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

American Journal of Physics

The magic tesseracts and Bell’s theorem

P. K. Aravind

Published Mar 1, 2001• 6 citations
Publisher

Abstract

This paper describes a toy, consisting of a pair of magic tesseracts, that can be used to perform an amazing trick that defies explanation in conventional terms. An account of the toy, and the trick possible with it, is given in nontechnical terms that should be accessible to a layman. An explanation is then given, for physicists, of how this trick can be interpreted as a proof of Bell’s theorem. An appendix (again intended for physicists) describes the internal machinery of the toy and how it works its magic.

DOI
10.1119/1.1313518

Related papers

Toy quantum mechanics using hidden variables

Pavel Vyacheslavovich Kurakin, George G. Malinetskii

An original model of toy quantum mechanics that uses hidden variables but does not violate the well‐known Bell theorem is proposed.

Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society•Jan 1, 2004•3 citations

Cellular automaton «Toy quantum mechanics»

Pavel Vyacheslavovich Kurakin, Georgij Malinetskii

An original model оf toy quantum mechanics is proposed that uses hidden variables but does not violate well-known Bell theorem.

Izvestiya VUZ Applied Nonlinear Dynamics•May 30, 2003•0 citations

The mystery of the quantum cakes

Paul G. Kwiat, Lucién Hardy

In an attempt to make the concept and consequences of quantum mechanical entanglement more accessible to the non-physicist, we present a simple “real-world” explanation of the proof of quantum mechanical nonlocality without the use of inequalities.

American Journal of Physics•Jan 1, 2000•49 citations

Quantum mechanical rules for observed observers and the consistency of quantum theory

Alexios P. Polychronakos

The interpretation of quantum mechanics in the context of measurements, and concepts such as state “collapse,” have troubled physicists since the inception of quantum theory. Pushed to their logical extreme, such issues become entangled (in the colloquial sense) with questions of consciousness, reality, etc. Bell’s theorem eliminated possible ways out of this tangle via any (halfway reasonable) classical underlying theory, and the success of quantum mechanics forces us to adopt it as a fundamental theory and face the logical consequences.

arXiv:2202.04203•Nature Communications•Apr 9, 2024•9 citations

Comment on Mermin's Recent Proof of the Theorem of Bell

K. Hess, Walter Philipp

Mermin states in a recent paper that his nontechnical version of Bell's theorem stands and is not invalidated by time and setting dependent instrument parameters as claimed in one of our previous papers. We identify a number of misinterpretations (of our definitions) and mathematical inconsistencies in Mermin's paper and show that Mermin's conclusions are therefore not valid: his proof does not go forward if certain possible time dependencies are taken into account.

arXiv:quant-ph/0207110•Jul 18, 2002•0 citations

Another Triumph of Locality: Colliding Histories Skew Handshakes

Charles Alexandre Bédard

From gravity to electromagnetism, apparent action at a distance has always been resolved by deeper, local explanations. Yet today, Bell's theorem is widely interpreted as the death knell for local reality. In this chapter, I present the theorem in accessible terms, examine the three main strategies that attempt to preserve hidden variables, and argue that they share a common defect: the attempt to explain the quantum from the classical rather than the other way around. When quantum mechanics is applied universally, classicality itself is given a quantum account; and when the Bell scenario is formulated in the Heisenberg picture, a strictly local explanation emerges. This chapter serves as a non-technical front-end to Explaining Bell Locally (Proc. R. Soc. A).

quant-pharXiv:2604.05455•Apr 8, 2026•0 citations
This paper describes a toy, consisting of a pair of magic tesseracts, that can be used to perform an amazing trick that defies explanation in conventional terms. An account of the toy, and the trick possible with it, is given in nontechnical terms that should be accessible to a layman. An explanation is then given, for physicists, of how this trick can be interpreted as a proof of Bell’s theorem. An appendix (again intended for physicists) describes the internal machinery of the toy and how it works its magic.
The interpretation of quantum mechanics in the context of measurements, and concepts such as state “collapse,” have troubled physicists since the inception of quantum theory. Pushed to their logical extreme, such issues become entangled (in the colloquial sense) with questions of consciousness, reality, etc. Bell’s theorem eliminated possible ways out of this tangle via any (halfway reasonable) classical underlying theory, and the success of quantum mechanics forces us to adopt it as a fundamental theory and face the logical consequences.
From gravity to electromagnetism, apparent action at a distance has always been resolved by deeper, local explanations. Yet today, Bell's theorem is widely interpreted as the death knell for local reality. In this chapter, I present the theorem in accessible terms, examine the three main strategies that attempt to preserve hidden variables, and argue that they share a common defect: the attempt to explain the quantum from the classical rather than the other way around. When quantum mechanics is applied universally, classicality itself is given a quantum account; and when the Bell scenario is formulated in the Heisenberg picture, a strictly local explanation emerges. This chapter serves as a non-technical front-end to Explaining Bell Locally (Proc. R. Soc. A).