Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/28/84; site lll-crg.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!brooks
From: brooks@lll-crg.ARPA (Eugene D. Brooks III)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Re: Bell's Inequality (Reply to E. Brooks)
Message-ID: <631@lll-crg.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 8-Jun-85 05:08:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: lll-crg.631
Posted: Sat Jun  8 05:08:05 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Jun-85 02:54:25 EDT
References: <612@astrovax.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Labs, CRG group
Lines: 25

> 3) One could easily cite other (and perhaps better) evidence that QM is not
> aesthetically or intuitively satisfactory.

Give me a break,  aesthetics and intuition like beauty are in the the eye
of the beholder!  The bottom line for physical theory is whether or not it
is in agreement with experimental data, not just one part of it but ALL if it.
The point where QM is found to disagree with experimental data defines the
point where fixing need to be started, the number one problem with QM is
not being able to solve it in areas of high importance.  Has anyone solved
QCD lately to find out whether or not it predicts protons?

> It would be nice if this new theory
> were experimentally distinguishable from QM, but this might be impossible
> in practise or even in principle.  
If the new "correct" theory is not experimentally distinguisable from QM
then it has nothing to offer other than to allow those that are currently
living in the dark ages to catch up with those who already intuitively
understand what is going on.

IF ITS NOT BROKEN DON'T FIX IT.  IF IT IS BROKEN (and I am not going to claim
that is isn't as I would not be that foolish) THEN FIND THE BREAKAGE!

To find the breakage you start with with a prediction of the theory and
find an experiment that does not agree.  To do anything else is to bark up
the wrong tree.