Talk:Counterfactual definiteness
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. | |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
You know, I've yet to see a single comprehensible explanation of why it is that Bell's theorem assumes CFD, nor why many-worlds violates it. For that matter, I've only ever seen one good explanation of Bell's theorem and unfortunately it discusses neither CFD, nor many-worlds. http://www.mathpages.com/rr/rrtoc.htm (sections 9.5-9.8)
Kevin Aylward:
According to Leslie Ballentine, Professor at Simon Fraser University, and writer of the text book "Quantum Mechanics, A Modern Development" ISBN981-02-4105-4., Bell's theorem dosnt.
He explains in the above book that, firstly, EPR, *derives* CFD, no assumes it. Second, he points out that H. Strap dispenses with CFD, and still shows that QM violtes locality.
Subsequently, other have argued that he still assumes CDF implicitly, however, H. P. Stap further answers these criticisms, but the debate is ongoing e.g http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004quant.ph..4121S, probably till the end of time
