Abstract
Jarrett claims to have shown that a logical equivalence holds between the condition he calls “locality” and the relativistic ban on superluminal signalling. This is misleading in an important respect: the speed of the signalling plays no essential role in the proof. Given this, an argument against the validity of the proof is easily constructed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Jarrett, J.P. (1984) “On the Physical Significance of the Locality Conditions in the Bell Arguments,” Nôus 18: 569–589.
Ballentine, L.E. and Jarrett, J.P. (1987) “Bell’s theorem: Does quantum mechanics contradict relativity?” American Journal of Physics 55: 696–701.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1989 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Jones, M.R. (1989). What Locality Isn’t: A Response to Jarrett. In: Kafatos, M. (eds) Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory and Conceptions of the Universe. Fundamental Theories of Physics, vol 37. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0849-4_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0849-4_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4058-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-0849-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive