Article View: sci.physics
Article #4123Re: Simple observation about Quantum Kitty Cats
From: Paul Budnik
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:55
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:55
25 lines
1644 bytes
1644 bytes
In article <1992Sep28.134825.29472@oracorp.com>, daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes: > > 1. QM, with its quaint axioms > about measurement processes is an enormously successful theory; there > are absolutely no hints to the limitations to its applicability. That depends on what you consider a hint. Quantum mechanics predicts that by changing the setting on an instrument we can influence what happens arbitrarily large distances away. There has never been a shred of experimental evidence supporting such action at a distance. This is more than a hint at limitations. It is a powerful argument suggesting that quantum mechanics is false. The fact that general relativity and quantum mechanics are not mutually consistent is another hint that all is not well. I have repeatedly challenged this group to come up with objective reasons for preferring existing formulations of quantum mechanics to the assumption that quantum collapse is local physical process. If you are convinced there are no hints to the limitations of quantum mechanics, you must have excellent arguments against quantum collapse as a physical local process. I would love to see them. Paul Budnik ~
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<297@mtnmath.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mtnmath!paulReferences:
<1992Sep28.134825.29472@oracorp.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mtnmath!paul From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: Re: Simple observation about Quantum Kitty Cats Summary: Its not a hint, its more like being hit on the head with a sledgehammer Message-ID: <297@mtnmath.UUCP> Date: 29 Sep 92 15:55:54 GMT References: <1992Sep28.134825.29472@oracorp.com> Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070 Lines: 25