Undergrad Valid local explanation of Bell violations? (Pegg et al., 1999; 2008)

[pines-demon]

I'm having trouble finding John Bell's original 1964 paper. But it discussed "Local Reality Theorem" at length, and as I recall, it included the term "non-local".

I did find a source that quotes a section of Bell's original paper. Here is an excerpt that uses the term "non-local" in context:

The paradox of Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen was advanced as an argument that quantum mechanics could not be a complete theory but should be supplemented by additional variables. These additional variables were to restore to the theory causality and locality. In this note that idea will be formulated mathematically and shown to be incompatible with the statistical predictions of quantum mechanics. It is the requirement of locality, or more precisely that the result of a measurement on one system be unaffected by operations on a distant system with which it has interacted in the past, that creates the essential difficulty. There have been attempts [by von Neumann] to show that even without such a separability or locality requirement no ‘hidden variable’ interpretation of quantum mechanics is possible. These attempts have been examined [by Bell] elsewhere and found wanting. Moreover, a hidden variable interpretation of elementary quantum theory has been explicitly constructed [by Bohm]. That particular interpretation has indeed a gross non-local structure. This is characteristic, according to the result to be proved here, of any such theory which reproduces exactly the quantum mechanical predictions

I do not know what this has to do with anything I said. Nevertheless, it is important to point out that Bell clarified this nonlocality in his later proofs of his theorem. His first paper has some assumptions that he ditched out later (but he always referred to that nonlocality).

 

[.Scott]

I do not know what this has to do with anything I said. Nevertheless, it is important to point out that Bell clarified this nonlocality in his later proofs of his theorem. His first paper has some assumptions that he ditched out later (but he always referred to that nonlocality).

His paper addressed "causality and locality" - not just locality.