Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Philosophy Enters the Optics Laboratory: Bell’s Theorem and Its First Experimental Tests (1965–1982)

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Quantum Dissidents

  • 1510 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter deals with the ways that the issue of completing quantum mechanics was brought into laboratories and became a topic in mainstream quantum optics. It focuses on the period between 1965, when Bell published what we now call Bell’s theorem, and 1982, when Aspect published the results of his experiments. Discussing some of those past contexts and practices, I show that factors in addition to theoretical innovations, experiments, and techniques were necessary for the flourishing of this subject, and that the experimental implications of Bell’s theorem were neither suddenly recognized nor quickly highly regarded by physicists. Indeed, I will argue that what was considered good physics after Aspect’s 1982 experiments was once considered by many a philosophical matter instead of a scientific one, and that the path from philosophy to physics required a change in the physics community’s attitude about the status of the foundations of quantum mechanics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, for instance, Aczel (2002), Bernstein (1991), Gilder (2008), Clauser (1992, 2002, 2003), and Wick (1995). Studies with a sociological or historical approach are Harvey (1980), Harvey (1981), Pinch (1977), and Bispo et al. (2013). The latter is a study of the techniques and instruments used in Clauser’s first experiment. The authors argue that this experiment could not have been carried out earlier as it used phototubes called “quanticons” which had just arrived on the market. For this information, see Gilder (2008, p. 266).

  2. 2.

    “If two separated bodies, each by itself known maximally, enter a situation in which they influence each other, and separate again, then there occurs regularly that which I have just called entanglement of our knowledge of the two bodies” (Schrödinger 1983, p. 161).

  3. 3.

    Bell’s theorem (Bell 1964) was indeed published in 1965. In addition, for the sake of chronology, it should be noted that Bell’s papers, (Bell 1964; Bell 1966), were written in the inverse order of their publication.

  4. 4.

    For methods in prosopography, see Stone (1971) and Kragh (1987, pp. 174–181).

  5. 5.

    We can reconstruct this account due to Bell (1982) and Jeremy Bernstein (1991), who wrote his Quantum Profiles based on extensive talks with Bell and John Wheeler. Besides Bernstein, biographical information on Bell can also be collected from Shimony (2002), Whitaker (2002), and from papers by Bernard d’Espagnat, Michael Horne, and others, gathered in Bertlmann and Zeilinger (2002). For a comprehensive evaluation of Bell’s scientific contributions, see Jackiw and Shimony (2002), Jackiw and Shimony (2008). His selected papers are in Bell et al. (1995) and his papers on the foundations of quantum physics are collected in Bell (2004b).

  6. 6.

    Quotations are, unless indicated, from Bernstein (1991, pp. 65–68).

  7. 7.

    “Old battles” was the term used by Abdul Salam in 1966 to explain to Rosenfeld an affair that happened at the International Centre for Theoretical Physics, in Trieste, Italy, related to a paper criticizing some tenets of the Copenhagen interpretation that had been written by the physicist Klaus Tausk. This episode is analyzed in Chap. 5 in this book. Abdul Salam to Léon Rosenfeld, 26 Sep 1966, Rosenfeld Papers, Niels Bohr Archive, Copenhagen.

  8. 8.

    Léon Rosenfeld to John Bell, 2 Dec 1966. Rosenfeld Papers, Niels Bohr Archive, Copenhagen.

  9. 9.

    Aspect (2002, p. 119). Michael Nauenberg (pers. comm., 16 April 2005) also heard this anecdote from Bell.

  10. 10.

    It was Jauch who had called Bell’s attention to Gleason’s paper, which is an additional piece of evidence of how influential Jauch was in Bell’s resuming of his own work on hidden variables.

  11. 11.

    Bell’s theorem paper was cited more than 4,000 times. I include information related to the number of citations of some of the main papers concerning the tests of Bell’s theorem as evidence of their resonance among physicists. The data were updated on 15 February 2014. I am aware of the limits of such kind of information (Freitas and Freire Jr 2003), but it could help us just as one more piece of information. According to Podlubny (2005), there is no reasonable criterion in the available literature for comparisons between “scientists working in different fields of science on the basis of their citation numbers.” However, just as a guess, I took data from the number of US article output and citations of US articles, in the field of physics, for the years 1997, 1999, and 2000, available at http://www.nsf.org, and I obtained an average of 7.1 citations by article. Redner (2005), considering only citations in Physical Review of papers published in this journal, concluded that “nearly 70 % of all PR articles have been cited fewer than 10 times” and that “the average number of citations is 8.8.” These numbers match the physicists’ shared tacit perception that an article should receive more than ten citations to be known. Spires, Stanford’s database for high energy physics preprints (http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/), suggests the following classification: “unknown papers (0); Less known papers (1–9); Known papers (10–49), Well-known papers (50–99), Famous papers (100–499 cites), and Renowned papers (500+ cites).” Comparison with research on the foundations of quantum theory should be taken with a grain of salt due the huge difference in the number of active physicists in such fields. The source of data is the Web of Science.

  12. 12.

    Sachs (1969) cites Bell’s paper just incidentally. Clark and Turner (1968) realized that Bell’s theorem predicts a conflict between quantum mechanics and hidden variables, but they exploited neither the nature of this conflict nor viable tests to reveal this conflict.

  13. 13.

    For the proceedings of the conference, see Bastin (1971). Henry Stapp claimed that a paper by himself, “widely circulated in 1968,” was the first recognition of the importance of Bell’s theorem. This paper “was to appear in the proceedings of Bastin’s conference on Quantum Theory and Beyond, which occurred in the summer of 1968.” Stapp to Clauser, 5 Feb 1975, John Clauser Papers. These proceedings did not list Stapp among the attendance of the colloquium. The preprint paper was later reprinted, with the information it had been distributed in 1968. It is H. P. Stapp, “Correlation Experiments and the Nonvalidity of Ordinary Ideas about the Physical World,” LBL 5333, 9 July 1976. I am thankful to Gustavo Rocha for obtaining a copy of this paper. The first paper published by Stapp, in which Bell’s theorem is explicitly considered is Stapp (1971).

  14. 14.

    Bohm and Bub (1966) cites Bell (1966), which cites the paper where the theorem is demonstrated (Bell 1964). In addition, according to Jeffrey Bub, Bell’s papers and his theorem were discussed by Bohm and him. Bub also recalls that only later, while in Minnesota, he fully realized the implications of Bell’s theorem. Talk with Jeffrey Bub, 22 May 2002, American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD.

  15. 15.

