At 12:38 PM 9/08/00 -0700, Hal wrote:
>> But from the *physical* point of view nobody (!)
>> is able to *explain* those quantum non-locality experiments
>> or those quantum non-separability experiments,
>> i.e. the identical behaviour of those entangled particles
>> inside those Franson-type interferometers,
>> or the weird quantum-eraser exp., or the ghost interference exp.,
>> etc. etc. etc.
>It's not clear what an "explanation" would constitute when you are talking
>about these phenomena. Usually when we ask "why", we want an explanation
>in terms of simpler principles. But the fundamental workings of QM are
>the simplest theory that we have today.
I thought scerir was pointing out that although QT is simple in the Ockham
sense and works rather well, it appears to contain key elements that are...
*silly, too silly*. When you have a gadget that switches a light on with
the photons that are emitted from the light that has been switched on (to
use a clumsy analogy), I reckon you're in trouble, even though it does
possess a wonderful zany simplicity.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:43 MDT