Abstract
There are various non-equivalent definitions of locality. Three of them, impossibility of instantaneous communication, impossibility of action-at-a-distance, and impossibility of faster-than-light travel, while not fully implying each other, have a large overlap. When the term non-locality is used, most physicists think that one of these three conditions is being violated. There is a minority of physicists, however, who uses "locality" with a fourth meaning, the satisfaction of the hypotheses underlying Bell inequality. This definition devoids Bell's theorem of its profoundness, reducing it to a mere tautology. It is demonstrated here, through a classical example using a deck of cards, that this latter definition of "locality" is untenable.
Connections
Explore this paper’s authors, topics and related work.
Building this map preview
BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.
Reviews 0
Write a review
No reviews yet.
Discussion 0
Add a comment
No comments yet.