🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <297@mtnmath.UUCP>, paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik) writes:
|> 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.  [...]

No.  QM predicts that changing the setting on a local instrument will
influence what happens locally in such a way that these local occurrences
correlate differently with distant events.

|. [...]                                    There has never been a shred of
|> experimental evidence supporting such action at a distance.  [...]

Since no *action* at a distance is predicted by QM, there is no
problem.  Only *correlation* at a distance is predicted.  Such
correlation is quite commonplace in non-QM contexts using hidden 
variables.  The QM difference is that hidden variables have been
shown *not* to be involved.

-- 
J. Giles