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:1506.05795

On the Analysis of Bell's 1964 Paper by Wiseman, Cavalcanti, and Rieffel

Edward J. Gillis

Published Jun 17, 2015• 3 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In a recent series of papers Wiseman, Cavalcanti, and Rieffel have outlined and contrasted two different views about what we now call Bell's theorem. They also assert that Bell presented these two different versions at different times. This view is clearly at odds with the detailed explanation that Bell himself gave in his later writings. A careful examination of the historic 1964 paper in context shows clearly that Bell's own later interpretation is the correct one.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1506.05795

Related papers

Chapter 3. A COUNTERFACTUAL VERSION OF BELL’S THEOREM AND ITS CRITICISM

De Gruyter eBooks•Dec 31, 2006•0 citations

Reply to Gillis's "On the Analysis of Bell's 1964 Paper by Wiseman, Cavalcanti, and Rieffel"

Howard M. Wiseman, Eleanor Gilbert Rieffel, Eric G. Cavalcanti

We address Gillis' recent criticism [arXiv:1506.05795] of a series of papers (by different combinations of the present authors) on formulations of Bell's theorem. Those papers intended to address an unfortunate gap of communication between two broad camps in the quantum foundations community that we identify as "operationalists" and "realists". Here, we once again urge the readers to approach the question from an unbiased standpoint, and explain that Gillis' criticism draws too heavily on the philosophical inclinations of one side of that debate -- the realist camp. As part of that explanation we discuss intuition versus proof, look again at Bell's formalizations of locality, and correct misstatements by Gillis of our views, and those of Bell and Einstein.

arXiv:1608.04149•Aug 14, 2016•2 citations

Response to Wiseman, Rieffel, and Cavalcanti on Bell's 1964 Paper

Edward J. Gillis

Wiseman has claimed that Bell was wrong in stating that determinism was inferred rather than assumed in the summary of the EPR argument in his 1964 paper. The reply of Wiseman and his co-authors to my comment misstates my reasons for disputing this point, and fails to address the central criticism that their claim is based on a seriously flawed formalization of Bell's argument deriving from an unreasonably strong interpretation of the the terms, 'influence', 'affect', and 'depend on'.

arXiv:1608.06312•Aug 22, 2016•0 citations

On the Fatal Mistake Made by John S. Bell in the Proof of His Famous Theorem

Joy Christian

We explain the elementary mistake made by John S. Bell in the proof of his famous ``theorem.''

•May 21, 2016•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

COMMENTS ON A PREVIOUS PAPER ABOUT BELL'S THEOREM

Philippe H. Eberhard

Physical Review Letters•Mar 1, 1982•0 citations
In a recent series of papers Wiseman, Cavalcanti, and Rieffel have outlined and contrasted two different views about what we now call Bell's theorem. They also assert that Bell presented these two different versions at different times. This view is clearly at odds with the detailed explanation that Bell himself gave in his later writings. A careful examination of the historic 1964 paper in context shows clearly that Bell's own later interpretation is the correct one.
We address Gillis' recent criticism [arXiv:1506.05795] of a series of papers (by different combinations of the present authors) on formulations of Bell's theorem. Those papers intended to address an unfortunate gap of communication between two broad camps in the quantum foundations community that we identify as "operationalists" and "realists". Here, we once again urge the readers to approach the question from an unbiased standpoint, and explain that Gillis' criticism draws too heavily on the philosophical inclinations of one side of that debate -- the realist camp. As part of that explanation we discuss intuition versus proof, look again at Bell's formalizations of locality, and correct misstatements by Gillis of our views, and those of Bell and Einstein.
Wiseman has claimed that Bell was wrong in stating that determinism was inferred rather than assumed in the summary of the EPR argument in his 1964 paper. The reply of Wiseman and his co-authors to my comment misstates my reasons for disputing this point, and fails to address the central criticism that their claim is based on a seriously flawed formalization of Bell's argument deriving from an unreasonably strong interpretation of the the terms, 'influence', 'affect', and 'depend on'.
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.