Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
Thanks for the clarification and the link, secur.  I was reading "fixed" for "privileged";  I forgot that we were talking about the Lorentz ether--my fault.

I stand by my assertion that what is true in GR cannot be false in SR (they belong to the same domain).  The converse doesn't necessarily apply.  I agree heartily that "There is often a desire by the philosophical community to add more structure to a scientific theory than what is represented by the 'mathematical model and minimal interpretation'."

Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/p...-universe/

This is the case with quantum theory based on Bell's theorem, with its ad hoc assumptions and diverse interpretations.  The theories of relativity are mathematically complete.   We forget that Einstein's intent was to allow GR as an intermediate theory toward a unified theory of gravity.  That it fails does not warrant throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  My case is quantum theory incompleteness -- same as EPRB.

You're right -- I should read Schmelzer, especially in his own forum.

Curious -- how do you interpret "real"?

No, I don't consider myself outside the mainstream; neither is Joy Christian.  He has been marginalized unjustly.

Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by Thomas Ray - 09-01-2016, 12:13 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 35 Guest(s)