The No-Signalling Theorems: A Nitpicking Distinction

It seems to me that it is among the most sure-footed of quantum physicists, those who have it in their bones, that one finds the greatest impatience with the idea that the ‘foundations of quantum mechanics’ might need some attention. Knowing what is right by instinct, they can become a little impatient with nitpicking distinctions between theorems and assumptions. —John Stewart Bell [4, p. 33]
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index Translate to english
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 22,037
External links
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

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Guido Bacciagaluppi (2013). Insolubility Theorems and EPR Argument. European Journal for Philosophy of Science 3 (1):87-100.
Varol Akman (2008). Relational Priming: Obligational Nitpicking. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 31 (4):378-379.
Geoffrey Hellman (1982). Stochastic Locality and the Bell Theorems. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1982:601-615.

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

64 ( #70,256 of 1,934,424 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

3 ( #195,835 of 1,934,424 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.