Although skeptical of the prohibitive power of no-hidden-variables theorems, John Bell was himself responsible for the two most important ones. I describe some recent versions of the lesser known of the two (familiar to experts as the "Kochen-Specker theorem") which have transparently simple proofs. One of the new versions can be converted without additional analysis into a powerful form of the very much better known "Bell's Theorem," thereby clarifying the conceptual link between these two results of Bell.

"--Brian Greene, Columbia University "This book includes material that is intellectually innovative and comes as a surprise even to specialists in the field.

We review the famous no-hidden-variables theorem in von Neumann’s 1932 book on the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics. We describe the notorious gap in von Neumann’s argument, pointed out by Hermann and, more famously, by Bell. We disagree with recent papers claiming that Hermann and Bell failed to understand what von Neumann was actually doing.

In a recent article under the above title (but without the question mark) Henry Stapp has presented arguments which lead him to conclude that under suitable conditions “the truth of a statement that refers only to phenomena confined to an earlier time” must “depend on which measurement an experimenter freely chooses to perform at a later time.” I suggest that this conclusion contains an essential ambiguity as regards the meaning of the expression “statement referring only to phenomena confined to an (...) earlier time,” when such a statement talks about the outcome of an experiment that was not actually performed. As a result Stapp’s argumentation does not imply that future choices can affect present facts. But it does provide a wonderful and instructively different opportunity to reexamine a central point of Bohr’s famous reply to Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen. (shrink)

This book presents an elementary but complete exposition of the relativistic theory of the measurement of intervals in space & time.

In honor of Daniel Greenberger's 65th birthday, I record for posterity two superb examples of his wit, offer a proof of an important theorem on quantum correlations that even those of us over 60 can understand, and suggest, by trying to make it look silly, that invoking “quantum nonlocality” as an explanation for such correlations may be too cheap a way out of the dilemma they pose.

I describe a pedagogical scheme devised to teach efficiently to computer scientists just enough quantum mechanics to permit them to understand the theoretical developments of the last decade going under the name of “quantum computation.” I then note that my offbeat approach to quantum mechanics, designed to be maximally efficacious for this specific educational purpose, is nothing other than the Copenhagen interpretation.

One of the endearing traits of Asher Peres is that when somebody publishes something he knows to be wrong, he does not bother to refute it, even if the paper criticizes his own work. Life is too brief for such frivolity. As a small 70th birthday present I would like to answer one such recent attack. It’s not much of a present, since Asher will not read my paper. Why should he? He already knows this criticism is nonsense. But somebody (...) has to set the written record straight for future historians, so I will do it as part of this celebration. Fortunately this particular issue is so easily settled that this can be a very short paper. Since Asher is a master of the very short paper, my Peresian brevity is an important part of my act of homage. The criticism I address can be found in a new formulation by Karl Hess and Walter Philipp(1) of their view that all versions of Bell’s theorem are fundamentally flawed. I focus here only on their criticism of the version in Asher’s book.(2). (shrink)