Local Causality and Completeness: Bell vs. Jarrett [Book Review]
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Foundations of Physics 39 (3):273-294 (2009)
J.S. Bell believed that his famous theorem entailed a deep and troubling conflict between the empirically verified predictions of quantum theory and the notion of local causality that is motivated by relativity theory. Yet many physicists continue to accept, usually on the reports of textbook writers and other commentators, that Bell’s own view was wrong, and that, in fact, the theorem only brings out a conflict with determinism or the hidden-variables program or realism or some other such principle that (unlike local causality), allegedly, nobody should have believed anyway. Moreover, typically such beliefs arise without the person in question even being aware that the view they are accepting differs so radically from Bell’s own. Here we try to shed some light on the situation by focusing on the concept of local causality that is the heart of Bell’s theorem, and, in particular, by contrasting Bell’s own understanding with the analysis of Jon Jarrett which has been the most influential source, in recent decades, for the kinds of claims mentioned previously. We point out a crucial difference between Jarrett’s and Bell’s own understanding of Bell’s formulation of local causality, which turns out to be the basis for the erroneous claim, made by Jarrett and many others, that Bell misunderstood the implications of his own theorem
|Keywords||Bell’s theorem EPR Local causality|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
J. S. Bell (2004). Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
John S. Bell, J. Clauser, M. Horne & A. Shimony (1985). An Exchange on Local Beables. Dialectica 39 (2).
Jon P. Jarrett (1989). Bell's Theorem: A Guide to the Implications. In James T. Cushing & Ernan McMullin (eds.), Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory. University of Notre Dame Press. 60--79.
Jon P. Jarrett (1984). On the Physical Significance of the Locality Conditions in the Bell Arguments. Noûs 18 (4):569-589.
Tim Maudlin (2002). Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity: Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics. Blackwell Publishers.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Brian Skyrms (1982). Counterfactual Definiteness and Local Causation. Philosophy of Science 49 (1):43-50.
Gerd Graßhoff, Samuel Portmann & and Adrian Wüthrich (2005). Minimal Assumption Derivation of a Bell-Type Inequality. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 56 (4):663 - 680.
Han Geurdes (2010). CHSH and Local Causlaity. Adv Studies Theoretical Physics 4 (20):945.
Jeffrey Bub & Vandana Shiva (1978). Non-Local Hidden Variable Theories and Bell's Inequality. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1978:45 - 53.
Frederick M. Kronz (1990). Hidden Locality, Conspiracy and Superluminal Signals. Philosophy of Science 57 (3):420-444.
Federico Laudisa (2008). Non-Local Realistic Theories and the Scope of the Bell Theorem. Foundations of Physics 38 (12):1110-1132.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads116 ( #10,126 of 1,168,893 )
Recent downloads (6 months)44 ( #2,682 of 1,168,893 )
How can I increase my downloads?