    Wiener and Siegel’s ideas are in Wiener and Siegel (1953), Wiener and Siegel (1955), Siegel and Wiener (1956). Previously, Wiener had been influenced by Bohm’s works: “I have been tremendously influenced in my thinking by my conversations and correspondence with Mr. Gabor and Mr. Rothstein, and by reading a sequence of two papers […] which appeared this January under the authorship of David Bohm.” In addition, in a talk given at the MIT-Harvard physics seminars, in 1956, Siegel cogitated of experimental predictions different from the standard ones, and N. F. Ramsey (Harvard) and Martin Deutsch (MIT), who attended the talk, “were quite willing to discuss the question as a serious and legitimate claim.” “Paper to be presented on May 3 [1952] before the American Physical Society by Norbert Wiener,” [7pp, unpublished, Box 29C, folder 678] and Armand Siegel to Norbert Wiener, 18 May 1956, [Box 15, folder 217], Norbert Wiener Papers, Institute Archive, MIT, Cambridge, MA. Wiener’s interest in the foundations of quantum mechanics has not been analyzed yet, as far as I know, in the historical and philosophical literature on this subject.

  16. 16.

    Costas Papaliolios to David Bohm, 17 February 1967; Bohm to Papaliolios, 1 March 1967, 2 March 1967, 11 May 1967. Papaliolios Papers, Accession 14811, Harvard University Archives, Boxes 23, folder “Hidden variables,” and 10, folder “Bohm letters,” respectively (CPP hereafter).

  17. 17.

    Papaliolios to Bohm, 20 March 1967, CPP, box 23, folder “Hidden variables,” ibid.

  18. 18.

    “V. Experimental Possibilities?”, minute by Costas Papaliolios, [w/d], CPP, box 23, folder “Hidden variables,” ibid.

  19. 19.

    Thomas Phipps to Papaliolios, 19 Apr 1967, Papaliolios Papers, ibid.

  20. 20.

    George Trigg [editor of Physical Review Letters] to Papaliolios, with the referee’s report enclosed, 28 Feb 1967; Papaliolios to Trigg, 7 March 1967, CPP, ibid.

  21. 21.

    Papaliolios to R. Clark Jones, 7 March 1967, CPP, ibid.

  22. 22.

    See Broglie (1974), Bell (1975), Lochak (1975). Bell’s paper is followed by a discussion between Bell and Lochak. Lochak’s stance provoked Shimony’s irony: “In view of the extreme implausibility of such behavior [to admit a conspiratorial behavior of the detectors for explaining the experimental results violating Bell’s inequalities], the local hidden-variable theories are very hard to defend, and their advocates should remember the sermon of Donne ‘And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee’” (Shimony 1976).

  23. 23.

    See Bohm (1971), and especially Bohm and Hiley (1975).

  24. 24.

    Shimony’s biographical sketch is based on Wick (1995, pp. 106–109), Aczel (2002, pp. 149–155), and Joan L. Bromberg, “The rise of ‘experimental metaphysics’ in late twentieth century physics,” unpublished manuscript, 2004. See also Abner Shimony, Interviewed by Joan Lisa Bromberg, 2002, Niels Bohr Library, American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD.

  25. 25.

    “I found your paper on the mind–body problem extremely stimulating. It is one of the few treatments of the problem which considers the mind–body relationship to be a legitimate subject for scientific investigation, without achieving this scientific status for the problem by reducing it to behavioristic or materialistic considerations.” Abner Shimony to Eugene Wigner, 1 May 1961. Wigner Papers, box 94, folder 1, Manuscripts Division, Department of Rare Books and Special Collections, Princeton University Library (WigP hereafter). Shimony’s first paper on the measurement problem is Shimony (1963).

  26. 26.

    Eugene Wigner to Josef M. Jauch, 6 September 1966. Wigner Papers, box 94, folder 7, WigP.

  27. 27.

    For a sample of this approach, see Shimony (1993).

  28. 28.

    Clauser’s biographical sketch is based on Clauser (2002), Wick (1995, pp. 103–106), and Aczel (2002, pp. 155–159). Quoted fragments are from John F. Clauser, interviewed by Joan Lisa Bromberg, 2002, pp. 3 and 19, Niels Bohr Library, American Institute of Physics, College Park, MD (AIP hereafter).

  29. 29.

    For the teaching of quantum mechanics, see Kaiser (2007) and Greca and Freire Jr (2014). For the role of pedagogy in the production of physics, see Kaiser (2005).

  30. 30.

    For this context in American physics, see Kevles (1978, pp. 393–409) and Chap. 6 in this book.

  31. 31.

    Shimony to Wigner, 1 Jan 1967. Wigner Papers, Box 83, folder 7, WigP.

  32. 32.

    Horne (2002) and Horne (pers. comm., 8 June 2005). Clauser’s abstract is Clauser (1969).

  33. 33.

    “It was a pleasure talking to you on the telephone on Thursday. Mike Horne and I had been through a bad day after we found you had done an analysis that sounded very much like ours.” Shimony to Clauser, 20 Apr 1969, Abner Shimony Papers, Box 2, Folder 9, (Early Work on Hidden Variables, 1969), Archives of Scientific Philosophy, Special Collections Department, University of Pittsburgh (ASP hereafter).

  34. 34.

    CHSH paper is Clauser et al. (1969). Kocher’s experiment is reported in Kocher and Commins (1967). For the roads of Clauser and Shimony to Bell’s theorem, and for their meeting, see Wick (1995, pp. 103–113) and Aczel (2002, pp. 149–169).

  35. 35.

    Clauser to Bell, 14 Feb 1969, Clauser Papers (JCP hereafter).

  36. 36.

    Bell to Clauser, 5 March 1969. Idem.

  37. 37.

    Shimony to Clauser, 14 Jan 1972, Abner Shimony Papers, Box 1, Folder 4 (Clauser, John F.—Correspondence, 1971–1972), ASP.

  38. 38.

    Shimony to Clauser, 20 Apr 1969; Horne to Clauser, 18 Apr 1969; both in JCP. Abner Shimony, interviewed by Joan Lisa Bromberg, 2002, on p. 71, AIP.

  39. 39.

    Clauser et al. (1969). This paper has 2,286 citations.

  40. 40.

    The suggestion of a test with optical photons faced competition to be established. The competition pitted the teams involved with atomic cascade and those with positronium annihilation. When both experiments were already done, Shimony wrote to Clauser (19 May 1972, Clauser Papers): “Freedman told me about the difficulties raised by Wu, Ullman, and Kasday. What has been the upshot of that? I think the only way to handle it is to continue to state, politely but firmly, that their experiment is a fine one, but much less decisive than yours, because of their additional assumption.” Wu’s early experiment was Wu and Shaknov (1950). Later, Kasday led the repetition of this experiment (Kasday 1971; Kasday et al. 1975).

  41. 41.

    Varenna’s school had 84 participants. For its proceedings, see d’Espagnat (1971). For its stimulus on the research on foundations of quantum mechanics, see Freire Jr. (2004) and the previous chapter. Shimony thinks he was invited to Varenna for his previous work on measurement problem (Shimony, interviewed by Joan Lisa Bromberg, 2002, op. cit., on pp. 75–82). However, d’Espagnat remembers that it was Bell who suggested he invite Clauser and Shimony (Bernard d’Espagnat, interviewed by Olival Freire, 2001, AIP).

