🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Oct2.202249.21453@galois.mit.edu>, jbaez@riesz.mit.edu (John C. Baez) writes:
> >But my formalism makes the same predictions of quantum mechanics with
> >the exception of tests of Bell's inequality. 
> 
> Let's see your formalism - where are the equations?  What precisely does
> it predict in situations where QM violates Bell's inequality?  Not
> words, numbers.  Show how to do some QFT-type calculations using this
> formalism (since QFT combines relativity and QM) - say electron-electron
> scattering.  

If I could do that I would not be wasting my time posting this stuff. I
would be publishing it and patiently waiting for the Nobel committee to call.

I should not have said `my formalism'. The alternative to the existing theory
I am proposing is to add locality as an additional constraint to that
theory.  This implys that we do not know how the wave function changes
before and after an observation. The multiparticle wave function cannot,
in general, change in a local fashion when an observation is made, but that
is not the issue. It must change in such a way that there are no nonlocal
macroscopic effects. No one knows how it does change. I think it is a
chaotic-like process that cannot be modeled by an equation. The underlying
laws can be modeled and the whole process could in theory be simulated on
a computer. But one cannot give a simple equation that models this behavior,
Just as one cannot give a simple equation that models the atmosphere in
enough detail to predict the weather. That can only be done to
a limited degree by large scale simulations.

This means there are holes in the existing theory at the point an
observation is made. We shold acknowledge their existence. We do not
know what is happening at these points. Testing Bell's inequality will
give us some clues.

A few months ago you gave an argument why quantum mechanics may not be
completely valid at very small distances. You do not have an alternative
theory worked out. You would like to develop such a theory that combines
gravity with QFT but you know it will be hard problem and take a long time.
I do not think you expect to be able to do it by yourself.

My point is that questions about locality should be treated in the same way.
It would be foolish to insist that quantum mechanics is completely correct
at all distance scales. It is equally foolish to assume it violates locality.
There does not exist a shred of evidence for nonlocal affects.
The main difference between these two cases is the ability to validate
a theory with experiments. Effects at the distant scale you have in mind are
completely inaccessible by any foreseeable experimental techniques. It is
almost impossible to build correct theories under these circumstances. Tests
of locality can be done using existing technology. Perhaps you should
consider changing your area of research. :-)

Paul Budnik