XPost: sci.physics.relativity   
   From: bill.sloman@ieee.org   
      
   On 20/02/2026 3:08 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   > On 02/19/2026 02:06 AM, Bill Sloman wrote:   
   >> On 19/02/2026 7:57 am, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >>> On 02/18/2026 12:54 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >>>> On 02/18/2026 12:49 PM, Ross Finlayson wrote:   
   >>>>> On 02/18/2026 12:43 PM, Python wrote:   
   >>>>>> Le 18/02/2026 à 20:13, Ross Finlayson a écrit :   
   >>   
   >>    
   >>   
   >>> If quantum mechanics is never wrong:   
   >>> if it's not a continuum mechanics   
   >>> you're doing it wrong.   
   >>   
   >> The whole point about quantised effects is that they aren't continuous.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Have you heard of "deBroglie-Bohm"? Basically their ideas   
   > (or, mostly Bohm) about "real wave collapse" about the usual   
   > quantum formalism the Heisenberg-Scroedinger picture: make   
   > for a different than the usual Copenhagen interpretation of   
   > quantum mechanics ("It's..., random") that it's not random   
   > and it's not discontinuous, instead since continuum mechanics.   
   >   
   > Often enough that was called "hidden variables", then the word   
   > "hidden variables" was publicly shamed, so these times sometimes   
   > it's called "supplementary variables", though, people who stuck   
   > by their own idea of why nature's perfection would demand a   
   > continuum mechanics still have it often enough "hidden variables"   
   > to reflect on Bohm's origins of the ideas and not give it to   
   > the old-wrapped-as-new sort who didn't have to stand up for anything.   
      
   Read up on Bell's inequalities.   
      
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_test   
      
   Local variables don't hack it.   
   The 1935  Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen paper was wrong.   
      
   --   
   Bill Sloman, Sydney   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)