Bohr, N., Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, Wiley (1958), and Dover (2011), see in particular chapter “Discussions with Einstein on epistemological problems in atomic physics” – or, in French, with bibliography and glossary by C. Chevalley: Physique atomique et connaissance humaine, Folio essais, Gallimard (1991); Essays 1933 to 1957 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, Ox Bow Press (1987); Essays 1958–62 on Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, Wiley (1963) and Ox Bow Press (1987); Atomic Physics and the Description of Nature, Cambridge University Press (1934 and 1961).Google Scholar

Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, P.A. Schilpp editor, Open Court and Cambridge University Press (1949).Google Scholar

Bacchiagaluppi, G. and Valentini, A., Quantum Theory at the Crossroads: Reconsidering the 1927 Solvay Conference, Cambridge University Press (2009); https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609184v2.Google Scholar

von Neumann, J., Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik, Springer, Berlin (1932); Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Princeton University Press (1955).Google Scholar

Bell, J.S., “On the problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 447–452 (1966); reprinted in Quantum Theory and Measurement, J.A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek editors, Princeton University Press (1983), 396–402 and in chapter 1 of [6].Google Scholar

Bell, J.S., Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge University Press (1987); second augmented edition (2004), which contains the complete set of J. Bell’s articles on quantum mechanics.Google Scholar

Bohm, D. and Bub, J., “A proposed solution of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics by a hidden variable theory”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 453–469 (1966).Google Scholar

Bohm, D. and Bub, J., “A refutation of the proof by Jauch and Piron that hidden variables can be excluded in quantum mechanics”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 38, 470–475 (1966).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mermin, N.D., “Hidden variables and the two theorems of John Bell”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 65, 803–815 (1993); in particular, see §III.Google Scholar

Shimony, A., “Role of the observer in quantum theory”, Am. J. Phys. 31, 755–773 (1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bohm, D., “A suggested interpretation of the quantum theory in terms of ‘hidden’ variables”, Phys. Rev. 85, 166–179 and 180–193 (1952); by the same author, see also Quantum Theory, Constable (1954), although this book does not discuss theories with additional variables.Google Scholar

Wiener, N. and Siegel, A., “A new form for the statistical postulate of quantum mechanics”, Phys. Rev. 91, 1551–1560 (1953); A. Siegel and N. Wiener, “Theory of measurement in differential space quantum theory”, Phys. Rev. 101, 429–432 (1956).Google Scholar

Pearle, P., “Reduction of the state vector by a nonlinear Schrödinger equation”, Phys. Rev. D 13, 857–868 (1976).Google Scholar

Pearle, P., “Toward explaining why events occur”, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 18, 489–518 (1979).Google Scholar

Ghirardi, G.C., Rimini, A., and Weber, T., “Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems”, Phys. Rev. D 34, 470–491 (1986); “Disentanglement of quantum wave functions”, Phys. Rev. D 36, 3287–3289 (1987).Google Scholar

DeWitt, B.S., “Quantum mechanics and reality”, Phys. Today 23, 30–35 (September 1970).Google Scholar

Griffiths, R.B., “Consistent histories and the interpretation of quantum mechanics”, J. Stat. Phys. 36, 219–272 (1984); Consistent Quantum Theory, Cambridge University Press (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goldstein, S., “Quantum theory without observers”, Phys. Today 51, 42–46 (March 1998) and 38–41 (April 1998).Google Scholar

Goldstein, S., “Quantum mechanics debate”, Phys. Today 24, 36–44 (April 1971); “Still more quantum mechanics”, Phys. Today 24, 11–15 (Oct. 1971).Google Scholar

DeWitt, B.S. and Graham, R.N., “Resource letter IQM-1 on the interpretation of quantum mechanics”, Am. J. Phys. 39, 724–738 (1971).Google Scholar

Jammer, M., The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics, McGraw-Hill (1966), second edition (1989).Google Scholar

Mehra, J. and Rechenberg, H., The Historical Development of Quantum Theory, Springer (1982).Google Scholar

Darrigol, O., From c-Numbers to q-Numbers: The Classical Analogy in the History of Quantum Theory, University of California Press (1992).Google Scholar

d’Espagnat, B., Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Benjamin (1971).Google Scholar

d’Espagnat, B., Veiled Reality: An Analysis of Present Day Quantum Mechanics Concepts, Addison Wesley (1995); Le réel voilé, analyse des concepts quantiques, Fayard (1994); Une incertaine réalité, la connaissance et la durée, Gauthier-Villars, (1985); A la recherche du réel, Gauthier-Villars Bordas (1979).Google Scholar

Planck, M., “Über eine Verbesserung der Wienerschen Spektralgleichung”, Verhand-lungen der Deutschen Physikalischen Gesellschaft 2, 202–204 (1900). Physikalische Abhandlungen und Vorträge, vol. 1, 493–600, Friedrich Vieweg und Sohn (1958).Google Scholar

Lewis, G.N., “The conservation of photons”, Nature 118, 874–875 (1926).Google Scholar

Pais, A., “Einstein and the quantum theory”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 51, 863–914 (1979).Google Scholar

Lieb, E.H. and Seiringer, R., The Stability of Matter in Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge University Press (2010).Google Scholar

de Broglie, L., “Recherches sur la théorie des quanta”, thesis Paris (1924).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davisson, C.J. and Germer, L.H., “Reflection of electrons by a crystal of nickel”, Nature 119, 558–560 (1927).Google Scholar

Darrigol, O., “Strangeness and soundness in Louis de Broglie’s early works”, Physis 30, 303–372 (1993).Google Scholar

Schrödinger, E., “Quantisierung als Eigenwert Problem”, Annalen der Physik, 1st communication: 79, 361–376 (1926); 2nd communication: 79, 489–527 (1926); 3rd communication: 80, 437–490 (1926); 4th communication: 81, 109–139 (1926).Google Scholar

Born, M., “Quantenmechanik der Stossvorgänge”, Zeitschrift für Physik 38, 803–827 (1926); “Zur Wellenmechanik der Stossvorgänge”,Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse 146–160 (1926).Google Scholar

Cornell, E.A. and Wieman, C.E., “The Bose–Einstein condensate”, Scientific American 278, 26–31 (March 1998).Google Scholar

Heisenberg, W., The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory, University of Chicago Press (1930).Google Scholar

Jordan, P., “Bemerkungen zur Theorie der Atomstruktur”, Zeitschrift für Physik 33, 563–570 (1925); “Über eine neue Begründung der Quantenmechanik I und II”, Zeitschrift für Physik 40, 809–838 (1926) and 44, 1–25 (1927); “Austauschprob-leme und zweite Quantelung”, Zeitschrift für Physik 91, 284–288 (1934).Google Scholar

Schroer, B., “Pascual Jordan, his contibutions to quantum mechanics, and his legacy in contemporary local quantum physics”, arXiv:hep-th/0303241v2 (2003).Google Scholar

Dirac, P.A.M., The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Oxford University Press (1930, 1958).Google Scholar

Howard, D., “Who invented the Copenhagen interpretation? A study in mythology”, Philos. Sci. 71, 669–682 (2004).Google Scholar

Bohr, N., “Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?”, Phys. Rev. 48, 696–702 (1935).Google Scholar

Stapp, H.P., “S-matrix interpretation of quantum theory”, Phys. Rev. D 3, 1303–1320 (1971).Google Scholar

Stapp, H.P., “The Copenhagen interpretation”, Am. J. Phys. 40, 1098–1116 (1972).Google Scholar

Peres, A., “What is a state vector?”, Am. J. Phys. 52, 644–650 (1984).Google Scholar

Hartle, J.B., “Quantum mechanics of individual systems”, Am. J. Phys. 36, 704–712 (1968).Google Scholar

Bohr, N., “On the notions of causality and complementarity”, Dialectica 2, 312–319 (1948).Google Scholar

Pauli, W., “Über den Zusammenhang des Abschlusses der Elektronengruppen im Atom mit der Komplexstruktur der Spektren”, Zeit. Phys. 31, 765–783 (1925).Google Scholar

Dirac, P.A.M., “The quantum theory of the emission and absorption of radiation”, Proc. Roy. Soc A 114, 243–265 (1927).Google Scholar

Fock, V., “Konfigurationraum und zweite Quantelung”, Zeit. Phys. 75, 622–647 (1932).Google Scholar

Jordan, P. and Klein, O., “Zum Mehrkörperproblem in der Quantentheorie”, Zeit. Phys. 45, 751–765 (1927); P. Jordan, “Über Wellen und Korpuskeln in der Quan-tenmechanik”, Zeit. Phys. 45, 766–775 (1927); P. Jordan and E. Wigner, “Über das Paulische Äquivalenzverbot”, Zeit. Phys. 47, 631–651 (1928).Google Scholar

Feynman, R.P., “Space-time approach to non-relativistic quantum mechanics”, Rev. Mod. Physics 20, 367–387 (1948).Google Scholar

