Abstract
I derive a Gleason-type contradiction from assumptions weaker than those needed to reach a Bell inequality. By establishing the inconsistency between local realism and QM's perfect EPR-type anticorrelations, the proof fills in a gap left open by Bell arguments.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
H. Brown and G. Svetlichny,Found. Phys. 20, 000 (1990).
L. Ballentine and J. Jarrett,Am. J. Phys. 55, 698 (1987).
M. Redhead,Incompleteness, Nonlocality, and Realism (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1987).
J. Jarrett,Noûs 18, 569 (1984).
A. Elby, “Should we explain the EPR correlations causally,” forthcoming inPhilos. Sci. (1991).
R. Clifton, M. Redhead, and J. Butterfield, forthcoming inFound. Phys. 21, (1991).
D. Bohm and B. Hiley,Found. Phys. 11, 529 (1981).
S. Kochen and E. Specker,J. Math. Mech. 17, 59 (1967).
A. Gleason,J. Math. Mech. 6, 885 (1957).
P. Heywood and M. Redhead,Found. Phys. 13, 481 (1983).
P. Suppes and M. Zanotti, in Suppes, ed.,Logic and Probability in Quantum Mechanics (Reidel, Dordrecht, 1976), p. 445.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Elby, A. Nonlocality and Gleason's lemma. Part 2. Stochastic theories. Found Phys 20, 1389–1397 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01883493
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01883493