From: mark@unicorn.com
Date: Wed Sep 23 1998 - 05:05:12 MDT
Michael Lorrey [retroman@together.net] wrote:
>It shouldn't be on the radar screen as far as I know, as I was under the
>impression that Prof. John Cramer ( of the U of Wash. ), in a paper
>published in 1986, extended the implications of the Feynman interpretation
>of Quantum Dynamics (esp QCD) to prove that the Schroedinger's Cat Paradox
>is not a paradox at all
Yes, the Transactional Interpretation which someone else has already
mentioned. AFAIR he uses the relativistic Schrodinger Equation, points
out that it has two solutions -- one going forward in time and one back --
and the end result is that the cat is always either alive or dead, but
the decision isn't made until you open the box.
We shouldn't be surprised that QM should be full of oddities when we're
not using the relativistic version, and from the 'common sense' point of
view you simply can't tell whether the cat is alive or dead until you
open the box. This interpretation seems to be a mathematical expression
of that rather obvious point.
I honestly don't understand why such an important reinterpretation of QM
isn't more widely known.
Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:36 MST