Login Register

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables?
Now I'll deal with the counter-arguments:

Leslie Lamport wrote: Random vibrations make it impossible to balance the ball on the knife edge, but if the ball is positioned randomly, random vibrations are as likely to keep it from falling as to cause it to fall.

secur wrote:  Wrong, he's ignoring the behavior of unstable equilibria.

There are stable equilibria, too.  They are just less numerous than unstable states.

Leslie Lamport wrote: In classical physics, randomness is a manifestation of a lack of knowledge. If we knew the positions and velocities of all atoms in the universe, then even the tiniest vibration could be predicted.

secur wrote:  Even in classical physics that's not true. But it's irrelevant, because QM makes nonsense of Laplace's "Clockwork Universe".

Lamport is saying that perfect information -- such as the numbers imprinted on the sides of a die -- leads to perfect knowledge.  Yes, it's irrelevant to QM, because we don't have access to perfect information.

In QM as well as classical physics, however, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Messages In This Thread
RE: Bell's theorem - for or against Hidden Variables? - by Thomas Ray - 09-14-2016, 02:32 PM

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)