Feynman, R.P. and Hibbs, A.R., Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals, McGraw-Hill (1965).Google Scholar

Bell, J.S., “Six possible worlds for quantum mechanics”, Found. Phys. 22, 1201–1215 (1992).Google Scholar

Mermin, N.D., “Quantum mechanics: fixing the shifty split”, Physics Today, 8–10 (July 2012).Google Scholar

Bell, J.S., “Quantum mechanics for cosmologists”, in Quantum Gravity, Isham, C., Penrose, R., and Sciama, D. editors, 2, 611–637, Clarendon Press (1981); pp. 117–138 of [6].Google Scholar

Mermin, N.D., “Is the moon there when nobody looks? Reality and the quantum theory”, Phys. Today 38, 38–47 (April 1985).Google Scholar

London, F. and Bauer, E., “La théorie de l’observation en mécanique quantique”, n^o 775 of Actualités scientifiques et industrielles, exposés de physique générale; Hermann (1939); translated into English as “The theory of observation in quantum mechanics” in Quantum Theory of Measurement, J.A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek editors, Princeton University Press (1983), pp. 217–259; see in particular §11, but also 13 and 14.Google Scholar

Jammer, M., The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, Wiley (1974).Google Scholar

Wigner, E.P., “Remarks on the mind-body question” in The Scientist Speculates, Good, I.J. editor, Heinemann (1961), pp. 284–302; reprinted in E.P. Wigner, Symmetries and Reflections, Indiana University Press (1967), pp. 171–184.Google Scholar

Schrödinger, E., “Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik”, Naturwis-senschaften 23, 807–812, 823–828, 844–849 (1935).Google Scholar

Trimmer, J.D., “The present situation in quantum mechanics: a translation of Schrödinger’s cat paradox paper”, Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc. 124, 323–338 (1980). Also available in Quantum Theory of Measurement, J.A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek editors, Princeton University Press (1983), pp. 152–167.Google Scholar

Einstein, A., letter to Schrödinger dated 8 August 1935; available for instance (translated into French) p. 238 of [99].Google Scholar

Schrödinger, E., The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, edited and with an introduction by Bitbol, M., Ox Bow Press (1995).Google Scholar

Hornberger, K., Gerlich, S., Haslinger, P., Nimmrichter, S., and Arndt, M., “Colloquium: quantum interference of clusters and molecules”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 157–173 (2012).Google Scholar

Wigner, E.P., “The problem of measurement”, Am. J. Phys. 31, 6–15 (1963); reprinted in Symmetries and Reflections, Indiana University Press, pp. 153–170 (1967); or again in Quantum Theory of Measurement, J.A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek editors, Princeton University Press (1983), pp. 324–341.Google Scholar

Renninger, M., “Zum Wellen-Korpuskel Dualismus”, Zeit. Phys. 136, 251–261 (1953).Google Scholar

Renninger, M., “Messungen ohne Störung des Messobjekts”, Zeit. Phys. 158, 417–421 (1960).Google Scholar

Dicke, R.H., “Interaction-free quantum measurement: a paradox?”, Am. J. Phys. 49, 925–930 (1981).Google Scholar

Elitzur, A.C. and Vaidman, L., “Quantum mechanical interaction-free measurements”, Found. Phys. 23, 987–997 (1993).Google Scholar

Kwiat, P., Weinfurter, H., Herzog, T., Zeilinger, A., and Kasevich, M.A., “Interaction-free measurement”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4763–4766 (1995).Google Scholar

Hardy, L., “On the existence of empty waves in quantum theory”, Phys. Lett. A 167, 11–16 (1992).Google Scholar

Hardy, L., “Quantum mechanics, local realistic theories, and Lorentz invariant realistic theories”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 2981–2984 (1992).Google Scholar

DeWeerd, A.J., “Interaction-free measurement”, Am. J. Phys. 70, 272–275 (2001).Google Scholar

White, A.G., Mitchell, J.R., Nairz, O., and Kwiat, P., “Interaction-free imaging”, Phys. Rev. A 58, 605–613 (1998).Google Scholar

Putnam, W. and Yanik, M., “Noninvasive electron microscopy with interaction-free quantum measurements”, Phys. Rev. A 80, 040902 (2009).Google Scholar

Thomas, S., Kohstall, C., Kruit, P., and Hommelhoff, P., “Semitransparency in interaction-free measurements”, Phys. Rev. A 90, 053840 (2014); arXiv:1409.0044 [quant-ph] (2014).Google Scholar

Kruit, P., Hobbs, R.G., Kim, C-S., Yang, Y., Manfrinato, V.R., Hammer, J., Thomas, S., Weber, P., Klopfer, B., Kohstall, C., Juffmann, T., Kasevich, M.A., Hommelhoff, P., and Berggren, K.K., “Designs for a quantum electron microscope”, Ultramicroscopy 164, 31–45 (2015); arXiv:1510.05946.Google Scholar

Ghirardi, G., Sneaking a Look at God’s Cards, Unraveling the Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics, revised edition, Princeton University Press (2007).Google Scholar

Robens, C., Alt, A., Emary, C., Meschede, D., and Alberti, A., “Atomic ‘bomb testing’: the Elitzur-Vaidman experiment violates the Leggett-Garg inequality”, Appl. Phys. B 123:12 (2017).Google Scholar

Zou, X.Y., Wang, L.J., and Mandel, L., “Induced coherence and indistinguishability in optical coherence”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 318–321 (1991).Google Scholar

Wang, L.J., Zou, X.Y., and Mandel, L., “Induced coherence without induced emission”, Phys. Rev. A 44, 4614–4622 (1991).Google Scholar

Baretta Lemos, G., Borish, V., Cole, G.D., Ramelow, S., Lapkiewicz, R., and Zeilinger, A., “Quantum imaging with undetected photons”, Nature 512, 409–412 (2014).Google Scholar

Noh, Tae-Gon, “Counterfactual quantum cryptography”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 230501 (2009).Google Scholar

Petersen, A., “The philosophy of Niels Bohr”, in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists XIX, 8–14 (September 1963).Google Scholar

Chevalley, C., “Niels Bohr’s words and the Atlantis of Kantianism”, in Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy, Faye, J. and Folse, H. editors, Dordrecht Kluwer (1994), pp. 33–57.Google Scholar

Bohr, N., “The unity of human knowledge” (October 1960) in Atomic Physics and Human Knowledge, Wiley (1958 and 1963).Google Scholar

Norris, C., “Quantum Theory and the Flight from Realism: Philosophical Responses to Quantum Mechanics, Routledge (2000), p. 233.Google Scholar

Bohr, N., “Quantum physics and philosophy: causality and complementarity”, in Philosophy in the Mid-Century: A Survey; Klibansky, R. editor, La Nuova Italia Editrice, Firenze (1958). See also “The quantum of action and the description of nature”, in Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature, Cambridge University Press (1934), pp. 92–101.Google Scholar

Bokulich, P. and Bokulich, A., “Niels Bohr’s generalization of classical mechanics”, Found. Phys. 35, 347–371 (2005).Google Scholar

Bohr, N., “Atomic theory and mechanics”, Nature 116, 845–852 (1925).Google Scholar

Bohr, N., Collected Works, edited by Aaserud, F., Elsevier (2008); see also Collected Works, Complementarity beyond Physics (1928–1962).Google Scholar

Bohr, N., “The quantum postulate and the recent development of atomic theory”, Nature, 580–590 (Supplement April 14, 1928).Google Scholar

Born, M., “Physical aspects of quantum mechanics”, Nature 119, 354–357 (1927).Google Scholar

Heisenberg, W., Physics and Philosophy, Harper & Brothers (1958); Harper Perennial Modern Classics (2007).Google Scholar

Bell, J.S., “Bertlmann’s socks and the nature of reality”, J. Physique colloques C 2, 41–62 (1981). This article is reprinted in pp. 139–158 of [6].Google Scholar

Landau, L.D. and Lifshitz, E.M., Quantum Mechanics, Non-Relativistic Theory, Pergamon Press (1958), Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd (1996).Google Scholar

Schrödinger, E., What is Life? Mind and Matter, Cambridge University Press (1944 and 1967), p. 137.Google Scholar

Einstein, A., letter to Schrödinger dated May 31, 1928; available for instance (translated into French) p. 213 of [99].Google Scholar

Balibar, F., Darrigol, O., and Jech, B., Albert Einstein, œuvres choisies I, quanta, Editions du Seuil et Editions du CNRS (1989).Google Scholar

Einstein, A., “Physik und Realität”, Journal of the Franklin Institute 221, 313–347 (1936).Google Scholar

de Broglie, L., “La physique quantique restera-t-elle indéterministe?”, Revue des sciences et de leurs applications, 5, 289–311 (1952). French Academy of Sciences, session of April 25, 1953; http://www.sofrphilo.fr/telecharger.php?id=74Google Scholar