  42. 42.

    John Clauser, interviewed by Joan Lisa Bromberg, 2002, pp. 12–13, AIP.

  43. 43.

    Clauser to Eugene Commins, 18 Feb 1969, [cc: C. Townes], Clauser to Townes 18 February 1969, Clauser Papers.

  44. 44.

    Shimony to Clauser, 20 April 1969. Clauser Papers. Papaliolios recorded his first meeting with Shimony in the following way: “Hidden variables—March 18, 1969. Talked with Shimony today. (has student–Mike Horne). He pointed out 2 good references (1) Kocher & Commins, Phys Rev Lett 18, 575 (1967) (2) Bell, Physics 1, 195 (1964). It may be poss. to do an Einstein–Rosen–Podolsky exper. with Nussbaum apparatus. Shimony also left me two of his references [on the measurement problem]. See Bull of APS (for 1969 Wash. Meeting). Clauser has independently come up with the same experimental test.” Papaliolios Papers, box 24, folder “EPR Experimen (Shimony-Clauser)”, CPP.

  45. 45.

    Scientific Research, 4(23), 10 November 1969, p. 19. Information about the plans for the third experiment is independently confirmed: “There is yet a third experiment on another atom, at Bell Labs. So all in all we ought to get some firm results.” Richard Holt to Frederick Belinfante, 6 Jan 1970, Shimony Papers, Box 2, Folder 9B, ASP. Belinfante, who was writing a book on hidden variables (Belinfante 1973), had criticized CHSH calculations and this triggered a huge correspondence among them. Most of these letters are at Box 2, Folder 9B, ASP. Belinfante eventually acknowledged his criticisms were unfounded.

  46. 46.

    Edward Fry (pers. comm., 5 Aug 2005). James McGuire to Clauser, 3 Jan 1972, and 24 Feb 1972, Clauser Papers. The collaboration with James McGuire led to a derivation of Bell’s theorem and comparison with data from the experiment by Freedman and Clauser (McGuire and Fry 1973). For the technical troubles, see Harvey (1980, p. 154). Fry considers the NSF’s reviews to be a “clear window” in the physics culture at the time: “there was a real culture at the time that thought that this wasn’t something you should do, in spite of it seemed things were more reasonable at Harvard and maybe even at Berkley.” In addition, the reviewers wrote: “there was a specific reference to the time and money already being wasted at Berkley and Harvard and that NSF shouldn’t waste any more money on this.” Fry’s lecture at the symposium “Optics and the Second ‘Magic Decade’ of Quantum Mechanics,” meeting of the Optical Society in San Jose, CA, 2007. I am thankful to Joan Bromberg for sharing this manuscript with me.

  47. 47.

    Freedman and Clauser’s paper has 612 citations.

  48. 48.

    Kasday (1971), Kasday et al. (1975), Faraci et al. (1974), Wilson et al. (1976), Lamehi-Rachti and Mittig (1976). After 1978 many authors cited the review by Clauser and Shimony (1978), which has 783 citations, instead of each experimental result. This may partially explain the lesser number of citations of these papers.

  49. 49.

    Pipkin, F. M. “Atomic Physics Experiments Using Fast Atomic Beams”. NSF Grant proposal. [To begin on 01 June 1974]. Pipkin Papers [Accession 12802], box 25, folder “NSF Proposal 1974–1975,” Harvard University Archives (PP hereafter).

  50. 50.

    Paty (1977) included in his count not only optical photons experiments, but also proton–proton scattering and positronium annihilation experiments.

  51. 51.

    Freedman et al. (1976). The readings for this course are in the Papaliolios Papers, box 16, folder “Fall 75 Hidden Variables—Reading Course—(P351)”, CPP.

  52. 52.

    Reports of Visiting committees are in Costas Papaliolios Papers, box 5, folder “Visiting Committee, 1970–1973,” idem.

  53. 53.

    Richard Holt (pers. comm., 21 March 2005). See also Wick (1995, p. 108).

  54. 54.

    The composition of the committee who examined Holt’s thesis was Pipkin, Papaliolios, and Purcell.

  55. 55.

    Gottfried (1966). The whole Section IV is dedicated to “The measurement problem and the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics.” Bell’s (1966) paper is suggested for reading.

  56. 56.

    On this case, see Chap. 3 in this book.

  57. 57.

    Harvey (1980). Pipkin’s claim of a violation of quantum electrodynamics was Blumenthal et al. (1965).

  58. 58.

    When Clauser was repeating Holt’s experiment, the latter wrote to the former, “every time that Stu Freedman asks me when we’re going to publish, I tell him I’m waiting for your results.” Holt to Clauser, 31 Aug 1975, Clauser Papers.

  59. 59.

    Marc Levenson to Pipkin, 03 December 1974. Pipkin Papers [Accession 12802], box 12, folder “NSF proposal 1974–1975,” PP.

  60. 60.

    Holt and Pipkin (1976). This report was presented at the Erice workshop by Pipkin. Similar words appeared in Freedman et al. (1976).

  61. 61.

    Pipkin (1978, pp. 317–319). Until today, Holt holds the same opinion, “I think it is still accurate to say that the source of the error remains unknown.” Richard Holt (pers. Comm., 21 March 2005). Clauser and Shimony’s conjecture is that “stresses in the walls of the Pyrex bulb used to contain the electron gun and mercury vapor” made the glass optically active, and this systematic error was not adequately compensated. A similar problem appeared while Clauser was repeating the experiment. After the stresses were removed, “the experiment was re-performed, and excellent agreement with quantum mechanics was then obtained. On the other hand, Holt and Pipkin did not repeat their experiment when they discovered the stresses in their bulb” (Clauser and Shimony 1978, p. 1910).

  62. 62.

    Gary Feldman, Paul Horowitz, Costas Papaliolios, Richard Wilson, and Robert Pound (Chairman), “F. M. Pipkin – Memorial Minute,” Harvard Gazette, 26 Nov 1993, p. 15. At Harvard, this kind of obituary is commissioned. See Jeremy Knowles to Papaliolios, 10 Apr 1992. Papaliolios Papers, box 26, folder “Frank,” CPP.

  63. 63.

    Harvey (1980, p. 158) spoke of “Holt’s virtual capitulation.” I think that he singled out too much Holt’s profile as a graduate student. Indeed, as we have seen, it would be more reasonable to describe the case as a story of failure of the Harvard experimentalists involved, which was responsible for the deletion of their participation in the present story of success of Bell’s theorem.

  64. 64.

    In his “Proposal: Atomic Physics Experiments Using Photon Coincidence Techniques,” [1969], Pipkin listed as goal #2 “To continue the present coincidence measurements of the 4358–2537A photon cascade in mercury […],” and listed Holt as doctoral student, but no reference was made to the hidden variable test, which would only appear in the proposal of the next year. See F. M. Pipkin, “Atomic Physics Experiments Using Fast Atomic Beams and Photon Coincidence Techniques,” NSF Grant Proposal [GP22787], [1970]. He was funded $54,200.00 for 2 years, cf. Rolf Sinclair [NSF] to Pipkin, 26 May 1970. Pipkin Papers, box 23, folder “NSF Atomic 1973,” PP.

