analysis of the simultaneous two-photon emission of metastable hydrogen, H. Kleinpoppen unneeded use of Bell inequalities conceals the physics in the EPR subject, O. Piccioni Bell's other theorem and its connection with nonlocality - Part 1 H. Brown Bell's other theorem and its connection with nonlocality - Part 2 A. Elby historical reflections on the notion of an objective reality, P .Feyerabend interference, indistinguishability and nonlocality, L. Mandel quantum physics from the viewpoint of realism, F. Selleri (Part contents).
This is a polemical response to Howard Wiseman's recent paper, "The two Bell's theorems of John Bell". Wiseman argues that, in 1964, Bell established a conflict between the quantum mechanical predictions and the joint assumptions of determinism and (what is now usually known as) "parameter independence". Only later, in 1976, did Bell, according to Wiseman, first establish a conflict between the quantum mechanical predictions and locality alone (in the specific form that Bell would sometimes call "local causality"). Thus, according to Wiseman, the long-standing disagreements about what, exactly, Bell's theorem does and does not prove can be understood largely as miscommunications resulting from the fact that there are really two quite distinct "Bell's theorems". My goal here is to lay out what Wiseman briefly describes as an "alternate reading" of Bell's 1964 paper, according to which (quoting Wiseman here) "the first paragraph of Bell's `Formulation' section [should be seen] as an essential part of his 1964 theorem, the first part of a two-part argument." I will argue in particular that this "alternate reading" is the correct way to understand Bell's 1964 paper and that Wiseman's reading is strongly inconsistent with the available evidence.