From: retour@contactprospect.com   
      
   "David Mitchell"  a écrit dans le message de   
   news: pan.2007.02.09.18.55.21.247246@edenroad.demon.co.uk   
      
   > Yes they are, see below.   
      
   No, the Gedanken Experimenten have been performed, with the results   
   predicted by QM, but it isn't an overpassing, see below.  The real   
   objections of Einstein are on completeness, and truly random events   
   constitute their its precise contradiction.   
      
   > Why?  It's perfectly reasonable, given that AFAIK every working physicist   
   > believes that QM _does_ include completely random events, despite   
   > Einstein's protestations.   
      
   It's an "authority" argument, not the scientific method.  Besides, QM   
   necessarily include truly random events, since that belongs to its premises.   
   OTOH, quantum phenomena non necessarily include them, making abstraction   
   from the fact that "truly random" have no definite meaning.   
      
   Yet, QM is still endowed with conceptual difficulties even if some   
   physicists don't think so.  And indeed, there are some arguments that are   
   able to shake their conviction.   
      
   It's not a matter of a debate settled or not, it's a matter of research   
   programs, funding, fashion, avoiding of too difficult issues, profitability   
   in terms of number of published papers, teaching and so on.  It's not a   
   matter of physics, it's a matter of people.   
      
   > He was also, BTW, wrong about the Cosmological Constant (or, at least,   
   > wrong about being wrong).   
      
   Newton was wrong, Maxwell was wrong, Galileo was wrong, so what?  They all   
   imagined concepts that are still in use now.   
      
   --   
   ~~~~ clmasse on free F-country   
   Liberty, Equality, Profitability.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)