Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
At least one Bell loyalist, Richard Gill, defers to philosophy over physics.  In a PubPeer debate of his paper "Statistics, Causality and Bell's Theorem" https://pubpeer.com/publications/D985B47...22#fb27706 he wrote to "Peer 1":

"By the way, who is talking about spooky passion or spooky action? I do not think that what is going on here is 'spooky'. What is going on is physics, quantum physics. Quantum physics is different from classical physics. In some respects it makes more things possible, in other respects it allows less. There is certainly nothing spooky about quantum entanglement and all that. There is absolutely no violation of causality and locality principles. Quantum mechanics is compatible with the concept of 'information causality' which is itself a strengthening of 'no action at a distance'."

(Despite that information causality can't 'breathe in empty space'; one more degree of freedom is demanded -- time -- which subsumes QM in a classical framework.)

Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by Thomas Ray - 09-10-2016, 06:35 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)