Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
(07-24-2016, 11:20 PM)secur Wrote: Thomas Ray wrote: By renouncing spacetime, Bell's theorem (and quantum theory based on it) has renounced relativity, and its proofs run in circles. If you don't believe it -- get Richard Gill to define a measure space for Bell-Aspect; get him to describe what happens if Planck's constant goes to zero.

I don't know in what sense Bell "renounces spacetime". If Planck's constant "goes to zero" we would get classical physics; but of course Planck's constant doesn't go anywhere: it is what it is. If Gill wants to address your comments it would probably help me understand what you're getting at.
I cannot make any sense of Thomas Ray's comments and my experience tells me there is no point in trying to get sense out of them.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by gill1109 - 07-25-2016, 09:20 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)