Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Foundations Quantum Gravity Relativistic Quantum Information Quantum Control Pulse Engineering Quantum Gate Fidelity Benchmarking

Response to Wiseman, Rieffel, and Cavalcanti on Bell's 1964 Paper

arXiv
Authors: Edward J. Gillis

Year

2016

Paper ID

7861

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

78

Citations

N/A

Abstract

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 disputing this point, and fails to address the central criticism that their claim is based on a seriously flawed formalization of Bell's argument deriving from an unreasonably strong interpretation of the the terms, 'influence', 'affect', and 'depend on'.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Foundations research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2016 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • 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.

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 #7861 #69036 CARVE-Q: Quantum-Proposed, Clas... #69035 A Modular Approach to Succinct ... #69013 Quantum correlations and cohere... #68989 Quantum correlations in QBism's...

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.