Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
(07-24-2016, 11:20 PM)secur Wrote: Thomas Ray wrote: 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.

I don't know in what sense Bell "renounces spacetime". If Planck's constant "goes to zero" we would get classical physics; but of course Planck's constant doesn't go anywhere: it is what it is. If Gill wants to address your comments it would probably help me understand what you're getting at.
I cannot make any sense of Thomas Ray's comments and my experience tells me there is no point in trying to get sense out of them.

Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by gill1109 - 07-25-2016, 09:20 AM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 23 Guest(s)