Bell, J.S., “Against measurement”, pp. 17–31 of Sixty Two Years of Uncertainty: Historical, Philosophical and Physical Enquiries into the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Erice meeting in August 1989, Miller, A.I. editor (Plenum Press); reprinted in pp. 213–231 of the 2004 edition of [6].Google Scholar

Rosenfeld, L., “The measuring process in quantum mechanics”, Suppl. Prog. Theor. Phys., extra number 222 “Commemoration of the thirtieth anniversary of the meson theory by Dr. H. Yukawa” (1965).Google Scholar

Gottfried, K., Quantum Mechanics, Benjamin (1966); second edition, K. Gottfried and Yan Tun-Mow, Springer (2003).Google Scholar

Leggett, A.J., “Testing the limits of quantum mechanics: motivation, state of play, prospects”, J. Phys. Condens. Matter 14, R415–R451 (2002).Google Scholar

Leggett, A.J., “Macroscopic quantum systems and the quantum theory of measurement”, Supplement of the Progr. Theor. Phys. n^r 69, 80–100 (1980).Google Scholar

Leggett, A.J., The Problems of Physics, Oxford University Press (1987).Google Scholar

van Kampen, N.G., “Ten theorems about quantum mechanical measurements”, Physica A 153, 97–113 (1988).Google Scholar

Englert, B.G., Scully, M.O., and Walther, H., “Quantum erasure in double-slit interferometers with which-way detectors”, Am. J. Phys. 67, 325–329 (1999); see the first few lines of §IV.Google Scholar

Fuchs, C.A. and Peres, A., “Quantum theory needs no ‘interpretation’”, Phys. Today 53, March 2000, 70–71; see also various reactions to this text in the letters of the September 2000 issue.Google Scholar

von Weizsäcker, C.F., Voraussetzungen des naturwissenschaftlichen Denkens, Hanser Verlag (1971) and Herder (1972).Google Scholar

Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., and Rosen, N., “Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?”, Phys. Rev. 47, 777–780 (1935); or in Quantum Theory of Measurement, J.A. Wheeler and W.H. Zurek editors, Princeton University Press (1983), pp. 138–141.Google Scholar

Born, M., editor, The Einstein–Born letters (1916–1955), MacMillan, London (1971).Google Scholar

Einstein, A., letter to Schrödinger dated June 19, 1935; available for instance (translated into French) p. 234 of [99].Google Scholar

Einstein, A., “Quantenmechanik und Wirklichkeit”, Dialectica 2, 320–324 (1948).Google Scholar

Einstein, A., “Autobiographical notes”, pp. 5–94 (especially p. 85) and “Reply to criticism” pp. 663–688 (especially pp. 681–683) in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, edited by Schilpp, P.A., Open Court and Cambridge University Press (1949).Google Scholar

Sauer, T., “An Einstein manuscript on the EPR paradox for spin observables”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 38, 879–887 (2007).Google Scholar

Peres, A., “Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen, and Shannon”, Found. Phys. 35, 511–514 (2005).Google Scholar

Home, D. and Selleri, F., “Bell’s theorem and the EPR paradox”, Rivista del Nuov. Cim. 14, 1–95 (1991).Google Scholar

Bohm, D., Quantum Theory, Prentice Hall (1951).Google Scholar

Bohr, N., “Quantum mechanics and physical reality”, Nature 136, 65 (1935).Google Scholar

Pearle, P., “Alternative to the orthodox interpretation of quantum theory”, Am. J. Phys. 35, 742–753 (1967).Google Scholar

Clauser, J.F. and Shimony, A., “Bell’s theorem: experimental tests and implications”, Rep. Progr. Phys. 41, 1881–1927 (1978).Google Scholar

Clauser, J.F. and Shimony, A., The Born–Einstein Letters, with Commentaries by Max Born, translated by Irene Born, Macmillan Press (1971).Google Scholar

Kocher, C.A. and Commins, E.D., “Polarization correlation of photons emitted in an atomic cascade”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 18, 575–577 (1967).Google Scholar

Fadel, M., Zibold, T., Décamps, B., and Treutlein, P., “Spatial entanglement patterns and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen steering in Bose-Einstein condensates”, Science 360, 409–413 (2018).Google Scholar

Kunkel, P., Prüfer, M., Strobel, H., Linnemann, D., Frölian, A., Gasenzer, T., Gärttner, M., and Oberthaler, M.K., “Spatially distributed multipartite entanglement enables EPR steering of atomic clouds”, Science 360, 413–416 (2018).Google Scholar

Lange, K., Peise, J., Lücke, B., Kruse, I., Vitagliano, G., Apellaniz, I., Kleinmann, M., Tóth, G., and Klepmt, Carsten, “Entanglement between two spatially separated atomic modes”, Science 360, 416–418 (2018).Google Scholar

Hemmick, D.J. and Shakur, A.M., Bell’s Theorem and Quantum Realism; Reassessment in Light of the Schrödinger Paradox, Springer (2012).Google Scholar

Conway, J. and Kochen, S., “The free will theorem”, Found. of Phys. 36, 1441–1473 (2006); “The strong free will theorem”, Notices of the AMS 56, 1441–1473 (2009).Google Scholar

Bassi, A. and Ghirardi, G., “The Conway–Kochen argument and relativistic GRW models”, Found. of Phys. 37, 169–185 (2007).Google Scholar

Laloë, F., “The hidden phase of Fock states; quantum non-local effects”, Europ. Phys. J. 33, 87–97 (2005); “Bose–Einstein condensates and quantum non-locality”, in Beyond the Quantum, T.M. Nieuwenhiuzen et al. editors, World Scientific (2007).Google Scholar

Anderson, P.W., in The Lesson of Quantum Theory, editors de Boer, J., Dahl, E., and Ulfbeck, O., Elsevier, New York (1986).Google Scholar

Mullin, W.J. and Laloë, F., “Quantum non-local effects with Bose–Einstein condensates”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 150401 (2007); “EPR argument and Bell inequalities for Bose–Einstein spin condensates”, Phys. Rev. A 77, 022108 (2008).Google Scholar

Bell, J.S., “On the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox”, Physics, I, 195–200 (1964); reprinted in chapter 2 of [6].Google Scholar

Laloë, F., “Les surprenantes prédictions de la mécanique quantique”, La Recherche no. 182, 1358–1367 (November 1986).Google Scholar

Laloë, F., “Cadre général de la mécanique quantique; les objections de Einstein, Podolsky et Rosen”, J. Physique Colloques C- 2, 1–40 (1981). See also the other articles following in this issue, especially that by J. Bell on Bertlmann socks, which is a classic!Google Scholar

Eberhard, P., “Bell’s theorem without hidden variables”, Nuov. Cim. 38 B, 75–79 (1977); “Bell’s theorem and the different concepts of locality”, Nuov. Cim. 46 B, 392–419 (1978).Google Scholar

Clauser, J.F., Horne, M.A., Shimony, A., and Holt, R.A., “Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variables theories”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880–884 (1969).Google Scholar

Peres, A., “Unperformed experiments have no results”, Am. J. Phys. 46, 745–747 (1978).Google Scholar

Wheeler, J.A., “Niels Bohr in today’s words” in Quantum Theory and Measurement, Wheeler, J.A. and Zurek, W.H. editors, Princeton University Press (1983), pp. 182–213.Google Scholar

Wigner, E.P., “On hidden variables and quantum mechanical probabilities”, Am. J. Phys. 38, 1005–1009 (1970).Google Scholar

Hess, K. and Philipp, W., “The Bell theorem as a special case of a theorem of Bass”, Found. Phys. 35, 1749–1767 (2005).Google Scholar

Bass, J., “Sur la compatibilité des fonctions de répartition”, C.R. Académie des Sciences 240, 839–841 (1955).Google Scholar

d’Espagnat, B., “The quantum theory and reality”, Scientific American 241, 128–140 (November 1979).Google Scholar

Freedman, S.J. and Clauser, J.F., “Experimental test of local hidden variable theories”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 938–941 (1972); S.J. Freedman, thesis, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar

Clauser, J.F., “Experimental investigations of a polarization correlation anomaly”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 36, 1223 (1976).Google Scholar

Fry, E.S. and Thompson, R.C., “Experimental test of local hidden variable theories”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 465–468 (1976).Google Scholar

Lamehi-Rachti, M. and Mittig, W., “Quantum mechanics and hidden variables: a test of Bell’s inequality by the measurement of the spin correlation in low energy proton–proton scattering”, Phys. Rev. D 14, 2543–2555 (1976).Google Scholar

Freire, O., The Quantum Dissidents; Rebuilding the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Springer (2015).Google Scholar

Aspect, A., Grangier, P., and Roger, G., “Experimental tests of realistic local theories via Bell’s theorem”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 460–463 (1981).Google Scholar

Aspect, A., Grangier, P., and Roger, G., “Experimental realization of Einstein–Podolsky–Bohm Gedankenexperiment: a new violation of Bell’s inequalities”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 91–94 (1982).Google Scholar

