Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
Secur wrote:  "They're assuming TLCP's at both stations are determined simultaneously. Of course this violates relativity and is a variety of 'spooky action at a distance'.

Determined simultaneously, measured discretely.  No violation of locality.  

Richard Gill, et al, published a "refutation" of the PNAS paper, claiming first that the work was another nonlocal theory, and finally that time is irrelevant.

You judge.  arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0208187

(06-18-2016, 11:35 AM)Thomas Ray Wrote: Schmelzer wrote:  "I would say relativity has failed when tested against quantum theory. "

Quite impossible, since relativity is mathematically complete and quantum theory is not.

(06-18-2016, 02:09 PM)Schmelzer Wrote: Quantum theory is as complete (incomplete) as relativity.  

The fact is that to prove Bell's inequality all you need are self-evident trivialities, like realism or causality,  and relativity.   The resulting prediction - Bell's inequality - stands against the QM prediction.  Experiment has shown that QM was correct, and Bell's inequality false.  

So, relativity has failed.  In such a horrible way that it has to reject the very existence of reality as well as the principle that correlations have causal explanations to immunize itself.  This is even worse than the immunizations used by religions - which make claims about really existing Gods or devils or so, and give fantastic but at least formally causal explanations of whatever we observe.

Mathematically complete -- meaning that the physical results are entirely contained within the mathematical postulates.  Quantum theory is a mish-mash of ad hoc assumptions.

Relativistic predictions are falsifiable, and do not need gods and devils.

Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by Thomas Ray - 06-19-2016, 03:00 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)