Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
#43
The way I see it, Lorentzian relativity hasn't failed. Bell results imply a "rest frame"; which was never ruled out by actual data (only by logical-positivist philosophy), and is strongly suggested by CMB, not to mention common sense. Super-luminal quantum collapse is also indicated by Bell results, which Lorentz never denied, never even thought about. There are still loopholes, and alternative explanations, but that's the way the picture seems to be shaping up.

Both these new "loopholes", Joy Christian and Hess & Philipp, seem to me valid on their own terms (although if you say there are errors, I haven't studied enough to contradict you). They amount to a couple more far-fetched "loopholes", like denial of counterfactual definiteness, which are far less acceptable than Lorentz - according to my intuition. Your mileage may vary.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by secur - 06-18-2016, 02:41 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)