Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site iham1.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!iham1!gjphw From: gjphw@iham1.UUCP (wyant) Newsgroups: net.physics Subject: Re: Quantum Mechanics Message-ID: <413@iham1.UUCP> Date: Sat, 13-Jul-85 11:28:44 EDT Article-I.D.: iham1.413 Posted: Sat Jul 13 11:28:44 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 14-Jul-85 08:42:46 EDT References: <365@sri-arpa.ARPA> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 42 > This is a brief comment on Peter Mikes' submission concerning the adequacy of quantum mechanics. While I am not prepared to address all of the issues Peter raised in his article, there are a few points that have been mentioned previously in this news group. First, A. Einstein's et al interpretation of quantum mechanics is in jeopardy. The Aspect experiment, a test of Bell's Inequality, appears to be an unequivocal demonstration that hidden variables and/or Einstein causality cannot provide a proper explanation of phenomena in the quantum mechanical realm. The significance of Bell's Inequality has been discussed in this news group. I refer those interested to a very readable article by J. Rosen in a recent PHYSICS TODAY that treats the interpretation and evaluation of the Aspect experiment. Second, a recent article in the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS (a journal of physics demonstrations, history, and interpretations intended for college level physics instructors) discussed the history and meaning of Bell's Inequality, Einstein causality, and the completeness of quantum mechanics. The author suggested that in addition to the two standard interpretations for the measurement process in QM (wavefunction collapse and multiple worlds), a third interpretation originally proposed by Max Born also deserves consideration. I cannot claim to understand the "potentia" interpretation at this time, but perhaps some other interested party could explain this to us. Finally, I have difficulty understanding Peter's perspective on completeness. Two possibilities occur to me. One is that I can ask all sorts of questions, but if they cannot be answered by QM, then QM as it is currently constructed is incomplete. Another possibility is that no matter what I may want, if QM cannot answer it then there is no answer. This second operational approach, used quite successfully in the Special Theory, would say that QM is complete. Our interpretations are merely vain attempts to convert a mathematical formalism into common language. Personally, I am not very conversant with the measurement problem in QM, having merely been content to turn in my homework sets on time. The sophisticated discussion will have to come from elsewhere. Patrick Wyant AT&T Bell Laboratories (Naperville, IL) *!iham1!gjphw