Blaylock argues that the derivation of Bell’s inequality requires a hidden assumption, counterfactual definiteness, of which Bell was unaware. A careful analysis of Bell’s argument shows that Bell presupposes only locality and the predictions of standard quantum mechanics. Counterfactual definiteness, insofar as it is required, is derived in the course of the argument rather than presumed. Bell’s theorem has no direct bearing on the many worlds interpretation not because that interpretation denies counterfactual definiteness but because it does not recover the predictions of standard quantum mechanics.
REFERENCES
1.
G.
Blaylock
, “The EPR paradox, Bell’s inequality, and the question of locality
,” Am. J. Phys.
78
(1
), 111
–120
(2009
).2.
D.
Greenberger
, M.
Horne
, and A.
Zeilinger
, “Going beyond Bell’s theorem
” in Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory, and Conceptions of the Universe
, edited by M.
Kaftos
(Kluwer
, Dordrecht
, 1989
), pp. 69
–72
.3.
4.
See, for example,
P.
Heywood
and M. L. G.
Redhead
, “Nonlocality and the Kochen–Specker paradox
,” Found. Phys.
13
, 481
–499
(1983
);A.
Stairs
, “Quantum logic, realism and value-definiteness
,” Philos. Sci.
50
, 578
–602
(1983
).5.
Albert
Einstein
, Boris
Podolsky
, and Nathan
Rosen
, “Can quantum mechanical description of reality be considered complete?
,” Phys. Rev.
47
, 777
–780
(1935
).6.
J. S.
Bell
, “Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality
,” J. Phys. Colloq.
42
, 41
–61
(1981
).Reprinted in
J. S.
Bell
, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics
, 2nd ed. (Cambridge U. P.
, Cambridge
, 2004
), Chap. 16, quotation on p. 143
.7.
J. S.
Bell
, “On the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox
,” Physics
1
, 195
–200
(1964
).© 2010 American Association of Physics Teachers.
2010
American Association of Physics Teachers
AAPT members receive access to the American Journal of Physics and The Physics Teacher as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.