Aspect, A., Dalibard, J., and Roger, G., “Experimental tests of Bell’s inequalities using time varying analyzers”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804–1807 (1982).Google Scholar

Perrie, W., Duncan, A.J., Beyer, H.J., and Kleinpoppen, H., “Polarization correlations of the two photons emitted by metastable atomic deuterium: a test of Bell’s inequality”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 1790–1793 (1985).Google Scholar

Kiess, T.E., Shih, Y.E., Sergienko, A.V., and Alley, C.O., “Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen– Bohm experiments using pairs of light quanta produced by type-II parametric down conversion”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 3893–3897 (1993).Google Scholar

Tittel, W., Brendel, J., Zbinden, H., and Gisin, N., “Violations of Bell inequalities by photons more than 10 km apart”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3563–3566 (1998).Google Scholar

Scheidl, T., Ursin, R., Kofler, J., Ramelow, S., Ma, X.S., Herbst, T., Ratschbacher, L., Fedrizzi, A., Langford, N.K., Jennewein, T., and Zeilinger, A., “Violations of local realism with freedom of choice”, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sciences 107, 19708–19713 (November 16, 2010).Google Scholar

Yin, J., Cao, Y., Li, Y-H., Liao, S-K., Zhang, L., Ren, J-G., Cai, W-Q., Liu, W-Y., Li, B., Dai, H., Li, G-B., Lu, Q-M., Gong, Y-H., Xu, Y., Li, S-L., Li, F-Z., Yin, Y-Y., Jiang, Z-Q., Li, M., Jia, J-J., Ren, G., He, D., Zhou, Y-L., Zhang, X-X., Wang, N., Chang, X., Zhu, Z-C., Liu, N-L., Chen, Y-A., Lu, C-Y., Shu, R., Peng, C-Z., Wang, J-Y., and Pan, J-W., “Satellite-based entanglement distribution over 1200 kilometers”, Science 356, 1140–1144 (2017).Google Scholar

Lamine, B., Hervé, R., Jaekel, M.T., Lambrecht, A., and Reynaud, S., “Large scale EPR correlation and gravitational waves backgrounds”, Eur. Phys. Lett. 95, 20004 (2011).Google Scholar

Howell, J.C., Lamas-Linares, A., and Bouwmeester, D., “Experimental violation of a spin-1 Bell inequality using maximally entangled four photon states”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 030401 (2002).Google Scholar

Hensen, B., Bernien, H., Dréau, A.E., Reiserer, A., Kalb, N., Blok, M.S., Ruitenberg, J., Vermeulen, R.F.L., Schouten, R.N., Abellan, C., Amaya, W., Pruneri, V., Mitchell, M.W., Markham, M., Twitchen, D.J., Elkouss, D., Wehner, S., Taminiau, T.H., and Hanson, R., “Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres”, Nature 526, 682–686 (2015) or arXiv:1508.05949; B. Hensen, N. Kalb, M.S. Blok, A.E. Dréau, A. Reiserer, R.F.L. Vermeulen, R.B. Schouten, M. Markham, D.J. Twitchen, K Goodenough, D. Elkouss, S. Wehner, T.H. Taminiau, and R. Hanson; “Lopphole-free Bell test using electron spins in diamond: second experiment and additional analysis, Scient. Rep. 6, 30289 (2016).Google Scholar

Giustina, M., Versteegh, M.A.M, Wengerowsky, S., Handsteiner, J., Hochrainer, A., Phelan, K., Steinlechner, F., Kofler, J., Larsson, J.A., Abellán, C., Amaya, W., Pruneri, V., Mitchell, M.W., Beyer, J., Gerrits, T., Lita, A.E., Shalm, L.K., Nam, S.W., Scheidl, T., Ursin, R., Wittmann, B., and Zeilinger, A., “Significant-loophole-free test of Bell’s theorem with entangled photons”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250401 (2015).Google Scholar

Shalm, L.K., Meyer-Scott, E., Christensen, B.G., Bierhorst, P., Wayne, M.A., Stevens, M.J., Gerrits, T., Glancy, S., Hamel, D.R., Allman, M.S., Coakley, K.J., Dyer, S., Hodge, C., Lita, A.E., Verma, V.B., Lambrocco, C., Tortorici, E., Migdall, A.L., Zhang, Y., Kumor, D.R., Farr, W.H., Marsili, F., Shaw, M.D., Stern, J.A., Abellán, C., Amaya, W., Pruneri, V., Jennewein, T., Mitchell, M.W., Kwiat, P.G., Bienfang, J.C., Mirin, R.P., Knill, E., and Nam, S.W., “Strong Loophole-Free Test of Local Realism”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250402 (2015).Google Scholar

Aspect, A., “Closing the door on Einstein and Bohr’s quantum debate”, Physics 8, 123 (2015).Google Scholar

Fine, A., “Hidden variables, joint probability, and the Bell inequalities”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 291–295 (1982).Google Scholar

Bell, J.S., “Introduction to the hidden variable question”, contribution to Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Proceedings of the International School of Physics Enrico Fermi, course II, Academic (1971), p.171; reprinted in pp. 29–39 of [6].Google Scholar

Clauser, J.F. and Horne, M.A., “Experimental consequences of objective local theories”, Phys. Rev. D 10, 526–535 (1974).Google Scholar

Norsen, T., “John S. Bell concept of local causality”, Am. J. Phys. 79, 1261–1274 (2011); see also”Bell locality and the nonlocal character of Nature”, Found. Physics Lett. 19, 633–655 (2006).Google Scholar

Bell, J.S., “La nouvelle cuisine”, §24 of the second edition of [6].Google Scholar

Bell, J.S., “The theory of local beables”, Epistemological Letters, March 1976; reprinted in pp. 52–62 of [6].Google Scholar

Oreshkov, O., Costa, F., and Brukner, C., “Quantum correlactions with no causal order”, Nature Comm., Article number: 1092 (2012).Google Scholar

Araújo, M., Costa, F., and Brukner, C., “Computational advantage from quantum-controlled ordering of gates”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 250402 (2014).Google Scholar

Gisin, N., L’impensable hasard, Odile Jacob (2012).Google Scholar

Jarrett, J.P., “On the physical significance of the locality conditions in the Bell arguments”, Nőus 18, 569–589 (1984).Google Scholar

Ballentine, L.E. and Jarrett, J.P., “Bell’s theorem: does quantum mechanics contradict relativity?”, Am. J. Phys. 55, 696–701 (1987).Google Scholar

Shimony, A., “Bell’s theorem”, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2004 and 2009), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-modal/.Google Scholar

Dickson, W.M., Chances and Non-Locality, Cambridge University Press (1998); see in particular §6.2; by the same author, see also the review “Tim Maudlin: Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity, Metaphysical Intimations of Modern Physics review”, Philosophy of Science64, 516–517 (1997).Google Scholar

Maudlin, T., Quantum Non-locality and Relativity, Wiley-Blackwell (2011).Google Scholar

Leggett, A.J. and Garg, A., “Quantum mechanics versus macroscopic realism: is the flux there when nobody looks?”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 54, 857–860 (1985).Google Scholar

Leggett, A.J., “The current status of quantum mechanics at the macroscopic level”, Proceedings 2nd Int. Symp. Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Tokyo, 287–297 (1986).Google Scholar

Emary, C., Lambert, N., and Nori, F., “Leggett-Garg inequalities”, Rep. Progr. Phys. 77, 016001 (2014).Google Scholar

Knee, G.C., Simmons, S., Gauger, E.M., Morton, J.J.L., Riemann, H., Abrosimov, N.V., Becker, P., Pohl, H-J., Itoh, K.M., Thewalt, M.W., Briggs, G.A.D., and Benjamin, S.C., “Violation of a Leggett-Garg inequality with ideal noninvasive measurements”, Nature Comm. 3, 606 (2012).Google Scholar

Robens, C., Alt, W., Meschede, D., Emary, C., and Alberti, A., “Ideal negative measurements in quantum walks disprove theories based on classical trajectories”, Phys. Rev. X 5, 011003 (2015).Google Scholar

Grangier, P., Potasek, M.J., and Yurke, B., “Probing the phase coherence of parametrically generated photon pairs: a new test of Bell’s inequalities”, Phys. Rev. A 38, 3132–3135 (1988).Google Scholar

Franson, J.D., “Bell inequality for position and time”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 2205–2208 (1989).Google Scholar

Rarity, J.G. and Tapster, P.R., “Experimental violation of Bell’s inequality based on phase and momentum”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2495–2498 (1990).Google Scholar

Brendel, J., Mohler, E., and Martienssen, W., “Experimental test of Bell’s inequality for energy and time”, Eur. Phys. Lett. 20, 575–580 (1992).Google Scholar

Capasso, V., Fortunato, D., and Selleri, F., “Sensitive observables of quantum mechanics”, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 7, 319–326 (1973).Google Scholar

Gisin, N., “Bell’s inequality holds for all non-product states”, Phys. Lett. A 154, 201–202 (1991).Google Scholar

