Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
(07-23-2016, 04:56 PM)secur Wrote: Thomas Ray: "Why non-locality?" NOT! It goes against everything we have learned about Nature.

That's as good an answer as any, but of course it's not decisive. Everywhere else in Nature influence is limited by speed of light, as far as we know. But apparently in QM the "collapse of the wave function" happens faster, for "entangled" particles, as shown in Bell type experiment. It's a new, different phenomenon, although it doesn't "go against" - i.e., doesn't contradict - any other facts. Often, in science and elsewhere, we run into NEW phenomena. This is one of those cases.

That quote was me, not Tom. There is no "collapse of the wave function" problem in EPR. That is a very common misconception. And certainly the quantum experiments don't show that. All the experiments do is validate that the QM predictions for the EPR scenario are most likely correct. We know what the explanation is for the "new" phenomena; space has unique spinor properties.

(07-22-2016, 07:37 PM)Schmelzer Wrote: Ok, it may be your contention.  

You confuse here two things:  A mistake in Bell's derivation.  Given that Bell gives precise definitions, and the mathematics is fine, this is, to put it mildly, not very probable.  

If space has spinor properties, you cannot put that into Bell's derivation. So his mistake is that he did not make his argument general enough. I have not confused anything.

Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by FrediFizzx - 07-24-2016, 05:52 AM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 33 Guest(s)