Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
It's interesting to note the parallel discussion going on at http://motls.blogspot.com/2016/07/resolv...-term.html. LM invited a guest blog from George Musser (whom I don't know) addressing non-locality. Although it's hard to tell without reading his book, I probably agree on the main issues with Musser. QM predicts certain correlations for space-separated measurements but doesn't explain how it happens. Evidently the answer is: some sort of non-local (but non-signaling) influence. LM's answer: you're an idiot. That's it; there's absolutely no substance to his reply.

Anyway, I hope someone here can give a better answer to the question, "Why not non-locality?" Merely pointing out that I'm an idiot - true though it may be - is not enough!
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by secur - 07-22-2016, 09:25 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)