From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!news.dell.com!pmafire!mica.inel.gov!guinness!opal.idbsu.edu!holmes Tue Jun  9 10:07:04 EDT 1992
Article 6089 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!news.dell.com!pmafire!mica.inel.gov!guinness!opal.idbsu.edu!holmes
>From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Hypothesis: I am a Transducer (Formerly "Virtual Grounding")
Message-ID: <1992Jun4.231653.13344@guinness.idbsu.edu>
Date: 4 Jun 92 23:16:53 GMT
References: <1992Jun4.142045.1608@oracorp.com>
Sender: usenet@guinness.idbsu.edu (Usenet News mail)
Organization: Boise State University Math Dept.
Lines: 98
Nntp-Posting-Host: opal

In article <1992Jun4.142045.1608@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough) writes:
>holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:
>
>>I think that "hidden variables" is the correct explanation of the
>>physical reality (which is not to say that I am disputing QM
>>predictions).  I think that particles are real (they leave little
>>spots on emulsions; how real can you get?) but that the "waves" are
>>not. The wave side of the duality is (I think) a mathematical
>>representation of what information we are allowed to have about the
>>real particles (restrictions imposed by the quantum of action); and we
>>actually do "observe" the effects of waves via statistical
>>distribution of observations of _particles_ (waves are arguably never
>>directly observed!)  However, the behaviour of the waves is so elegant
>>that we "reify" them.
>
>Hi, Randall! I don't know if you remember me, but we were in a set
>theory course together at Cornell. We discussed your research into
>NFU quite a bit.
>
>Anyway, while I have enjoyed your comments about AI, I have to
>disagree with your discussion of quantum mechanics. I don't think that
>there is a consistent interpretation of a wave function as a
>measurement of our information about the location of a particle. The
>main difficulty with such an interpretation is that there is no role
>for the phase of the wave function in such an interpretation, and the
>phase is crucial for such things as interference effects.
>
>I tend to believe that *particles* are the reification of terms in an
>expansion of the wave function. In quantum field theory, the reality
>of particles is even more in question. The fundamental quantity seems
>to be the field (the analog of the wave function). Particles are seen
>to be excitations in the fields, not entities in their own right.
>
>>What is necessary to make progress is to figure out why information
>>about particles (the actual reality) is restricted in this way.
>>This is hard work; we will make no progress in this direction as
>>long as we continue to take the easy course of treating
>>the waves as an independent physical reality (an attractive
>>explanation which probably should have been avoided).
>
>Once again, I disagree strongly. There is no reason (that I know of)
>to doubt that waves are part of physical reality. The so-called
>"collapse of the wave function" tends to make people think of the
>parallel with ordinary probability: When we flip a coin in the dark,
>we can describe the situation as "Heads, with 50% probability, and
>tails, with 50% probability." However, when we turn on the light,
>the coin seems to "collapse" into a define state, either heads or
>tails. Obviously, in this case, there really is no collapse; the
>coin was either heads or tails before we turned on the light, we
>just didn't know which.
>
>Discussion of quantum mechanics, without the mathematics of
>interference, might lead people to think that the situation is
>comparable to the case with flipping a coin. The particle really has a
>position, we just don't know what it is. When we observe the particle,
>the collapse of the wave function is simply a change in our knowledge.
>What's the big deal?
>
>However, the mathematics does not support this interpretation, because
>of interference effects between alternatives. There is a testable
>difference between the following two situations:
>
>   1. The particle either has spin-up, or spin-down, we just don't know
>      which.
>
>   2. The particle is in a superposition of a spin-up state and a spin-down
>      state.

I know all of this very well.  Nonetheless...  I will try to respond
at more length later.























-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu


