Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
QM predicts strong correlation, cos^2, in the EPR - type experiment. You don't need Bell to see that it appears logically impossible to do that without something "spooky" going on, although admittedly I needed Bell to help me understand this fact. I'm not interested in parsing the grammar here; it's not important exactly how Bell's theorem needs to be phrased; the math speaks for itself. Hess and Philipp obviously agree there's a puzzle here, else why do they go to all that trouble to show a way around it? At the moment I'm thinking the way they do it is by postulating, in a sense, time itself as the hidden variable. Clever! - and it may work. I'd call that a loophole in the sense the word is used by scientists working in this field.

If you take the word "loophole" to mean I don't believe QM predictions for EPR-Bohm scenario, either I'm miscommunicating or you're misunderstanding. It doesn't matter which. Let me assure you, that's not what I mean to imply.

Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by secur - 06-18-2016, 03:32 AM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)