>>13576336The same happens all the time with SR. If the scientific institution had the integrity to admit it is wrong, the question of determinism in quantum mechanics would have settled right away the question of which between SR and LET to accept:
Under LET there are NO problems in looking at quantum mechanics as a purely stochastic theory in a deterministic universe emerging from incomplete information. No quantum weirdness, no spooky action at a distance, no Schroedinger's cat, no superposition, no fundamental uncertainty principle. No dichotomy between momentum and position. No particle-wave duality. Only our incomplete knowledge of momentum and position.
But because that undermines the Einsteinian notion of causality, which is derived and depending upon the speed of light being constant, thus stemming from SR, that cannot be true. Therefore QM must be nondeterministic and have twenty different, but all retarded, interpretations.
This is putting the correctness of Einstein's postulate above the postulates of classical mechanics, of a deterministic and causal universe.
And to reiterate: with Lorentzian causality, that is classical causality, QM can be a deterministic and classical theory.
And before you come at me with "muh spooky action at a distance":
Gravity has always been spooky action at a distance and will always be. Taking an effect, mapping it onto mathematical space, reifying space and calling the effect "a cause", as in GR, does not make actually the effect a cause. It's a mathematical parlor trick to impress midwits like you, that at worst generates no new scientific knowledge, and at best gives a misguided physical interpretation to a new mathematical formulation of the effect.