  65. 65.

    F. M. Pipkin, “Proposal for a Grant from the NSF to continue atomic physics experiments using fast atomic beams and photon coincidence techniques.” He was funded $112,380.00 for 2 years. Rolf Sinclair [NSF] to Pipkin 25 May 1972. Pipkin Papers, box 23, folder “NSF Atomic 1973,” PP (Holt and Pipkin 1974).

  66. 66.

    Referee report on “Atomic Physics Experiments Using Lasers and Fast Atomic Beams”, NSF proposal PHY-9016886, enclosed with Marcel Bardon [NSF] to F. M. Pipkin, 13 Dec 1990. Pipkin Papers, box 21, folder “NSF awards,” PP.

  67. 67.

    Clauser and Shimony (1978, pp. 1886–1900). The debate between Bell, on one hand, and Shimony, Horne, and Clauser, on the other hand, was published in Epistemological Letters and reprinted in Bell et al. (1985). Clauser and Shimony’s paper became the canonical review on the experiments of Bell’s theorem. Wigner’s (1970) paper included as a footnote a historical remark about what was von Neumann’s main reason for stating the inadequacy of hidden-variable theories. This footnote stirred up a strong Clauser’s (1971a, b) criticism, and the whole affair demanded the intervention of Shimony’s diplomacy. Wigner to Shimony, 5 October 1970, Wigner Papers, box 72, folder 1, WigP, and Wigner (1971).

  68. 68.

    Clauser and Horne’s (1974) paper has 725 citations.

  69. 69.

    The philosopher Karl Popper is an example of somebody who conjectured that the real conflict concerned determinism and not locality. For a criticism of this stance, see Bell (1972) and Clauser and Horne (1974, p. 526).

  70. 70.

    Edward Fry (pers. comm., 5 August 2005).

  71. 71.

    Fry’s style was noted by Harvey (1980, p. 156) in the following terms: “… a major part of Fry’s strategy was to develop experimental techniques per se, and then apply them to a number of quite different empirical problems.”

  72. 72.

    For the development of such techniques during the war, see Galison (1997, pp. 239–311).

  73. 73.

    Bromberg (1991, p. 184). Still according to Bromberg, “the dye laser was also discovered independently by Mary L. Spaeth and D. P. Bortfield at Hughes and by Fritz P. Schaefer and coworkers in Germany. Both of these groups published later.”

  74. 74.

    Fry and Thompson (1976). This paper received 220 citations.

  75. 75.

    Clauser (1976). This paper received 159 citations.

  76. 76.

    Clauser to John Wheeler, 27 Oct 1975. Clauser Papers.

  77. 77.

    “You might be interested that I have decided to repeat Dick’s mercury experiment here with pile-of-plates polarizers. […] I hear you and Dick are considering collaborating on a similar repeat. Have you made a final decision on that?” Clauser to Freedman, 25 Jan 1974. Clauser Papers.

  78. 78.

    Abner Shimony, interviewed by Joan Bromberg, 2002, p. 74, op. cit.

  79. 79.

    From the back cover of all Epistemological Letters issues. The University of Pittsburgh has a complete collection of this journal, a gift of Abner Shimony.

  80. 80.

    See, for instance, Horne and Shimony (1973) and Shimony (1980).

  81. 81.

    A report of the conference, written by John Bell [Testing Quantum Mechanics], and the abstracts of the papers were published in Progress in Scientific Culture—The Interdisciplinary Journal of the Ettore Majorana Centre, 1/4, 439–460, 1976. I am grateful to Alain Aspect for sending me a copy of it.

  82. 82.

    See Progress in Scientific Culture, ibid, pp. 443, 458–460. Zeilinger’s intellectual style is marked by a deep curiosity, which was directed towards science during his undergraduate studies and favored by the flexible curriculum at University of Vienna at that time. In addition, he benefitted from Rauch’s support to research on foundations of quantum mechanics and from the intellectual climate of physics in Vienna—with its mix of science and philosophy—a legacy coming from the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Anton Zeilinger, interviewed by Olival Freire, 30 June 2014, AIP. For Rauch’s research on neutron interferometry and its relation to foundational issues, see the review Rauch (2012).

  83. 83.

    My account strongly contrasts with Wick’s stance (1995, p. 244). He asked some of these protagonists “if their participation in testing quantum mechanics adversely affected their standing among their peers, their ability to obtain research funding, or their job prospects, each replied simply ‘no’.”

  84. 84.

    Although highly considered among both quantum opticians and physicists involved with foundations of quantum mechanics, Clauser eventually shifted his interests to other issues such as nuclear fusion, X-ray imaging, and recently Talbot-vonLau interferometry. One can conjecture about the role played in his decision by his feelings of lack of recognition of the subject among physicists, and the impact of such a lack on his own career.

  85. 85.

    According to Kevles (1978, pp. 421–423), this period represented “a degree of disestablishment” in American physics. It had begun in the middle of the 1960s, signaling the end of the “post-Hiroshima honeymoon,” but by the early 1970s “the cutbacks […] created an employment squeeze reminiscent of the 1930s depression.”

  86. 86.

    John Clauser, interviewed by Joan Bromberg, (2002), p. 12), op. cit. “What is the situation regarding employment next year? If any more letters should be written, let me know;” Abner Shimony to John Clauser, 19 May 1972. “In reply to your letter of January 9, I am happy to write in support of Dr. John Clauser as a candidate for a faculty position at UCSC. I believe he shows promise of becoming one of the most important experimentalists of the next decade. […] I say these things in spite of the fact that Clauser’s results spell trouble for my own pet theory.” Edwin T. Jaynes to Peter L. Scott [Chairman, Board of Studies in Physics, University of California at Santa Cruz], 31 Jan 1973. Clauser Papers.

  87. 87.

    Shimony to Clauser, 8 Aug 1972, Clauser Papers. Shimony had made his own attempt, unsuccessfully, at Boston University: “… I have an appointment with [the dean … at Boston University] for this coming Thursday, and shall try to argue for a special appointment for you, on the grounds that this is a great opportunity for B.U. At least one of the astronomers (Hegyi) knows your work in astrophysics, and therefore I can make a case that you’ll serve two Departments. The new president of B.U. has been making a splash with distinguished senior appointments, outside normal departmental budgets, and I shall argue here is an opportunity for an equally distinguished junior appointment. I wish I could count on their being imaginative enough to see their opportunity, but unfortunately I am not, and don’t want you (or me) to become too hopeful.” Shimony to Clauser, 20 July 1971, Shimony Papers, Box 1, Folder 4, “Clauser, John F.—Correspondence, 1971–1972,” ASP.

  88. 88.

