Comment on ‘1/
            <i>f</i>
            noise generated by high-frequency currents’

Bell, David A.; May, E.J.P.; Morgan, H.G.; Sellars, W.D.

doi:10.1049/el:19760181

Cited by 1 publication

(14 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this section I introduce the notation (largely following Bell [1,4,12,13]) used throughout the paper and the assumptions which are implicit (or, in some papers, explicit) in Bellʼs theorems.…”

Section: Notation and Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…With characteristic modesty, he co-referenced his own 1964 paper with [30,31], which closely followed his own presentation, relying upon (deterministic) 'hidden variables' with the 'locality' condition or assumption. As will be discussed below, the presentation in [12] does show some evolution in Bellʼs thinking, but a clear conceptual advance is not to be found until his 1976 paper [4], where he introduced the term 'local causality' (LC).…”

Section: Bellʼs 1976 Theoremmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reference [4] made use of the concept 'local beable', Bellʼs term (introduced in [32]) for elements of reality that were assumed to be localisable to points, or at least small regions, in space-time. Many potential elements of reality are not usually conceived this way-a quantum state, for example, does not exist in space at all, but rather is defined on a space-like hypersurface [21].…”

Section: Bellʼs 1976 Theoremmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The first is that proven in 1964 [1], that there are quantum predictions incompatible with any theory satisfying locality and determinism (L&D). The second is that proven in 1976 [4], that there are quantum predictions incompatible with any theory satisfying local causality (LC). I use the terms theorem and proven advisedly.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Presumably this issue was not actually printed until 1965, which presumption is supported by the fact that in many [2][3][4][5][6] of his papers that referred to [1], Bell gave the year of its publication as 1965. Those with the date of 1964 may of course have been editorially 'corrected'.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The two Bellʼs theorems of John Bell

Wiseman¹

2014

J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Many of the heated arguments about the meaning of "Bell's theorem" arise because this phrase can refer to two different theorems that John Bell proved, the first in 1964 and the second in 1976. His 1964 theorem is the incompatibility of quantum phenomena with the dual assumptions of locality and determinism. His 1976 theorem is the incompatibility of quantum phenomena with the unitary property of local causality. This is contrary to Bell's own later assertions, that his 1964 theorem began with that single, and indivisible, assumption of local causality (even if not by that name). While there are other forms of Bell's theorems -which I present to explain the relation between Jarrett-completeness, "fragile locality", and EPR-completeness -I maintain that Bell's two versions are the essential ones. Although the two Bell's theorems are logically equivalent, their assumptions are not, and the different versions of the theorem suggest quite different conclusions, which are embraced by different communities. For realists, the notion of local causality, ruled out by Bell's 1976 theorem, is motivated implicitly by Reichenbach's Principle of common cause and explicitly by the Principle of relativistic causality, and it is the latter which must be forgone. Operationalists pay no heed to Reichenbach's Principle, but wish to keep the Principle of relativistic causality, which, bolstered by an implicit "Principle of agent-causation", implies their notion of locality. Thus for operationalists, Bell's theorem is the 1964 one, and implies that it is determinism that must be forgone. I discuss why the two 'camps' are drawn to these different conclusions, and what can be done to increase mutual understanding.

show abstract

Section: Notation and Assumptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%