Dear Bottomlander .... sorry mate, I don't get the reference to hydrodynamics ??
Quote:
Originally Posted by dleviwing  Hi Greg;
David Deutsch is very pragmatic with Quantum Physics so I tend to accept his views more readily than those who claim mystery phenomena. |
Dear Dave ... Thanks for that. However I still have a question.
In my own experience mainstream science, for the want of some better description, no longer has issues with EPR. In other words Bell's Theorem provided a satisfactory explanation. I am quite happy to ignore the mystery side.
a.. EPR could not explain entanglement but claimed neither could QM.
b.. Bell's Theorem suggested a mathamatical explanation to explain entanglement. (and in doing so postulates a non-local state of matter.)
c.. Because I cannot follow the maths ... Is Deutsch explaining it mathamatically, and is this consistent with a local state of matter.
d.. Does Science, not individual opinion but majority science opinion, accept Deutsch's paper. Does it have widespread acceptance and credibility?
e.. Can you explain the paper in laymens terms as I am getting nowhere with the maths? ie: EPR and Bell are both easily understandable statistically, is Deutsch?
greg
Linear Mode
