Bibliographic record
Abstract
(Dated: 5 Dec 2000) Abstract: Both philosophical and mathematical considerations argue against the existence of 'non-locality,' or faster than light interaction. Nevertheless, it is widely accepted that non-locality has been established by Bell's Theorems as an intrinsic feature of the natural world. Herein it is shown, to the contrary, that the analysis supporting Bell's Theorems contains implicit hypotheses that are fully disputable and unacceptable on the basis logic, probability theory and basic physics. Finally, the consequences of the rejection of non-locality for the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics are discussed. Resume: Les considerations philosophiques aussi bien que mathematiques semblent contredire l'existence de la non-localite, l'interaction plus rapide que la vitesse lumiere. Neanmoins, il est generallement reconnue que la non-localite est demontree par le Theoreme de Bell comme une qualite intrinsique du monde naturel. Nous essaierons de montrer ici, au contraire, que l'analyse sur laquelle sappuie le Theoreme de Bell comporte des hypotheses implicites qui sont entierement contestables est inacceptables en termes de logique, de theorie de la prbabilite et de physique elementaire. Enfin nous parlerons des consequences du rejet de la non-localite sur l'interpretation de Mechanique Quantique.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".