On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 7:32 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 1:22 PM Jesse Mazer wrote:
>
> *> Depends what you mean by "couldn't be true"--my understanding is that
>> Einstein's EPR paper was just asserting that there must be additional
>> elements of reality beyond the quantum
On Mon, Nov 20, 2023 at 1:22 PM Jesse Mazer wrote:
*> Depends what you mean by "couldn't be true"--my understanding is that
> Einstein's EPR paper was just asserting that there must be additional
> elements of reality beyond the quantum description*
>
Yes, Einstein thought he had proven that
Depends what you mean by "couldn't be true"--my understanding is that
Einstein's EPR paper was just asserting that there must be additional
elements of reality beyond the quantum description (for example, that
correlations between distant particles could be explained in terms of extra
unseen
In Einstein's 1935 EPR paper he thought he had found a consequence of
quantum mechanics that was a Reductio Ad Absurdum proof that it couldn't be
true. But he forgot that for such a proved to be valid you need to do more
than prove that something is ridiculous, you need to prove that it's
On Sun, Nov 19, 2023 at 11:44 PM Bruce Kellett
wrote:
*> It has been suggested that the cosmic multiverse and the quantum
> multiverse of Everett are the same thing. But I think that this idea is
> patently ridiculous.*
>
Perhaps so, but is it ridiculous enough to be true? Quantum mechanics
5 matches
Mail list logo