Gisin, N. and Peres, A., “Maximal violation of Bell’s inequality for arbitrarily large spin”, Phys. Lett. A 162, 15–17 (1992).Google Scholar

Popescu, S. and Rohrlich, D., “Generic quantum non locality”, Phys. Lett. A 166, 293–297 (1992).Google Scholar

Braunstein, S.L., Mann, A., and Revzen, M., “Maximal violation of Bell inequalities for mixed states”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3259–3261 (1992).Google Scholar

Werner, R.F., “Quantum states with Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen correlations admitting a hidden variable model”, Phys. Rev. A 40, 4277–4281 (1989).Google Scholar

Popescu, S., “Bell’s inequalities and density matrices: revealing ‘hidden’ nonlocality”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2619–2622 (1995).Google Scholar

Peres, A., “Collective tests for quantum nonlocality”, Phys. Rev. A 54, 2685–2689 (1996).Google Scholar

Yurke, B. and Stoler, D., “Bell’s-inequality experiments using independent-particle sources”, Phys. Rev. A 46, 2229–2234 (1992).Google Scholar

Laloë, F. and Mullin, W.J., “Interferometry with independent Bose–Einstein condensates: parity as an EPR/Bell quantum variable”, Eur. Phys. J. B 70, 377–396 (2009).Google Scholar

Tan, S.M., Walls, D.F., and Collett, M.J., “Nonlocality of a single photon”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 252–255 (1991).Google Scholar

Hardy, L., “Nonlocality of a single photon revisited”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, 2279–2283 (1994).Google Scholar

Heaney, L., Cabello, A., Santos, M.F., and Vedral, V., “Extreme nonlocality with one photon”, arXiv:0911.0770v3 [quant-ph] (2009); New J. Phys. 13, 053054 (2011).Google Scholar

Toner, B.F. and Bacon, D., “Communication cost of simulating Bell correlations”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 187904 (2003).Google Scholar

Brunner, N., Cavalcanti, D., Pironio, S., Scarani, V., and Wehner, S., “Bell nonlocality”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 419–478 (2014).Google Scholar

Larsson, J.A., “Loopholes in Bell inequality tests of local realism”, J. Phys. A 47, 424003, 1–33 (2014).Google Scholar

Kofler, J., Giustina, M., Larsson, J-A., and Mitchell, M.W., “Requirements for a loophole-free photonic Bell test using imperfect setting generators”, Phys. Rev. A 93, 032115 (2016).Google Scholar

Pearle, P., “Hidden-variable example based upon data rejection”, Phys. Rev. D 2, 1418–1425 (1970).Google Scholar

Bell, J.S., Oral presentation to the EGAS conference in Paris, July 1979 (published in an abridged version in the next reference).Google Scholar

Bell, J.S., “Atomic cascade photons and quantum mechanical nonlocality”, Comments on Atomic and Molecular Physics 9, 121 (1980); CERN preprint TH.2053 and TH 2252; Chapter 13 of [6].Google Scholar

Barut, A.O. and Meystre, P., “A classical model of EPR experiment with quantum mechanical correlations and Bell inequalities”, Phys. Lett. 105 A, 458–462 (1984).Google Scholar

Gisin, N., “Hidden quantum nonlocality revealed by local filters”, Phys. Lett. A 210, 151–156 (1996); see in particular §3.Google Scholar

Tasca, D.S., Walborn, S.P., Toscano, F., and Souto Ribeiro, P.H., “Observation of tunable Popescu–Rohrlich correlations through postselection of a Gaussian state”, Phys. Rev. A 80, 030101 (2009).Google Scholar

Gerhardt, I., Liu, Q., Lamas-Linares, A., Skaar, J., Scarani, V., Makarov, V., and Kurtsiefer, C., “Experimentally faking the violation of Bell’s inequalities”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 170404 (2011).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Weihs, G., Jennewein, T., Simon, C., Weinfurter, H., and Zeilinger, A., “Violation of Bell’s inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5039–5043 (1998).Google Scholar

’t Hooft, G., The Cellular Automaton Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Springer (2016).Google Scholar

Brans, C.H., “Bell’s theorem does not eliminate fully causal hidden variables”, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 27, 219–226 (1988).Google Scholar

Bell, J.S., “Free variables and local causality”, Epistemological Lett., Feb. 1977; Chapter 12 of [6].Google Scholar

Abellán, C., Amaya, W., Mitrani, D., Pruneri, V., and Mitchell, M.W., “Generation of fresh and pure random numbers for loophole-free Bell tests”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250403 (2015).Google Scholar

Hall, M.J.W., “Local deterministic model of singlet state correlations based on relaxing measurement independence”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 250404 (2010).Google Scholar

Eberhard, P.H., “Background level and counter efficiencies required for a loophole-free Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen experiment”, Phys. Rev.A 47, R747-R750 (1993).Google Scholar

Kwiat, P.G., Eberhard, P.H., Steinberg, A.M., and Chiao, R.Y., “Proposal for a loophole-free Bell inequality experiment”, Phys. Rev. A 49, 3209–3220 (1994).Google Scholar

Fry, E.S., Walther, T., and Li, S., “Proposal for a loophole-free test of the Bell inequalities”, Phys. Rev. A 52, 4381–4395 (1995).Google Scholar

Garcia-Patron, R., Fiurasek, J., Cerf, N.J., Wenger, J., Tualle-Brouri, R., and Grangier, P., “Proposal for a loophole-free Bell test using homodyne detection”, Phys. Rev. Lett 93, 130409 (2004).Google Scholar

Wenger, J., Hafezi, M., Grosshans, F., Tualle-Brouri, R., and Grangier, P., “Maximal violation of Bell inequalities using continuous-variable measurements”, Phys. Rev. A 67, 012105 (2003).Google Scholar

Rowe, M.A., Kielpinski, D., Meyer, V., Sackett, C.A., Itano, W.M., Monroe, C., and Wineland, D.J., “Experimental violation of a Bell’s inequality with efficient detection”, Nature 409, 791–794 (2001).Google Scholar

Simon, C. and Irvine, W.T.M., “Robust long-distance entanglement and a loophole-free Bell test with ions and photons”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 110405 (2003).Google Scholar

Matsukevich, D.N., Chanelière, T., Jenkins, S.D., Lan, S.Y., Kennedy, T.A.B., and Kuzmich, A., “Entanglement of remote atomic qubits”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 030405 (2006).Google Scholar

Matsukevich, D.N., Maunz, P., Moehring, D.L., Olmschenk, S., and Monroe, C., “Bell inequality violation with two remote atomic qubits”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 150404 (2008).Google Scholar

Ansmann, M., Wang, H., Bialczak, R.C., Hofheinz, M., Lucero, E., Neeley, M., O’Connell, A.D., Sank, D., Weides, M., Wenner, J., Cleland, A.N., and Martinis, J.M., “Violation of Bell’s inequality in Josephson phase qubits”, Nature 461, 504–506 (2009).Google Scholar

Bernien, H., Hensen, B., Pfaff, W., Koolstra, G., Blok, M.S., Robledo, L., Taminiau, T.H., Markham, M., Twitchen, D.J., Childress, L., and Hanson, R., “Heralded entanglement between solid-state qubits separated by three metres”, Nature 497, 86–90 (2013); arXiv:1212.6136 [quant-ph].Google Scholar

Barrett, S.D. and Kok, P., “Efficient high-fidelity quantum computation using matter qubits and linear optics”, Phys. Rev. A 71, 060310 (2005).Google Scholar

Rosenfeld, W., Burchardt, D., Garthoff, R., Redeker, K., Ortegel, N., Rau, M., and Weinfurter, H., “Event-ready Bell test using entangled atoms simultaneously closing detection and locality loopholes”, arXiv:1611.04604v1 [quant-ph] (2016).Google Scholar

Popescu, S. and Rohrlich, D., “Quantum nonlocality as an axiom”, Found. Phys. 24, 379–385 (1994).Google Scholar

Stapp, H.P., “Whiteheadian approach to quantum theory and the generalized Bell’s theorem”, Found. Phys. 9, 1–25 (1979); “Bell’s theorem and the foundations of quantum physics”, Am. J. Phys. 53, 306–317 (1985).Google Scholar

Stapp, H.P., “Nonlocal character of quantum theory”, Am. J. Phys. 65, 300–304 (1997).Google Scholar

Mermin, N.D., “Nonlocal character of quantum theory?”, Am. J. Phys. 66, 920–924 (1998).Google Scholar

Redhead, M., Incompleteness, Nonlocality and Realism: A Prolegomenon to the Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics, Chapter 4, Clarendon Press (1988).Google Scholar

Leggett, A.J., “Realism and the physical world”, Rep. Progr. Phys. 71, 022001 (2008).Google Scholar

Gisin, N., “Non-realism: deep thought or a soft option?”, Found. Phys. 42, 80–85 (2012).Google Scholar

