Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
secur wrote " ... you guys are looking at things in a different way which, from a standard math-logic point of view, just doesn't make sense to me."

To be frank, I was put off by Joy Christian's title, "Disproof of Bell's theorem" (I have since made peace with it) because it immediately ensured that hardly any mathematician would ever read it.

You know as well as I that a theorem is a theorem, and a disproof of such is itself a theorem.

Which brings us to our differences in your 'logic lesson.'  You claim

A = local realism
B = Bell's theorem

I claim

A = local realism
B = nonlocality

You say Bell's theorem introduced new physics, and so is an honest comparison to Einstein's construction of local realism.  However, in what way may Bell's theorem be said constructive?  Einstein described such things as "attempts to breathe in empty space."  

Einstein's theory ever and always depended on the fundamental physical reality of spacetime.

By renouncing spacetime, Bell's theorem (and quantum theory based on it) has renounced relativity, and its proofs run in circles.  If you don't believe it -- get Richard Gill to define a measure space for Bell-Aspect; get him to describe what happens if Planck's constant goes to zero.

The problem is, relativity is solid -- LIGO is only the latest in a long line of spacetime validation.  Have you noticed the quantum theoretical fringe trying to do away with spacetime? -- they know it that kills Bell's theorem as a fundamental result.

Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by Thomas Ray - 07-24-2016, 07:43 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 35 Guest(s)