> >scerir writes:
> >> 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
> >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
> *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.
Wonderful, I thank You Damien!
Prof. Bruno Touschek (extremely talented,
he worked with W.Heisenberg) told me that, sometimes,
he too (and Heisenberg too!) was in trouble
with the interpretation of quantum mechanics.
He used to look at things (problems) from all possible
points of view: wave-like, particle-like, entropy, fields, etc.
He wrote a sort of counter-history of quantum mechanics,
based on the never done experiments.
But now he is dead and his very interesting book
is still unpublished.
About Bruno Touschek (builder of the very first e+/e- collider)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:35:44 MDT