Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
(07-22-2016, 09:25 PM)secur Wrote: 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!

Motl is right even though he doesn't really explain it correctly.  Bell's theory has nothing at all to do with quantum physics so Bell's comparison is ridiculous.

"Why non-locality?" NOT!  It goes against everything we have learned about Nature.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by FrediFizzx - 07-22-2016, 11:55 PM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)