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

Princeton University Press eBooks

18. J. S. BELL: Comment on the Hidden Variables Hypothesis

Published Dec 31, 2003• 0 citations
Publisher
DOI
10.1515/9781400889167-068

Related papers

Comment on "Hidden Variables, Joint Probability, and the Bell Inequalities"

Anupam Garg, N. David Mermin

Physical Review Letters•Jul 19, 1982•17 citations

17. DAVID BOHM: The Hidden Variables Hypothesis

Princeton University Press eBooks•Dec 31, 2003•0 citations

Remarks on the Hypothesis of Hidden Variables

F. Pollini

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 1988•0 citations

Comments on Shimony’s “An Analysis of Stapp’s ‘A Bell-Type Theorem without Hidden Variables’ ”

Henry Pierce Stapp

Foundations of Physics•Jan 1, 2006•5 citations

Defining the local part of a hidden variable model: a comment

Roger Colbeck, Renato Renner

In [Physical Review Letters 101, 050403 (2008)], we showed that quantum theory cannot be explained by a hidden variable model with a non-trivial local part. The purpose of this comment is to clarify our notion of local part, which seems to have caused some confusion in the recent literature. This notion is based on Bell's and demands that local hidden variables are physical, the idea being that, if discovered, they would not contradict basic physical principles. We explain why the recent supposed "counterexamples" that have appeared are not counterexamples to our theorem--in fact they are based on a definition of local hidden variables which would allow signalling and is therefore not physical.

arXiv:0907.4967•Jul 28, 2009•2 citations

Bell's paradoxes without the introduction of hidden variables

Aleksandr V. Belinskii

Uspekhi Fizicheskih Nauk•Jan 1, 1994•8 citations
In [Physical Review Letters 101, 050403 (2008)], we showed that quantum theory cannot be explained by a hidden variable model with a non-trivial local part. The purpose of this comment is to clarify our notion of local part, which seems to have caused some confusion in the recent literature. This notion is based on Bell's and demands that local hidden variables are physical, the idea being that, if discovered, they would not contradict basic physical principles. We explain why the recent supposed "counterexamples" that have appeared are not counterexamples to our theorem--in fact they are based on a definition of local hidden variables which would allow signalling and is therefore not physical.