Stapp, H.P., “Meaning of counterfactual statements in quantum physics”, Am. J. Phys. 66, 924–926 (1998).Google Scholar

d’Espagnat, B., “Nonseparability and the tentative descriptions of reality”, Phys. Rep. 110, 201–264 (1984).Google Scholar

d’Espagnat, B., Reality and the Physicist, Cambridge University Press (1989).Google Scholar

Griffiths, R.B., “Consistent quantum counterfactuals”, Phys. Rev. A 60, R5–R8 (1999).Google Scholar

Mermin, N.D., “Bringing home the atomic world: quantum mysteries for anybody”, Am. J. Phys. 49, 940–943 (1981).Google Scholar

Christensen, B., McCusker, K., Altepeter, J., Calkins, B., Gerrits, T., Lita, A., Miller, A., Shalm, L., Zhang, Y., Nam, S., Brunner, N., Lim, C., Gisin, N., and Kwiat, P., “Detection-loophole-free test of quantum nonlocality, and applications”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 130406 (2013).Google Scholar

Giustina, M., Mech, A., Ramelow, S., Wittmann, B., Kofler, J., Beyer, J., Lita, A., Calkins, B., Gerrits, T., Woo Nam, S., Ursin, R., and Zeilinger, A., “Bell violation using entangled photons without the fair-sampling assumption”, Nature 497, 227–230 (2013).Google Scholar

Cirelson, B.S., “Quantum generalizations of Bell’s inequality” Lett. Math. Phys. 4, 93–100 (1980).Google Scholar

Landau, L.J., “On the violations of Bell’s inequality in quantum theory”, Phys. Lett. A 120, 54–56 (1987).Google Scholar

Shimony, A., Search for a naturalistic world view, vol. II, p. 131, Cambridge Universtity Press (1993).Google Scholar

Shimony, A., “Events and processes in the quantum world”, in Quantum Concepts in Space and Time, Penrose, R. and Isham, C.J. editors, Oxford University Press (1986), pp. 182–203.Google Scholar

Barrett, J., Linden, N., Massar, S., Pironio, S., Popescu, S., and Roberts, D., “Nonlocal correlations as an information-theoretic resource”, Phys. Rev. A 71, 022101 (2005).Google Scholar

Masanes, L., Acin, A., and Gisin, N., “General properties of nonsignaling theories”, Phys. Rev. A 73, 012112 (2006).Google Scholar

Brassard, G., Buhrman, H., Linden, N., Méthot, A.A., Tapp, A., and Unger, F., “Limit on nonlocality in any world in which communication complexity is not trivial”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 250401 (2006).Google Scholar

Pawlowski, M., Paterek, T., Kaszlikowski, D., Scarani, V., Winter, A., and Rohrlich, D., “Information causality as a physical principle”, Nature 461, 1101–1104 (2009).Google Scholar

Barnum, H., Beigi, S., Boixo, S., Elliott, M.B, and Wehner, S., “Local quantum measurements and no-signaling imply quantum correlations”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 140401 (2010).Google Scholar

Almeida, M.L., Bancal, J.-D., Brunner, N., Acin, A., Gisin, N., and Pironio, S., “Guess your neighbor’s input: a multipartite nonlocal game with no quantum advantage”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 230404 (2010).Google Scholar

Greenberger, D.M., Horne, M.A., and Zeilinger, A., “Going beyond Bell’s theorem”, in Bell’s Theorem, Quantum Theory, and Conceptions of the Universe, Kafatos, M. editor, Kluwer (1989), pp. 69–72; this reference is not always easy to find, but one can also read the following article, published one year later.Google Scholar

Greenberger, D.M., Horne, M.A., Shimony, A., and Zeilinger, A., “Bell’s theorem without inequalities”, Am. J. Phys. 58, 1131–1143 (1990).Google Scholar

Mermin, N.D., “Quantum mysteries revisited”, Am. J. Phys. 58, 731–733 (1990); see also “What’s wrong with these elements of reality?”, Physics Today, 9–11 (June 1990).Google Scholar

Bouwmeester, D., Pan, J.W., Daniell, M., Weinfurter, H., and Zeilinger, A., “Observation of three-photon Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger entanglement”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1345–1349 (1999).Google Scholar

Pan, J.W., Bouwmeester, D., Daniell, M., Weinfurter, H., and Zeilinger, A., “Experimental test of quantum nonlocality in three-photon Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger entanglement”, Nature 403, 515–519 (2000).Google Scholar

Zhao, Z., Yang, T., Chen, Y.-A, Zhang, A.-N., Zukowski, M., and Pan, J.W., “Experimental violation of local realism by four-photon Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger entanglement”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 180401 (2003).Google Scholar

Laflamme, R., Knill, E., Zurek, W.H., Catasi, P., and Mariappan, S.V.S, “NMR GHZ”, arXiv:quant-phys/9709025 (1997) and Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 356, 1941–1948 (1998).Google Scholar

Lloyd, S., “Microscopic analogs of the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger experiment”, Phys. Rev. A 57, R1473–1476 (1998).Google Scholar

Sakaguchi, U., Ozawa, H., Amano, C., and Fokumi, T., “Microscopic analogs of the Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger experiment on an NMR quantum computer”, Phys. Rev. 60, 1906–1911 (1999).Google Scholar

Mermin, N.D., “Extreme quantum entanglement in a superposition of macroscopically distinct states”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1838–1841 (1990).Google Scholar

Svetlichny, G., “Distinguishing three-body from two-body nonseparability by a Bell-type inequality”, Phys. Rev. D 35, 3066–3069 (1987).Google Scholar

Acacio de Barros, J. and Suppes, P., “Inequalities for dealing with detector efficiencies in Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger experiments”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 793–797 (2000).Google Scholar

Lavoie, J., Kaltenbaek, R., and Resch, K.J., “Experimental violations of Svetlichny’s inequality”, New. J. Physics 11, 073051 (2009).Google Scholar

Erven, C., Meyer-Scott, E., Fisher, K., Lavoie, J., Higgins, B.L., Yan, Z., Pugh, C.J., Bourgoin, J-P., Prevedel, R., Shalm, L.K., Richards, L., Gigov, N., Laflamme, R., Weihs, G., Jennenwein, T., and Resch, K.J., “Experimental three-photon quantum nonlocality under strict locality conditions”, Nature Photonics, 8 292–296 (2013).Google Scholar

Yurke, B. and Stoler, D., “Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen effects from independent particle sources”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 1251–1254 (1992).Google Scholar

Massar, S. and Pironio, S., “Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger paradox for continuous variables”, Phys. Rev. A 64, 062108 (2001).Google Scholar

Bernstein, H. J., Greenberger, D.M., Horne, M.A., and Zeilinger, A., “Bell theorem without inequalities for two spinless particles”, Phys. Rev. A 47, 78–84 (1993).Google Scholar

Laloë, F., “Correlating more than two particles in quantum mechanics”, Current Science 68, 1026–1035 (1995); http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00001443.Google Scholar

Wineland, D.J., Bollinger, J.J., Itano, W.M., Moore, F.L., and Heinzen, D.J., “Spin squeezing and reduced quantum noise in spectroscopy”, Phys. Rev. A 46, R6797–6800 (1992).Google Scholar

Bollinger, J.J., Itano, W.M., Wineland, D.J., and Heinzen, D.J., “Optimal frequency measurements with maximally correlated states”, Phys. Rev. A 54, R4649–4652 (1996).Google Scholar

Dunningham, J.A., Burnett, K., and Barnett, S.M., “Interferometry below the standard limit with Bose-Einstein condensates lithography”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 150401 (2002).Google Scholar

Boto, A.N., Kok, P., Abrams, D.S., Braunstein, S.L., Williams, C.P., and Dowling, J.P., “Quantum interferometric optical lithography: exploiting entanglement to beat the diffraction limit”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2733–2736 (2000).Google Scholar

Björk, G., Sanchez-Soto, L.L., and Söderholm, J., “Entangled state lithography: tailoring any pattern with a single state”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4516–4519 (2001).Google Scholar

d’Angelo, M., Chekhova, M.V., and Shih, Y., “Two-photon diffraction and quantum lithography”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 013602 (2001).Google Scholar

Zeilinger, A., Horne, M.A., Weinfurter, H., and Zukowski, M., “Three-particle entanglements from two entangled pairs”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 3031–3034 (1997).Google Scholar

Mølmer, K. and Sorensen, A., “Multiparticle entanglement of hot trapped ions”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 1835–1838 (1999).Google Scholar

Sackett, C.A., Klepinski, D., King, B.E., Langer, C., Meyer, V., Myatt, C.J., Rowe, M., Turchette, O.A., Itano, W.M., D.J Wineland, , and Monroe, C., “Experimental entanglement of four particles”, Nature 404, 256–259 (2000).Google Scholar

Cabello, A., “Violating Bell’s inequalities beyond Cirelson’s bound”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 060403 (2002).Google Scholar

