Related papers: Reply to Werner
We respond to invalid criticism in the recent Comment by Schneider et al. [arXiv:1407.4127v1]
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…
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…
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…
This is a collection of my responses to the criticisms of my argument against the impossibility proof of John Bell, which aims to undermine any conceivable local realistic completion of quantum mechanics. I plan to periodically update this…
In this short note I reply to criticisms of an argument in my paper [1] that appear in comment [2]. I refer the reader to section 4 of [1] in which I described the scenario of a Gedankenexperiment on which is based the argument criticized…
We critically analyze a recent paper by D. Mermin and we compare his statements with Bell's position on the problems he is discussing.
On the 50th anniversary of Bell's monumental 1964 paper, there is still widespread misunderstanding about exactly what Bell proved. This misunderstanding derives in turn from a failure to appreciate the earlier arguments of Einstein,…
While it is widely agreed that Bell's theorem is an important result in the foundations of quantum physics, there is much disagreement about what exactly Bell's theorem shows. It is agreed that Bell derived a contradiction with experimental…
We are pleased to see that Jeckelmann has made many changes to the original version of his comment on our paper as a result of our response. Here is a copy of this powerful response that reveals problems in his previous results. However,…
Response to Comment by A. Bussmann-Holder (arXiv:0909.3603)
We respond to the criticisms of a recent paper of Buchert et al. [arXiv:1505.07800]
This is an essay-review on a recently re-issued book of John Bell "Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics". The discussion concentrates around the Bell Theorem, its assumptions, consequences and frequent overinterpretations.
In this paper dedicated to the memory of Walter Philipp, we formalize the rules of classical$\to$ quantum correspondence and perform a rigorous mathematical analysis of the assumptions in Bell's NO-GO arguments.
Errors in Eberly's derivation of several Bell inequalities are pointed out: (1) it is based on an equation that is incorrect; (2) it uses neither two-particle states nor locality to derive Bell's inequalities and; (3) it does not use…
We reply to the comments made by M. Kupczynski and J. P. Lambare on our recent paper titled ''Consequences of the single-pair measurement of the Bell parameter'' [Phys. Rev. A 111, 022204 (2025)], questioning our claims on the implications…
As a coauthor of the article mentioned in the title, I discuss the criticism in the comment of Aalseth et al. Part of the criticism is justified.
``In this paper we give the history of Leonhard Euler's work on the pentagonal number theorem, and his applications of the pentagonal number theorem to the divisor function, partition function and divergent series. We have attempted to give…
A recent post by Tim Maudlin to this archive (arXiv:1408.1828) was entitled "Reply to Werner". However, it was not clear to what text this was supposed to be a reply. Here I briefly provide this context, and show that Maudlin's post is as…
Based on easy-to-follow considerations it is not difficult to be vehemently opposed not only the solutions found in that paper but also the conclusions manifested there.