Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
FreddiFizzx:  it is our contention that assuming Nature is local and realistic then the quantum experiments prove that Bell made a mistake in his derivation of the inequalities.

I can agree with that. So there are four choices,

1. Nature not local (i.e., something happening faster than light)
2. Nature not realistic
3. Bell made a mistake
4. Some other loophole

I choose #1, while keeping all the others in mind. #3 is the least likely, but I still go ahead and read (at least, look at) the papers you (and others) have cited. As I (and others) have said they all appear to be flawed.

If we ignore Bell for a moment, consider the argument I gave a few weeks ago in http://ilja-schmelzer.de/forum/showthrea...506#pid506. This is the essence of the thing, and it's very simple. Can you explain it without non-locality?

The problem with your viewpoint is the strong a priori rejection of non-locality. The particular type of non-locality that Bell-related work appears to prove is very "weak". It can't be used to communicate information FTL, so it violates none of Einstein's principles (or any other accepted principles of physics). It can't be used to establish non-local simultaneity although at first glance it seems to. It doesn't violate intuition either. So can you please explain why you reject, a priori, this extremely limited version of non-locality?

re. Thomas Ray vs. Schmelzer,

Thomas Ray (first): It's surprising that Schmeltzer does not know what a multiply connected space is ...

Thomas Ray (later): ... your [Schmelzer's] dismissal of the relevance of multiply connected spaces ...

I would like to suggest that TR's first post was an overstatement, what he meant was the second statement. That is, he's objecting to Schmelzer's dismissal of relevance of multiply connected spaces, but, as people do sometimes, over-stated this as "doesn't know what they are". I've done the same thing more than once: said someone "didn't understand" some fact when actually they simply didn't agree with the conclusions I was drawing from that fact. Heinera did something like that to TR a while ago. Indeed, many great thinkers throughout the ages have incorrectly used this rhetorical device in the "heat of battle". One shouldn't do it, of course, but ...
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by secur - 07-22-2016, 08:21 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)