Birkhäuser Boston eBooks

Loopholes

David Wick

Published Jan 1, 1995• 0 citations

Abstract

In 1985, David Mermin, a solid-state physicist at Cornell, wrote a funny and informative account of the EPR argument and Bell’s theorem for Physics Today, the Wall Street Journal of the American physics community. Mermin’s article generated a resurgence of interest in the subject, which swept like a cresting wave through the cocktail-party circuit and just as quickly receded. I recall confused discussions from this period with members of my generation, who alternately declared Bell’s theorem trivial, uninteresting, or the greatest discovery since Einstein proved moving clocks go slowly. One sentiment produced universal agreement, however: Do not write papers or apply for grants in the area, since “philosophical” issues are career killers.

DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4612-5361-7_14

Related papers

Special Issue: Ever New "Loopholes" in Bell’s Argument and Experimental Tests

K. Hess, Hans A. De Raedt, Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

Open PhysicsSep 1, 20177 citations

Notes on the hippies who saved physics

Jack Sarfatti

During some heavy cleaning, I happened to notice Sam Schweber’s review of David Kaiser’s book How the Hippies Saved Physics: Science, Counterculture, and the Quantum Revival (Physics Today, September 2011, page 59).I was a graduate student at Brandeis University in 1960–62, but I quit to work in the defense industry. I did so mainly because Schweber and others discouraged my claim that the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen effect implied a faster-than-light information transfer. That was years before Bell’s theorem. I had gotten the idea from reading David Bohm’s Quantum Theory (Prentice-Hall, 1951) in my senior year at Cornell University and David Inglis’s 1961 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics about the tau–theta puzzle. Schweber and the others basically told me to “shut up and calculate.” I finished my PhD at the University of California, Riverside, in August 1969 after a master’s at UC San Diego in 1967.Schweber’s review gives the false impression in the first paragraph that Elizabeth Rauscher’s Fundamental Fysiks Group was merely “a small group of graduate students.” That is a gross misrepresentation of Kaiser’s clear text to the contrary. Most of the members, including department head Geoffrey Chew, Henry Stapp, John Clauser, Nick Herbert, and me, already had PhDs. In addition, Herbert was not a “peripheral member” of the group but a core member from the beginning. And finally, Schweber’s claim that Bell’s theorem was not obscure prior to 1975 is falsified by the statistics that Kaiser presents very clearly in his book.© 2013 American Institute of Physics.

Physics TodayJan 30, 20130 citations

Physical Isolation and Marginalization in Physics: David Bohm's Cold War Exile

Russell B. Olwell

David Bohm's career as a postwar American physicist demonstrates the effects of the cold war on the theoretical physics of that period. Bohm was fired from Princeton University because of his connections to the Communist Party while a graduate student at Berkeley during World War II; he left the country and took positions in Brazil and Israel and finally found a permanent post in England at Birkbeck College, University of London. Because of his political beliefs, Bohm was cut off from the scientific community that had nourished his early career; his isolation led him to explore creative alternatives to orthodox quantum mechanics but also limited his influence and audience within the mainstream physics community. In the 1970s, physicists and philosophers of science returned to Bohm's work as part of a reexamination of quantum physics.

IsisDec 1, 199931 citations

Quantum Mechanics and Its Paradox: A Realistic Solution to Mermin's EPR Apparatus

P. Marmet

Physics EssaysSep 1, 19930 citations

Bell’s theorem and the EPR paradox

Dipankar Home, F. Selleri

Rivista Del Nuovo CimentoSep 1, 1991120 citations

First Publications

Karl Hess

I was very enthusiastic about our ﬁndings and wanted to publish them in a prestigious journal. I knew that this was not going to be easy, because neither Walter nor I were known experts in this particular area of mathematical physics, and any referee who saw that we tried to refute Bell would probably have a negative reaction to it. This is why I called my friend Federico Capasso and asked him to help. I had known Federico since many years. He was one of the top researchers at Bell Laboratories and now professor of applied physics at Harvard. Federico and I had hadmany spirited discussions about research topics and had become very good friends. Federico’s research area is solid state physics. He is a great expert in the area of light detectors, including the photodetectors that are used in the EPRB experiments, and he is the “father” of the quantum cascade laser. He knew about EPRB experiments and the Bell theorem. He also knew that I would not be calling him if I was not convinced about having important results. After presenting my case, I asked Federicowhether hewould, as amember of the National Academy of Sciences, sponsor a paper for PNAS, the proceedings of this National Academy and a very prestigious journal. I was at that time not yet a member of the academy myself. Any member of the academy could communicate annually a small number of papers to PNAS, determine the referees, and be involved in the publication process in the role of a guest editor. If the referee reports were good, such a paper would be printed with very high probability. For academymembers, this was a wonderful way to publish their own research and also to sponsor deserving research of young scientists as well as research on somewhat risky but highly interesting topics.

Oct 22, 20140 citations