    John Clauser, interviewed by Joan Bromberg, 2002, p. 18, op. cit.

  89. 89.

    This conjecture, however, does not attenuate Shimony’s criticisms: “I think he was treated very shabbily.” “He’s a brilliant man, a very good experimenter, and really a good theoretician also.” Abner Shimony, interviewed by Joan Bromberg, 2002, pp. 82–83, op. cit.

  90. 90.

    Feynman’s opinion on Bell’s theorem deserves further research to track its evolution. His views after Aspect’s experiments, in 1984, will be commented upon later. After the talk reported by Clauser, while visiting Texas A&M at Austin, in 1974, Feynman was approached by Edward Fry and James McGuire to discuss their planned experiment, and reacted positively. Edward Fry (pers. comm., 5 August 2005).

  91. 91.

    John Bell to Francis Pipkin, 22 Dec 1975, Pipkin Papers, box 2, folder “Correspondence January–April 1976,” PP.

  92. 92.

    “Les tout derniers résultats expérimentaux, non encore publiés […] sont explicitement en faveur de la Mécanique Quantique, et confirment donc la réalité du paradoxe”. O. Costa de Beauregard—Nouvelles du colloque sur le Paradoxe EPR au Centre Ettore Majorana, a Erice, 18–23 avril 76, Epistemological Letters, 10th issue, p. 26, May 1976.

  93. 93.

    The paper was written in 1974, by initiative of Freedman and Holt, for a volume in honor of Louis de Broglie. Freedman to Papaliolios, 18 Mar 1974, Holt to Papaliolios, 1 Apr 1974, Papaliolios Papers, box 23, folder “Hidden Variables—Paper in honor of de Broglie,” CPP.

  94. 94.

    Biographical information about Alain Aspect comes from (Aspect, pers. comm., 28 Feb 2005) and from Alain Aspect, interviewed by Olival Freire and Indianara Silva, 2010 and 2011, AIP. “I can say that my previous studies in quantum physics had been totally disappointing: it was just solving partial differential equations about ‘rigid rotator’ and so, not physics according to my view of physics. The textbook of CCT et al. totally changed my view on that,” Aspect, 2005, ibid.

  95. 95.

    Bernard d’Espagnat, interviewed by Olival Freire, 2001, AIP.

  96. 96.

    Aspect (pers. comm., 28 Feb 2005). The acknowledgments in Aspect’s (1976) proposal of experiments evidence the patronage for them: “the author gratefully acknowledges Professor C. Imbert and Dr. O. Costa de Beauregard for having suggested this study and for many fruitful discussions. He especially thanks Dr. J. S. Bell for his encouragement, and Professor B. d’Espagnat for his thorough consideration and discussion of the theoretical aspects of our scheme”. The choice of recommendation letters from Wightman and Kastler were not casual. The Princeton mathematical physicist Arthur S. Wightman championed the axiomatic quantum field approach, a subject with some overlapping with foundations of quantum mechanics. For a presentation of philosophical issues in quantum field theories, see (Brown and Harré 1988), particularly the chapters by Michael Redhead and by James T. Cushing. Alfred Kastler had been awarded the 1966 Physics Nobel Prize for his works on optical pumping and was the leader figure in French atomic physics.

  97. 97.

    Aspect (ibid.). As examples of his approach, see Aspect (1983, 2002).

  98. 98.

    “Alain is right when he mentions our many friendly discussions at that time and later, during his thesis in Orsay. […] Sometimes he was explaining to me things that I had not understood, sometimes it went the other way. For instance I remember that one day in Paris I suggested to him the two channel experiment (with birefringent filters), which turned out to be a good idea, but certainly not for the reasons I was proposing, which were incorrect!” Laloë (ibid.).

  99. 99.

    The lecturers at the College de France were Laloë, Bell, Aspect, Shimony, and d’Espagnat, and the conference brought together 25 people, Journal de physique, Tome 42, Colloque C2, 1981.

  100. 100.

    Pinch (1977), Brush (1980), Harvey (1980), and Harvey (1981).

  101. 101.

    Aspect et al. (1981, 1982a, b). The first paper received 764 citations, the second 1,555, and the third 1,039 citations. The choice for this switch, instead of using Kerr or Pockels cells as first thought by Clauser, was determined by the consideration that with these cells “only very narrow beams could be transmitted, yielding very low coincidence rates; as these cells heat up, and then become inoperative, long runs would be prohibited.” In addition, the calibration of the system would be “exceedingly difficult” due to the need of monitoring the change of the polarizer orientations (Aspect 1976, p. 1945).

  102. 102.

    Richard Feynman to Alain Aspect, 28 Sep 1984. Richard P. Feynman Papers, Box 22, Folder 15, California Institute of Technology Archives. Aspect (pers. comm., 20 Apr 2005). Feynman’s quotation, in Feynman (1982, p. 471), is: “It has not yet become obvious to me that there’s no real problem. I cannot define the real problem, therefore I suspect there’s no real problem, but I’m not sure there’s no real problem. So that’s why I like to investigate things.” Before this fragment, Feynman had written, “Might I say immediately, so that you know where I really intend to go, that we always have had a great deal of difficulty in understanding the world view that quantum mechanics represents.”

  103. 103.

    http://bohr2013.nbi.ku.dk/english/events_exhibitions/niels_bohr_medaljen/; http://www.unesco.org/new/en/media-services/single-view/news/unescos_niels_bohr_gold_medal_awarded_to_prominent_physicists_in_2013/#.UyN7jF4zjx4. Accessed on 14 March 2014.

  104. 104.

    An example of a good physicist who did not grasp the full meaning of Bell’s theorem even after Aspect’s experiments is Abraham Pais, who later in his life became historian of physics. While writing Einstein’s biography, Pais (1982, Chapter 25c) assessed the EPR paper had no bearing on physics and did not cite Bell’s theorem as a development of this issue.

  105. 105.

    Eberhard (1978), Ghirardi et al. (1980), Aspect (1981), Page (1982), Tausk (1967, 29-31), and Bell (2004a, b).

