🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <297@mtnmath.UUCP>, paul@mtnmath.UUCP (Paul Budnik)
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 EPR-like correlations are certainly strange, but as far as I know
there is no experimental evidence contradicting the predictions of QM.

>The fact that general relativity and quantum mechanics are not mutually
>consistent is another hint that all is not well.

I should have made it clear that I was talking about empirical
evidence. You're right, there are theoretical problems that suggest
troubles for QM.

>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.

It seems clear to me that the wave function is not a physical field,
in the sense of the classical electromagnetic field. The problem shows
up when you consider the quantum mechanics of more than one particle;
the wave function becomes a function of position in configuration
space, rather than space-time. That is, in general the wave function
is of the form Psi(r1,r2,...,rn,t), where rj is the position vector
for the jth particle. As far as I know, there is no way to interpret
such a thing as a field---what is its value at the North Pole, for
instance? There is no such thing as the value of the wave function
at a particular space-time point, so it doesn't make much sense to
talk about that value collapsing.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY