2016/11/15 by Theodorus M. Nieuwenhuizen, Theo M. Nieuwenhuizen, Marian Kupczyński +1
Arts and Humanities · Chemistry · Mathematics · Physics and Astronomy · #Bell's theorem #Calculus (dental) #Epistemology #Hidden variable theory #History and advancements in chemistry #Kochen–Specker theorem #Mathematical economics #Mathematics #Meaning (existential) #Philosophy #Philosophy and History of Science #Physics #Quantum #Quantum Mechanics and Applications #Quantum entanglement #Quantum mechanics #Theoretical physics #cond-mat.mes-hall #quant-ph
paper · pdf · doi:10.1007/s10701-017-0062-y
published as Foundations of Physics 47 (2), 316-319 (2017) · 2 pages revtex
arxiv created 2016/11/15 · openalex publication_date 2017/01/18 · openalex created_date 2017/01/26 · arxiv updated 2017/09/28 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/05
Ilya Schmelzer wrote recently: \it Nieuwenhuizen argued that there exists some "contextuality loophole" in Bell's theorem. This claim in unjustified. It is made clear that this arose from attaching a meaning to the title and the content of the paper different from the one intended by Nieuwenhuizen. "Contextual loophole" means only that if the supplementary parameters describing measuring instruments are correctly introduced, Bell and Bell-type inequalities may not be proven. It is also stressed that a hidden variable model suffers from a "contextuality loophole" if it tries to describe different sets of incompatible experiments using a unique probability space and a unique joint probability distribution.