Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
secur: I'm not familiar with the Gell-Mann quote, but my guess is that his doubt about nonlocality is akin to your doubt about retrocausality. Here I refer to an earlier post in this thread where you wrote: "How do I know that time itself can't be reversed? ... In fact I don't know it can't be done. I doubt it very much, for reasons of science, philosophy, logic." So you may be interested in this paper: arxiv.org/abs/1512.08275. It seems to me someone willing to accept nonlocality based on Bell's argument and related experiments would also be prone to accept retrocausality in light of the arguments in this paper.  On the other hand, doubt about the conclusions of this paper might perhaps cause a believer in nonlocality to reassess that belief, due to the similarity of the arguments. My own take is that with a wording change, this paper can be turned in to an argument for local realism with forecasts, which I argued above as an alternative to nonlocality.

Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by jrdixon - 08-04-2016, 04:22 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)