From: scerir (scerir@libero.it)
Date: Mon Sep 25 2000 - 10:21:03 MDT
David Blenkinsop wrote
> Yes, well, I'd have to agree with Goldstein, quantum interference and
> superpositions and such, they aren't really covered by standard methods
> of updating one's statistical knowledge, right (scerir's quotations from
> Heisenberg and others notwithstanding)?
Sheldon Goldstein does not need any help,
but many experiments actually show, just now,
that Schroedinger's cat is not a paradox about
(our) information (about that weird singlet state)
but a real, physical thing. Please look
http://www.nature.com/nature/fow/
and then click the voice
"Catching Schroedinger's cat".
> whether we could regard the handling of quantum vectors as simply a sort
> of more generalized statistics method, so that "possible positions" of a
> particle can actually interfere, without the vectors that cause this
> being locally real at all! In other words, the quantum state vectors are
> only a particularly advanced kind of knowledge representation, a sort of
> pure math structure to help us to relate to real particles and their
> tricky quantum ways?
"Fields in empty space have physical reality;
the medium that supports them does not.
[Quantum] Correlations have physical reality;
that which they correlate does not."
It's not me. It's David Mermin.
Scerir
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:11 MST