scerir writes:
> But from the *physical* point of view nobody (!)
> is able to *explain* those quantum non-locality experiments
> or those quantum non-separability experiments,
> i.e. the identical behaviour of those entangled particles
> inside those Franson-type interferometers,
> or the weird quantum-eraser exp., or the ghost interference exp.,
> etc. etc. etc.
It's not clear what an "explanation" would constitute when you are talking
about these phenomena. Usually when we ask "why", we want an explanation
in terms of simpler principles. But the fundamental workings of QM are
the simplest theory that we have today. Until we come up with a more
fundamental theory than QM we can't expect to explain these phenomena
other than to say that they fit the theory.
As far as explanations for why QM is true, I've seen two directions.
One is the anthropic principle. We see that QM gives us nice chemistry,
plenty of common, stable elements each with its own unique chemical
and physical properties. This allows not only for life, but also a
diverse and stimulating environment that eventually led to intelligence.
The anthropic principle tells us, given that we exist, that we will need
some similar blend of stability and diversity.
There is also the hope that our universe might turn out to be the
*simplest* one possible that leads to life and intelligence. The universe
is described by the laws of physics and the initial conditions. I find
hope in that it seems that the initial state of the universe may have been
very simply described. It was apparently a uniform, hot ball of energy.
>From this, along with QM and gravitation, all of the complexity of the
universe developed. The simplicity of the initial conditions lends hope
that the combination of initial conditions plus laws of physics may
also turn out to be relatively simple, among universes which can give
rise to intelligence. This might give us a philosophical basis to say
"why" QM is true.
Hal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:43 MDT