🚀 go-pugleaf

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

That may be how philosophy works - pitting argument against argument -
but it's not how physics works; there one pits model against model.
Just saying "quantum collapse as a physical local process" won't stack
up against a well-developed formalism that people have successfully
used for decades.  You need to lay out a precise model of quantum
collapse as a physical local process and show how one can calculate
all sorts of things with it.  I.e., you have to match the competition.
OR you have to get ahold of an experiment that shows the existing formalism
makes wrong predictions.  

That's how the game goes: revolutions in physics do not come easily.