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:quant-ph/0207110

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

K. Hess, Walter Philipp

Published Jul 18, 2002• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

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.

DOI
10.48550/arxiv.quant-ph/0207110

Related papers

Exclusion of Time in Mermin's Proof of Bell-Type Inequalities

K. Hess, Walter Philipp

Mermin states 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 deviations from well-established protocol in probability theory as well as mathematical contradictions in Mermin's argument 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/0305037•May 7, 2003•4 citations

Classical information and Mermin's non-technical proof of the theorem of Bell

K. Hess, Walter Philipp

We show that Mermin's reasoning against our refutation of his non-technical proof for Bell-type inequalities is of limited significance or contains mathematical inconsistencies that, when taken into account, do not permit his proof to go forward. Our refutation therefore stands.

arXiv:quant-ph/0208086•Aug 13, 2002•1 citation

Comment on the GHZ variant of Bell's theorem without inequalities

Joy Christian

I point out a sign mistake in the GHZ variant of Bell's theorem, invalidating its claim that the premisses of the EPR argument are inconsistent for systems of more than two particles in entangled quantum states.

arXiv:2408.10256•Aug 12, 2024•0 citations

Shedding (red and green) light on "time related hidden parameters"

N. David Mermin

I explain in elementary terms why the critique of Hess and Philipp in Section 3.2 of quant-ph/0103028 fails to invalidate the nontechnical version of Bell's theorem I gave twenty years ago, involving two detectors with 3-pole switches and red and green lights.

arXiv:quant-ph/0206118•Jun 18, 2002•4 citations

Response to Comment by Myrvold and Appleby

K. Hess, Walter Philipp

Myrvold and Appleby claim that our model for EPR experiments is non-local and that previous proofs of the Bell theorem go through even if our setting and time dependent instrument parameters are included. We show that their claims are false.

arXiv:quant-ph/0211119•Nov 19, 2002•1 citation

Time and setting dependent instrument parameters and proofs of Bell-type inequalities

K. Hess, Walter Philipp

We show that all proofs of Bell-type inequalities, as discussed in Bell's well known book and as claimed to be relevant to Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen type experiments, come to a halt when Einstein-local time and setting dependent instrument parameters are included.

arXiv:quant-ph/0211117•Nov 19, 2002•2 citations
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.