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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Aan: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004 2:35 PM > >To: Russell Standish; John M > >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >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?????? > > > > > > >