Marcovitch, S., Reznik, B., and Vaidman, L., “Quantum mechanical realization of a Popescu–Rohrlich box”, Phys. Rev. A 75, 022102 (2007).Google Scholar

Mermin, N.D., “What’s wrong with this temptation?”, Phys. Today 47, June 1994, pp. 9–11; “Quantum mysteries refined”, Am. J. Phys.62, 880–887 (1994).Google Scholar

Boschi, D., Branca, S., De Martini, F., and Hardy, L., “Ladder proof of nonlocality without inequalities: theoretical and experimental results”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2755–2758 (1997).Google Scholar

Goldstein, S., “Nonlocality without inequalities for almost all entangled states for two particles”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 1951–1954 (1994).Google Scholar

Ghirardi, G. and Marinatto, L., “Proofs of nonlocality without inequalities revisited”, Phys. Lett. A 372, 1982–1985 (2008).Google Scholar

Kochen, S. and Specker, E.P., “The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics”, J. Math. Mech. 17, 59–87 (1967).Google Scholar

Belifante, F., Survey of Hidden Variables Theories, Pergamon Press (1973).Google Scholar

Cabello, A., Estebaranz, J.M., and Garcia-Alcaine, G., “Bell–Kochen–Specker theorem: a proof with 18 vectors”, Phys. Lett. A 212, 183–187 (1996).Google Scholar

Klyachko, A.A., Can, M.A., Binicioglu, S., and Shumovsky, A.S., “Simple tests for hiddden variables in spin-1 systems”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 020403 (2008).Google Scholar

Peres, A., “Incompatible results of quantum measurements”, Phys. Lett. A 151, 107– 108 (1990).Google Scholar

Mermin, N.D., “Simple unified form for the major no-hidden-variables theorems”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 3373 (1990).Google Scholar

Tastevin, G. and Laloë, F., “Surrealistic Bohmian trajectories do not occur with macroscopic pointers”, arXiv:1802.03783 [quant-ph].Google Scholar

Cabello, A., “Experimentally testable state-independent quantum contextuality”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 210401 (2008).Google Scholar

Cabello, A. and Garcia-Alcaine, G., “Proposed experimental tests of the Bell– Kochen–Specker theorem”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1797–1799 (1998).Google Scholar

Simon, C., Zukowski, M., Weinfurter, H., and Zeilinger, A., “Feasible Kochen– Specker experiment with single particles”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1783–1786 (2000).Google Scholar

Huang, Y.-F., Li, C.-F., Zhang, Y.-S., Pan, J.-W., and Guo, G.-C., “Experimental test of the Kochen–Specker theorem with single photons”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 250401 (2003).Google Scholar

Lapkiewicz, R., Li, P., Schaeff, C., Langford, N.K., Ramelow, S., Wieskiak, M., and Zeilinger, A., “Experimental non-classicality of an indivisible quantum system”, Nature 474, 490–493 (2011).Google Scholar

Hasegawa, Y., Loidl, R., Badurek, G., Baron, M., and Rauch, H., “Quantum contextuality in a single-neutron optical experiment”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 230401 (2006).Google Scholar

Kirchmair, G., Zähringer, F., Gerritsma, R., Kleinmann, M., Gühne, O., Cabello, A., Blatt, R., and Roos, C.F., “State-independent experimental test of quantum contextuality”, Nature 460, 494–497 (2009).Google Scholar

Moussa, O., Ryan, C.A., Gory, D.G., and Laflamme, R., “Testing contextuality on quantum ensembles with one clean qubit”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 160501 (2010).Google Scholar

Grangier, P., “Contextual objectivity: a realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics”, Eur. J. Phys. 23, 331–337 (2002); arXiv:quant-ph/0012122 (2000), quant-ph/0111154 (2001), quant-ph/0301001 (2003) and quant-ph/0407025 (2004).Google Scholar

Harrigan, N. and Spekkens, R.W., “Einstein, incompleteness, and the epistemic view of quantum states”, Found. Phys. 40, 125–157 (2010).Google Scholar

Leifer, M.S., “Is the quantum state real? An extended review of ψ-ontology theorems”, Quanta 3, 67–155 (2014); arXiv:1409.1570 [quant-ph]; see also: http://mattleifer.info/2011/11/20/can-the-quantum-state-be-interpreted-statistically/.Google Scholar

Aharonov, Y., Anandan, J., and Vaidman, L., “Meaning of the wave function”, Phys. Rev. A 47, 4616–4626 (1993).Google Scholar

Unruh, W.G., “Reality and measurement of the wave function”, Phys. Rev. A 50, 882–887 (1993).Google Scholar

Pusey, M.F., Barrett, J. and Rudolph, T., “On the reality of the quantum state”, Nature Physics 8, 475–478 (2012); “The quantum state cannot be interpreted statistically”, arXiv:1111.3328 [quant-phys] (2011).Google Scholar

Colbeck, R. and Renner, R., “Is a system’s wave function in one-to-one correspondence with its elements of reality?”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 150402 (2012); arXiv:1111.6597 [quant-ph].Google Scholar

Schlosshauer, M. and Fine, A., “Implications of the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph non-go theorem”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 260404 (2012).Google Scholar

Lewis, P.G., Jennings, D., Barrett, J., and Rudolph, T., “Distinct quantum states can be compatible with a single state of reality”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 150404 (2012).Google Scholar

Hardy, L., “Are quantum states real?”, Int. J. Mod. Phys. 27, 1345012 (2013); arXiv:1205.1439 [quant-ph].Google Scholar

Barrett, J., Cavalcanti, E.G., Lal, R., and Maroney, O.J.E., “No ψ-epistemic model can fully explain the indistinguishability of quantum states”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 250403 (2014).Google Scholar

Branciard, C., “How ψ-epistemic models fail at explaining the indistinguishability of quantum states”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 020409 (2014).Google Scholar

Colbeck, R. and Renner, R., “A system’s wave function is uniquely determined by its underlying physical state”, New J. Phys. 19, 013016 (2017).Google Scholar

Nigg, D., Monz, T., Schindler, P., Martinez, E.A., Hennrich, M., Blatt, R., Pusey, M.F., Rudolph, T., and Barrett, J., “Can different quantum state vectors correspond to the same physical state? An experimental test”, New J. Phys. 18, 013007 (2016).Google Scholar

Ringbauer, M., Duffus, B., Branciard, C., Calvacanti, E.G., White, A.G., and Fedrizzi, A., “Measurement of the reality of the wave function”, Nature Physics 11, 249–254 (2015).Google Scholar

Liao, K.Y., Zhang, X.D., Guo, G.Z., Ai, B.Q., Yan, H., and Zhu, S.L., “Experimental test of the non-go theorem for continuous ψ-epistemic models”, Nature, scientific reports 6, 26519 (2016).Google Scholar

Schrödinger, E., “Discussion of probability relations between separated systems”, Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 31, 555 (1935); “Probability relations between separated systems”, Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 32, 446 (1936).Google Scholar

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg.Google Scholar

Horodecki, M., Horodecki, P., and Horodecki, R., “Limits for entanglement measures”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 2014–2017 (2000).Google Scholar

Plenio, M. B. and Virmani, S., “An introduction to entanglement measures”, quant-ph/0504163 (2006); Quant. Info. Comput. 7, 1–51 (2007).Google Scholar

Méthot, A. and Scarani, V., “An anomaly of nonlocality”, quant-ph/0601210 (2006); Quant. Info. Comput. 7, 157–170 (2007).Google Scholar

Coffman, V., Kundu, J., and Wootters, W.K., “Distributed entanglement”, Phys. Rev. A 61, 052306 (2000).Google Scholar

Osborne, T.J. and Verstraete, F., “General monogamy inequality for bipartite qubit entanglement”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 220503 (2006).Google Scholar

Toner, B., “Monogamy of nonlocal quantum correlations”, Proc. Roy. Soc. A 465, 59–68 (2009).Google Scholar

Toner, B. and Verstraete, F., “Monogamy of Bell correlations and Tsirelson’s bound”, arXiv:quant-ph/0611001 (2006).Google Scholar

Peres, A., “Separability criterion for density matrices”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1413– 1415 (1996).Google Scholar

Horodecki, M., Horodecki, P., and Horodecki, R., “Separability of mixed states: necessary and sufficient conditions”, Phys. Lett. A 223, 1–8 (1996).Google Scholar

Hagley, E., Maître, X., Nogues, G., Wunderlich, C., Brune, M., Raimond, J.M., and Haroche, S., “Generation of Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen pairs of atoms”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1–5 (1997).Google Scholar

Turchette, Q.A., Wood, C.S., King, B.E., Myatt, C.J., Leibfried, D., Itano, W.M., Monroe, C., and Wineland, D.J., “Deterministic entanglement of two trapped ions”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3631–4 (1998).Google Scholar

Cirac, J.I. and Zoller, P., “Quantum computations with cold trapped ions”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 4091–4094 (1995).Google Scholar

Blatt, R. and Wineland, D., “Entangled states of trapped atomic ions”, Nature 453, 1008–1015 (2008).Google Scholar