References

  • Aczel, A.D.: Entanglement: The Greatest Mystery in Physics. Four Walls Eight Windows, New York (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Aspect, A.: Proposed experiment to test the nonseparability of quantum mechanics. Phys. Rev. D 14(8), 1944–1951 (1976)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Aspect, A.: Experiences basées sur les inégalités de Bell. Journal de Physique – Colloque C 42, 63–80 (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  • Aspect, A.: Experimental tests of Bell’s inequalities in atomic physics. In: Lindgren, I., Rosen, A., Svanbeg, S. (eds.) Atomic Physics, vol. 8, pp. 103–128. Plenum, New York (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  • Aspect, A.: Bell’s theorem: the naive view of an experimentalist. In: Bertlmann, R.A., Zeilinger, A. (eds.) Quantum (Un)Speakables from Bell to Quantum Information, pp. 119–153. Springer, Berlin (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Aspect, A., Grangier, P., Roger, G.: Experimental tests of realistic local theories via Bell’s theorem. Phys. Rev. Lett. 47(7), 460–463 (1981)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Aspect, A., Dalibard, J., Roger, G.: Experimental test of Bell inequalities using time-varying analyzers. Phys. Rev. Lett. 49(25), 1804–1807 (1982a)

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Aspect, A., Grangier, P., Roger, G.: Experimental realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment – a new violation of Bell inequalities. Phys. Rev. Lett. 49(2), 91–94 (1982b)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Ballentine, L.E.: Resource letter IQM2: foundations of quantum mechanics since the Bell inequalities. Am. J. Phys. 55, 785–792 (1987)

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bastin, T.: Quantum Theory and Beyond: Essays and Discussions Arising from a Colloquium. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  • Belinfante, F.J.: A Survey of Hidden-Variables Theories. Pergamon, New York (1973)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J.S.: On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox. Physics 1, 195–200 (1964)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J.S.: On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 38(3), 447–452 (1966)

    ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J.S.: Introduction to the hidden-variable question. In: d’Espagnat, B. (ed.) Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi”, pp. 171–181. Academic, New York (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J.S.: Quantum mechanical ideas. Science 177, 880–881 (1972)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J.S.: Locality in quantum mechanics: reply to critics. Epistemol. Lett. 7, 2–6 (1975)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J.S.: Testing quantum mechanics. Prog. Sci. Cult. Interdiscip. J. Ettore Majorana Centre 1(4), 439–445 (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J.S.: Atomic-cascade photons and quantum-mechanical nonlocality. Comments Atom. Mol. Phys. 9, 121–126 (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J.S.: On the impossible pilot wave. Found. Phys. 12(10), 989–999 (1982)

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J.S.: Beables for quantum field theory. In: Hiley, B.J., Peat, F.D. (eds.) Quantum Implications: Essays in Honour of David Bohm, pp. 227–234. Routledge & Kegan, London (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J.S.: La nouvelle cuisine. In: Bell, J.S. (ed.) Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics—Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy, pp. 232–248. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004a)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J.S.: Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics: Collected Papers on Quantum Philosophy. With an Introduction by Alain Aspect. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004b)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J.S., Nauenberg, M.: The moral aspect of quantum mechanics. In: De Shalit, A., Feshbach, H., Van Hove, L. (eds.) Preludes in Theoretical Physics, pp. 279–286. North Holland, Amsterdam (1966)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J.S., Shimony, A., Horne, M.A., Clauser, J.F.: An exchange on local beables. Dialectica 39(2), 85–110 (1985)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, J.S., Bell, M., Gottfried, K., Veltman, M.: Quantum Mechanics, High Energy Physics and Accelerators: Selected Papers of John S. Bell, with Commentary. World Scientific, River Edge, NJ (1995)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, J.: Quantum Profiles. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertlmann, R.A., Zeilinger, A.: Quantum [Un]Speakables: From Bell to Quantum Information. Springer, Berlin (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bispo, W.F.d.O., David, D.F.G., Freire Jr., O.: As contribuições de John Clauser para o primeiro teste experimental do teorema de Bell: uma análise das técnicas e da cultura material. Revista Brasileira de Ensino de Física 35, 3603 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal, R.B., Ehn, D.C., Faissler, W.L., Joseph, P.M., Lanzerot, L.J., Pipkin, F.M., Stairs, D.G.: Deviation from simple quantum electrodynamics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 14(16), 660–664 (1965)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D.: Quantum Theory. Prentice-Hall, New York (1951)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D.: A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of hidden variables – I & II. Phys. Rev. 85(2), 166–179, 180–193 (1952)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D.: Quantum theory as an indication of a new order in physics. Part A. The development of new order as shown through the history of physics. Found. Phys. 1(4), 359–381 (1971)

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D., Aharonov, Y.: Discussion of experimental proof for the paradox of Einstein, Rosen, and Podolsky. Phys. Rev. 108(4), 1070–1076 (1957)

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D., Bub, J.: A proposed solution of measurement problem in quantum mechanics by a hidden variable theory. Rev. Mod. Phys. 38(3), 453–469 (1966)

    ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Bohm, D.J., Hiley, B.J.: Intuitive understanding of nonlocality as implied by quantum-theory. Found. Phys. 5(1), 93–109 (1975)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Broglie, L.d.: Sur la réfutation du thèoreme de Bell. Comptes Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences 278 Série B, 721–722 (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromberg, J.L.: The Laser in America, 1950-1970. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1991)

    Google Scholar 

  • Bromberg, J.L.: Device physics vis-à-vis fundamental physics in Cold War America: the case of quantum optics. Isis 97(2), 237–259 (2006)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, H.R., Harré, R. (eds.): Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Field Theories. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  • Brush, S.G.: The chimerical cat: philosophy of quantum mechanics in historical perspective. Soc. Stud. Sci. 10(4), 393–447 (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, P.M., Turner, J.E.: Experimental tests of quantum mechanics. Phys. Lett. A 26, 447 (1968)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Clauser, J.F.: Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories. Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 14(4), 578 (1969)

    Google Scholar 

  • Clauser, J.F.: Von Neumann’s informal hidden-variable argument. Am. J. Phys. 39(9), 1095–1096 (1971a)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Clauser, J.F.: Reply to Dr. Wigner’s objections. Am. J. Phys. 39(9), 1098–1099 (1971b)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Clauser, J.F.: Experimental limitations to validity of semiclassical radiation theories. Phys. Rev. A 6(1), 49–54 (1972)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Clauser, J.F.: Experimental distinction between quantum and classical field-theoretic predictions for photoelectric effect. Phys. Rev. D 9(4), 853–860 (1974)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Clauser, J.F.: Experimental investigation of a polarization correlation anomaly. Phys. Rev. Lett. 36(21), 1223–1226 (1976)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Clauser, J.F.: Early history of Bell’s theory and experiment. In: Black, T.D. (ed.) Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, pp. 168–174. World Scientific, Singapore (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  • Clauser, J.: Early history of Bell’s theorem. In: Bertlmann, R.A., Zeilinger, A. (eds.) Quantum [Un]Speakables – From Bell to Quantum Information, pp. 61–98. Springer, Berlin (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Clauser, J.F.: Early history of Bell’s theorem. In: Bigelow, N.P. (ed.) Coherence and Quantum Optics VIII, pp. 19–43. Plenum & Kluwer, New York (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • Clauser, J.F., Horne, M.A.: Experimental consequences of objective local theories. Phys. Rev. D 10(2), 526–535 (1974)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Clauser, J.F., Shimony, A.: Bell’s theorem – experimental tests and implications. Rep. Prog. Phys. 41(12), 1881–1927 (1978)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Clauser, J.F., Horne, M.A., Shimony, A., Holt, R.A.: Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories. Phys. Rev. Lett. 23(15), 880–884 (1969)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Tannoudji, C., Diu, B., Laloë, F.: Mécanique quantique. Hermann, Paris (1973)

