It is not clear that the theory proposed by 't Hooft is incompatible with
EPR. As 't Hooft explains there are several loopholes in Bell's theorem.
E.g. in a completely deterministic world you cannot claim that you could
have chosen to measure a different component of the spin than the one you
actually measured...
----- Oorspronkelijk bericht -----
Van: "Brent Meeker" <meekerdb.domain.name.hidden>
Aan: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Verzonden: Saturday, August 14, 2004 10:19 AM
Onderwerp: RE: Quantum Rebel - complementarity
> If it can't deal with EPR, what good is it?
>
> Brent Meeker
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Saibal Mitra [mailto:smitra.domain.name.hidden]
> >Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 2:35 PM
> >To: Russell Standish; John M
> >Cc: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> >Subject: Re: Quantum Rebel - complementarity
> >
> >
> >Maybe we should look at deterministic theories, such as:
> >
> >
> >http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0104219
> >
> >John M wrote:
> >
> >> Yet it would be refreshing to approach the concept
> >from another side
> >> (another framework), - maybe a new one??????
> >
> >
> >
>
Received on Sat Aug 14 2004 - 12:48:25 PDT