Steffen, M., Ansmann, M.A., Bialczak, R.C., Katz, N., Lucero, E., McDermott, R., Neeley, M., Weig, E.M., Cleland, A.N., and Martinis, J.M., “Measurement of the entanglement of two superconducting qubits via state tomography”, Science 313, 1423–1425 (2006).Google Scholar

Zukowski, M., Zeilinger, A., Horne, M.A., and Ekert, A.K., “Event-ready-detectors Bell experiment via entanglement swapping”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 4287–4290 (1993).Google Scholar

Pan, J.W., Bouwmeester, D., Weinfurter, H., and Zeilinger, A., “Experimental entanglement swapping: entangling photons that never interacted”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 3891–3894 (1998).Google Scholar

Leibfried, D., Knill, E., Seidelin, S., Britton, J., Blakestad, R.B., Chiaverini, J., Hume, D.B., Itano, W.M., Jost, J.D., Langer, C., Ozeri, R., Reichle, R., and Wineland, D.J., “Creation of a six-atom ‘Schrödinger cat’ state”, Nature 438, 639–642 (2005).Google Scholar

Häffner, H., Hänsel, W., Roos, C.F., Benhelm, J., Chek-al-kar, D., Chwalla, M., Körber, T., Rapol, U.D., Riebe, M., Schmidt, P.O., Becher, C., Gühne, O., Dür, W., and Blatt, R., “Scalable multiparticle entanglement of trapped ions”, Nature 438, 643– 646 (2005).Google Scholar

Radmark, M., Zukowski, M., and Bourennane, M., “Experimental tests of fidelity limits in six-photon interferometry and of rotational invariance properties of the photonic six-qubit entanglement singlet state”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 150501 (2009).Google Scholar

Radmark, M., Wiesniak, M., Zukowski, M., and Bourennane, M., “Experimental filtering of two-, four-, and six-photon singlets from a single parametric down-conversion source”, Phys. Rev. A 80, 040302(R) (2009).Google Scholar

Wilk, T., Gaëtan, A., Evellin, C., Wolters, J. Miroshnychenko, Y., Grangier, P., and Browaeys, A., “Entanglement of two individual neutral atoms using Rydberg block-ade”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 010502 (2010).Google Scholar

Isenhower, L., Urban, E., Zhang, X.L., Gill, A.T., Henage, T., Hohnson, T.A., Walker, T.G., and Saffman, M., “Demonstration of a neutral atom controlled-NOT quantum gate”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 010503 (2010).Google Scholar

Chen, W., Hu, J., Duan, Y., Braveman, B., Zhang, H., and Vuletić, V., “Carving complex many-atom entangled states by single photon detection”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250502 (2015).Google Scholar

Welte, S., Hacker, B., Daiss, S., Ritter, S., and Rempe, G., “Cavity carving of atomic Bell states”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 210503 (2017).Google Scholar

The use of these words was suggested by Roger Balian in a private conversation.Google Scholar

Schlosshauer, M., “Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 1267–1305 (2005).Google Scholar

Poyatos, J.F., Cirac, J.I., and Zoller, P., “Quantum reservoir engineering with laser cooled trapped ions”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4728–4731 (1996).Google Scholar

Diehl, S., Micheli, A., Kantian, A., Kraus, B., Büchler, H.P., and Zoller, P., “Quantum states and phases in driven open quantum systems with cold atoms”, Nature Physics 4, 878–883 (2008).Google Scholar

Kraus, B., Büchler, H.P., Diehl, S., Kantian, A., Micheli, A., and Zoller, P., “Preparation of entangled states by quantum Markov processes”, Phys. Rev. A 78, 042307 (2008).Google Scholar

Cohen-Tannoudji, C. and Kastler, A., “Optical pumping”, Progress in Optics 5, 3–81 (1966).Google Scholar

Happer, W., “Optical pumping”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 44, 169–250 (1966).Google Scholar

Carvalho, A., Milman, P., de Matos Filho, R, and Davidovich, L., “Decoherence, pointer engineering, and quantum state protection”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 4988–4991 (2001).Google Scholar

Verstraete, F., Wolf, M., and Cirac, I., “Quantum computation and quantum state engineering driven by dissipation”, Nature Physics 5, 633–636 (2009).Google Scholar

Pielawa, S., Davidovich, L., Vitali, D., and Morigi, G., “Engineering atomic quantum reservoirs for photons”, Phys. Rev. A 81, 043802 (2010).Google Scholar

Müller, M., Diehl, S., Pupillo, G., and Zoller, P., “Engineered open systems and quantum simulations with atoms and ions”, Advances in atomic, molecular and optical physics 61, 1–80 (2012).Google Scholar

Barreiro, J. T., Mller, M., Schindler, P., Nigg, D., Monz, T., Chwalla, M., Hennrich, M., Roos, C.F., Zoller, P., and Blatt, R., “An open-system quantum simulator with trapped ions”, Nature 470, 486-491 (2011).Google Scholar

Feynman, R.P. and Vernon, F.L., “The theory of a general quantum system interacting with a linear dissipative system”, Ann. Phys. 24, 181–173 (1963).Google Scholar

Caldeira, A.0. and Leggett, A.J., “Influence of dissipation on quantum tunneling in macroscopic systems”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 46, 211–214 (1981); “Quantum tunneling in a dissipative system”, Annals of Physics 149, 374–456 (1983).Google Scholar

Leggett, A.J., Chakravarty, S., Dorsey, A.T., Fisher, M.P.A., Garg, A., and Zwerger, W., “Dynamics of the dissipative two state system”, Rev. Mod. Phys. 59, 1–86 (1987).Google Scholar

Prokof’ev, N.V. and Stamp, P.C.E., “Theory of the spin bath”, Rep. Prog. Phys. 63, 669–726 (2000).Google Scholar

Stamp, P.C.E., “The decoherence puzzle”, Studies Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys. 37, 467– 497 (2006).Google Scholar

Hagar, A., “Decoherence: the view from the history and philosophy of science”, Philo. Trans. Royal Soc. A 270, 4594–4609 (2012).Google Scholar

Brune, M., Hagley, E., Dreyer, J., Maître, X., Maali, A., Wunderlich, C., Raimond, J.M., and Haroche, S., “Observing the progressive decoherence of the ‘meter’ in a quantum measurement”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4887–4890 (1996).Google Scholar

van der Wal, C.H., ter Haar, A.C.J., Wilhelm, F.K., Schouten, R.N., Harmans, C.J.P.M., Orlando, T.P, Lloyd, S., and Mooij, J.E., “Quantum superposition of macroscopic persistent-current states”, Science 290, 773–777 (2000).Google Scholar

Chiorescu, I., Nakamura, Y., Harmans, C.J.P. M., and Mooij, J.E., “Coherent quantum dynamics of a superconducting flux qubit”, Science 299, 1869–1871 (2003).Google Scholar

Takahashi, S., Tupitsyn, I.S., van Tol, J., Beedle, C.C., Hendrickson, D.N., and Stamp, P.C.E., “Decoherence in crystals of quantum molecular magnets”, Nature 476, 76–79 (2011).Google Scholar

Feynman, R.P., Morinigo, F.B., and Wagner, W.G., Feynman lectures on gravitation, Westview Press (2003) and CRC Press (2018).Google Scholar

Lamine, B., Hervé, R., Lambrecht, A., and Reynaud, S.”Ultimate decoherence border for matter-wave interferometry”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 050405 (2006).Google Scholar

Reynaud, S., Maia Neto, P.A., Lambrecht, A., and Jaekel, M.T., “Gravitational decoherence in planetary motion”, Europhys. Lett. 54, 135–140 (2001).Google Scholar

Bennett, C.H., Brassard, G., Popescu, S., Schumacher, B., Smolin, J.A. and Wootters, W.K., “Purification of noisy entanglement and faithful teleportation via noisy channels”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 722–725 (1996).Google Scholar

Bennett, C.H., Bernstein, H., Popescu, S., and Schumacher, B., “Concentrating partial entanglement by local operations”, Phys. Rev. A 53, 2046–2052 (1996).Google Scholar

Bennett, C.H., DiVincenzo, D.P., Smolin, J.A., and Wootters, W.K., “Mixed-state entanglement and quantum error correction”, Phys. Rev. A 54, 3824–3851 (1996).Google Scholar

Pan, J.W., Simon, C., Brukner, C., and Zeilinger, A., “Entanglement purification for quantum communication”, Nature 410, 1067–1070 (2001).Google Scholar

Haroche, S. and Raimond, J.-M., Exploring the Quantum; Atoms, Cavities and Photons, Oxford University Press (2008).Google Scholar

Cohen-Tannoudji, C., Dupont-Roc, J., and Gryndberg, G., Atom–Photon Interactions, Wiley (1992).Google Scholar

Wootters, W.K. and Zurek, W.H., “A single quantum cannot be cloned”, Nature 299, 802–803 (1982).Google Scholar