Advertisement

Foundations of Physics

, Volume 11, Issue 3–4, pp 205–234 | Cite as

The concepts of influences and of attributes as seen in connection with Bell's theorem

  • B. d'Espagnat
Article

Abstract

With regard to the notion of cause—or more generally of influence—the various methods of proof of Bell's theorem do not all have the same bearing. The differences between two of these methods are analyzed, with regard to both their conceptual basis and their conclusions. It is shown that both methods give valuable information but, not too surprisingly, the one that is based on the more detailed and specific definition of the concept of influences, and that makes use of the concept of attribute, leads to conclusions that are also to some extent more specific than those following from the other method.

Keywords

Conceptual Basis Specific Definition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    A. Einstein B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen,Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. S. Bell,Physics 1, 195 (1964).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. F. Clauser and M. A. Horne,Phys. Rev. D 10, 526 (1974).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. S. Bell,Epistemological Lett. 9, March 1976 (17.0).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Shimony, M. A. Horne, and J. F. Clauser,Epistemological Lett. 13, October 1976 (17.1).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. S. Bell,Epistemological Lett. 15, February 1977 (17.3); A. Shimony,Epistemological Lett. 18, January 1978 (17.4).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. d'Espagnat,Phys. Rev. D 11, 1424 (1975).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    H. P. Stapp,Phys. Rev. D 3, 1303 (1971);Nuovo Cimento 40B, 191 (1977).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. H. von Wright,Causality and Determinism (Columbia University Press, New York, 1974).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. G. Hempel,Philosophy of Natural Science (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1966).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Carnap,Philosophical Foundations of Physics (Basic Books, 1966).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. G. Hempel, inThe Validation of Scientific Theories, P. Frank, ed. (Beacon Press, Boston, 1956).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    L. Rosenfeld, inLouis de Broglie physicien et penseur (Albin Michel, Paris, 1953).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    H. Stein, On the Conceptual Structures of Quantum Mechanics, inParadigm and Paradoxes, Vol. 5 (University of Pittsburgh, 1972).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    B. d'Espagnat,Epistemological Lett. 22, March 1979 (40.0).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. Lewis,Counterfactuals (Blackwell, Oxford, 1973).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt,Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    B. d'Espagnat, Quantum Logic and Nonseparability, inThe Physicist's Conception of Nature, J. Mehra, ed. (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1973);Phys. Rev. D 18, 349 (1978).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    B. d'Espagnat,Sci. Am. 241, 158 (1979).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    G. E. Hugues and M. J. Cresswell,An Introduction to Modal Logic (Methuen, London, 1968).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    A. Shimony,Epistemological Lett. 26, June 1980 (47.0).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. d'Espagnat
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire de Physique Théorique et Particules Elementaires (Laboratoire associé au Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)Université Paris-SudOrsayFrance

Personalised recommendations