    Google Scholar 

  • d’Espagnat, B.: Foundations of Quantum Mechanics – Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi”. Academic, New York (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  • d’Espagnat, B.: The quantum theory and reality. Sci. Am. 241(5), 158–181 (1979)

    Google Scholar 

  • d’Espagnat, B.: Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Redwood City, CA (1989) [1st ed 1971]

    Google Scholar 

  • Eberhard, P.H.: Bell’s theorem and different concepts of locality. Nuovo Cimento B 46(2), 392–419 (1978)

    ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., Rosen, N.: Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777–780 (1935)

    ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Faraci, G., Gutkowski, D., Notarrigo, S., Pennisi, A.R.: Experimental test of EPR paradox. Lettere al Nuovo Cimento 9(15), 607–611 (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  • Feynman, R.P.: Simulating physics with computers. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21(6–7), 467–488 (1982)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, S.J., Clauser, J.F.: Experimental test of local hidden-variable theories. Phys. Rev. Lett. 28(14), 938–941 (1972)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman, S.J., Holt, R.A., Papaliolios, C.: Experimental status of hidden variable theories. In: Broglie, L.d., Flato, M. (eds.) Quantum Mechanics, Determinism, Causality and Particles, pp. 43–59. D. Reidel, Dordrecht (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  • Freire Jr., O.: The historical roots of “foundations of quantum mechanics” as a field of research (1950–1970). Found. Phys. 34(11), 1741–1760 (2004)

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Freitas, F.H.A., Freire Jr., O.: Sobre o uso da Web of Science como fonte para a história da ciência. Revista da SBHC 1(2), 129–147 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  • Fry, E.S.: Two-photon correlations in atomic physics. Phys. Rev. A 8(3), 1219–1232 (1973)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Fry, E.S., Thompson, R.C.: Experimental test of local hidden-variable theories. Phys. Rev. Lett. 37(8), 465–468 (1976)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Galison, P.: Image and Logic: A Material Culture of Microphysics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghirardi, G.C., Rimini, A., Weber, T.: A general argument against superluminal transmission through quantum mechanical measurement process. Lettere al Nuovo Cimento 27(10), 293–298 (1980)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Gilder, L.: The Age of Entanglement – When Quantum Physics Was Reborn. Knopf, New York (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gleason, A.M.: Measures on the closed subspaces of a Hilbert space. J. Math. Mech. 6(6), 885–893 (1957)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Gordin, M.D.: The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottfried, K.: Quantum Mechanics. W.A. Benjamin, New York (1966)

    Google Scholar 

  • Greca, I.M., Freire Jr., O.: Meeting the challenge: quantum physics in introductory physics courses. In: Matthews, M.R. (ed.) International Handbook of Research in History, Philosophy and Science Teaching, pp. 183–209. Springer, Dordrecht (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberger, D.: The history of the GHZ paper. In: Bertlmann, R.A., Zeilinger, A. (eds.) Quantum [Un]Speakable—From Bell to Quantum Information, pp. 281–286. Springer, Berlin (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, B.: The effects of social context on the process of scientific investigation: experimental tests of quantum mechanics. In: Knorr, K.D., Krohn, R., Whitley, R. (eds.) The Social Process of Scientific Investigation, pp. 139–163. D. Reidel, Dordrecht (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, B.: Plausibility and the evaluation of knowledge: a case-study of experimental quantum mechanics. Soc. Stud. Sci. 11, 95–130 (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  • Heisenberg, W.: Physics and Philosophy; the Revolution in Modern Science. Harper, New York (1958)

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt, R.A.: Atomic cascade experiments. PhD dissertation, Harvard University (1973)

    Google Scholar 

  • Holt, R.A., Pipkin, F.M.: Precision-measurement of lifetime of 73S1 state of atomic mercury. Phys. Rev. A 9(2), 581–584 (1974)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Holt, R.A., Pipkin, F.M.: Polarization correlation measurement on an atomic mercury cascade. Prog. Sci. Cult. Interdiscip. J. Ettore Majorana Centre 1(4), 460 (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  • Horne, M.A.: Experimental consequences of local hidden variable theories. PhD dissertation, Boston University (1970)

    Google Scholar 

  • Horne, M.A.: On four decades of interaction with John Bell. In: Bertlmann, R.A., Zeilinger, A. (eds.) Quantum [Un]Speakable—From Bell to Quantum Information, pp. 99–102. Springer, Berlin (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Horne, M.A., Shimony, A.: Local hidden-variable theories. Epistemol. Lett. 1, 7–22 (1973)

    Google Scholar 

  • Horne, M., Shimony, A., Zeilinger, A.: Down-conversion photon pairs: a new chapter in the history of quantum-mechanical entanglement. In: Anandan, J.S. (ed.) Quantum Coherence, pp. 356–372. World Scientific, Singapore (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackiw, R., Shimony, A.: The depth and breadth of John Bell’s physics. Phys. Perspect. 4(1), 78–116 (2002)

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Jackiw, R., Shimony, A.: Bell, John Stewart. In: Koertge, N. (ed.) New Dictionary of Scientific Biography, pp. 236–243. Thomson Gale, New York (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  • Jammer, M.: The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics – The Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in Historical Perspective. Wiley, New York (1974)

    Google Scholar 

  • Jauch, J.M., Piron, C.: Can hidden variables be excluded in quantum mechanics. Helvetica Physica Acta 36(7), 827–837 (1963)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, D. (ed.): Pedagogy and the Practice Of Science: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, D.: Turning physicists into quantum mechanics. Phys. World May:28–33 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasday, L.R.: Experimental test of quantum predictions for widely separated photons. In: d’Espagnat, B. (ed.) Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi”, pp. 195–210. Academic, New York (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasday, L.R., Ullman, J.D., Wu, C.S.: Angular-correlation of compton-scattered annihilation photons and hidden variables. Nuovo Cimento B 25(2), 633–661 (1975)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Kevles, D.J.: The Physicists: The History of a Scientific Community in Modern America. Knopf, New York (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  • Kocher, C.A., Commins, E.D.: Polarization correlation of photons emitted in an atomic cascade. Phys. Rev. Lett. 18(15), 575–577 (1967)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Körner, S.: Observation and Interpretation – A Symposium of Philosophers and Physicists. Butterworths, London (1957)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kragh, H.: An Introduction to the Historiography of Science. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1987)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamehi-Rachti, M., Mittig, W.: Quantum-mechanics and hidden variables – test of Bell’s inequality by measurement of spin correlation in low-energy proton-proton scattering. Phys. Rev. D 14(10), 2543–2555 (1976)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Lochak, G.: Parametres cachés et probabilités cachées. Epistemol. Lett. 6, 41 (1975)

