You're viewing papers too quickly. Please wait a moment.<br>This helps keep the archive available for everyone.

Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Foundations Entanglement Theory Quantum Correlations

Comment on "A Loophole of All "Loophole-Free" Bell-Type Theorems"

arXiv
Authors: Justo Pastor Lambare

Year

2020

Paper ID

21774

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

74

Citations

N/A

Abstract

In a recent article (Found Sci (2020) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-020-09666-0) Marek Czachor claims that the Bell inequality cannot be proved because variables of complementary measurements cannot be added or multiplied. Even though he has correctly identified the problems existing with the orthodox interpretation of the Bell inequality and dealt with them in an original way, the interpretation he addresses do not pertain to the original formulation given by John Stewart Bell.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Foundations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2020 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • In a recent article (Found Sci (2020) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10699-020-09666-0) Marek Czachor claims that the Bell inequality cannot be proved because variables of...

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #21774 #69013 Quantum correlations and cohere... #69036 CARVE-Q: Quantum-Proposed, Clas... #69035 A Modular Approach to Succinct ... #69032 Beyond the Canonical Protocol: ...

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.