    Google Scholar 

  • Lochak, G.: Thèses. Epistemological Letters 19, 27–28 (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, T.W., Santos, E., Selleri, F.: Local realism has not been refuted by atomic cascade experiments. Phys. Lett. A 98(1–2), 5–9 (1983)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, J.H., Fry, E.S.: Restrictions on nonlocal hidden-variable theory. Phys. Rev. D 7(2), 555–557 (1973)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Messiah, A.: Quantum Mechanics. North Holland, Amsterdam (1961)

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, G.H., Pipkin, F.M.: Correlation of photons in cascade and coherence time of 63P1 state of mercury. Phys. Rev. Lett. 19(19), 1089–1092 (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  • Page, D.N.: The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen physical reality is completely described by quantum-mechanics. Phys. Lett. A 91(2), 57–60 (1982)

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Pais, A.: “Subtle Is the Lord”: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein. Oxford University Press, New York (1982)

    Google Scholar 

  • Papaliolios, C.: Experimental test of a hidden-variable quantum theory. Phys. Rev. Lett. 18(15), 622–625 (1967)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Paty, M.: The recent attempts to verify quantum mechanics. In: Lopes, J.L., Paty, M. (eds.) Quantum Mechanics, a Half Century Later, pp. 261–289. Reidel, Dordrecht (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauli, W.: Remarques sur le problème des paramètres cachés dans la mécanique quantique et sur la théorie de l’onde pilote. In: George, A. (ed.) Louis de Broglie – physicien et penseur, pp. 33–42. Editions Albin Michel, Paris (1953)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pauli, W., Meyenn, K. v.: Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel mit Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg u. a. Band IV, Teil II 1953–1954. Springer, Berlin (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinch, T.: What does a proof do if it does not prove? A study of the social conditions and metaphysical divisions leading to David Bohm and John von Neumann failing to communicate in quantum physics. In: Mendelsohn, E., Weingart, P., Whitley, R. (eds.) The Social Production of Scientific Knowledge, pp. 171–216. Reidel, Dordrecht (1977)

    Google Scholar 

  • Pipkin, F.M.: Atomic physics tests of the basic concepts in quantum mechanics. Adv. Atom. Mol. Phys. 14, 281–340 (1978)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Podlubny, I.: Comparison of scientific impact expressed by the number of citations in different fields of science. Scientometrics 64(1), 95–99 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauch, H.: Quantum physics with neutrons: from Spinor symmetry to Kochen-Specker phenomena. Found. Phys. 42(1), 153–172 (2012)

    ADS  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Rauch, H., Zeilinger, A., Badurek, G., Wilfing, A., Bauspiess, W., Bonse, U.: Verification of coherent Spinor rotation of fermions. Phys. Lett. A 54(6), 425–427 (1975)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Redner, S.: Citation statistics from 110 years of physical review. Phys. Today 58(6), 49–54 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, L.: L’évidence de la complementarité. In: George, A. (ed.) Louis de Broglie – physicien et penseur, pp. 43–65. Editions Albin Michel, Paris (1953) [A slightly modified English version of this paper is Strife about complementarity, Science progress, 163 (1953), 1393–1410, reprinted in Robert Cohen and John Stachel (eds.). Selected papers of Léon Rosenfeld (Dordrecht, D. Reidel, 1979)]

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, M.: Further comment on alternative to orthodox interpretation of quantum theory. Am. J. Phys. 37(2), 228–229 (1969)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Schawlow, A.: Concluding remarks. In: Lindgren, I., Rosen, A., Svanbeg, S. (eds.) Atomic Physics, vol. 8, pp. 565–569. Plenum, New York (1983)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schrödinger, E.: The present situation in quantum mechanics. In: Wheeler, J.A., Zurek, W.H. (eds.) Quantum Theory and Measurement, pp. 152–167. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (1983) [Original publication in Naturwissenchaften 123, 807–812, 823–828, 844–849, 1935]

    Google Scholar 

  • Shimony, A.: Role of observer in quantum theory. Am. J. Phys. 31(10), 755–773 (1963)

    ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Shimony, A.: Reply to Dr. Lochak. Epistemol. Lett. 8, 1–6 (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  • Shimony, A.: The point we have reached. Epistemol. Lett. 26, 1–7 (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  • Shimony, A.: Introduction. Dialectica 39(2), 83–84 (1985)

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Shimony, A.: Search for a Naturalistic World View (2 vols.). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  • Shimony, A.: John S. Bell: some reminiscences and reflections. In: Bertlmann, R.A., Zeilinger, A. (eds.) Quantum [Un]Speakable—From Bell to Quantum Information, pp. 51–60. Springer, Berlin (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, A., Wiener, N.: Theory of measurement in differential-space quantum theory. Phys. Rev. 101(1), 429–432 (1956)

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Stapp, H.P.: S-Matrix interpretation of quantum theory. Phys. Rev. D 3(6), 1303–1320 (1971)

    ADS  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Stöltzner, M.: Bell, Bohm, and von Neumann: some philosophical inequalities concerning no-go theorems and the axiomatic method. In: Placek, T., Butterfeld, J. (eds.) Non-locality and Modality, pp. 37–58. Kluwer, Dordrecht (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, L.: Prosopography. Daedalus 100(1), 46–79 (1971)

    Google Scholar 

  • Tausk, K.S.: A Medida na Mecânica Quântica. PhD dissertation, Universidade de São Paulo (1967)

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitaker, A.: John Bell in Belfast: early years and education. In: Bertlmann, R.A., Zeilinger, A. (eds.) Quantum [Un]Speakable—From Bell to Quantum Information, pp. 7–20. Springer, Berlin (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wick, D.: The Infamous Boundary: Seven Decades of Controversy in Quantum Physics. Birkhäuser, Boston (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, N., Siegel, A.: A new form for the statistical postulate of quantum mechanics. Phys. Rev. 91(6), 1551–1560 (1953)

    ADS  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, N., Siegel, A.: The differential-space theory of quantum systems. Il Nuovo Cimento 2(4 Suppl), 982–1003 (1955)

    MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Wigner, E.P.: On hidden variables and quantum mechanical probabilities. Am. J. Phys. 38(8), 1005–1009 (1970)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Wigner, E.P.: Rejoinder. Am. J. Phys. 39(9), 1097–1098 (1971)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, A.R., Lowe, J., Butt, D.K.: Measurement of relative planes of polarization of annihilation quanta as a function of separation distance. J. Phys. G Nucl. Part. Phys. 2(9), 613–624 (1976)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, C.S., Shaknov, I.: The angular correlation of scattered annihilation radiation. Phys. Rev. 77(1), 136 (1950)

    ADS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instituto de Física – UFBa Campus de Ondina, Salvador, Brazil

    Olival Freire Junior

Authors
  1. Olival Freire Junior
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Freire Junior, O. (2015). Philosophy Enters the Optics Laboratory: Bell’s Theorem and Its First Experimental Tests (1965–1982). In: The Quantum Dissidents. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44662-1_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44662-1_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-662-44661-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-662-44662-1

  • eBook Packages: Physics and AstronomyPhysics and Astronomy (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation