Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!hplabs!sri-unix!ecsvax!dgary%mcnc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa From: dgary%mcnc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa Newsgroups: net.physics Subject: Re: Re: Re: Faster than Light Message-ID: <408@sri-arpa.ARPA> Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 12:24:34 EDT Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.408 Posted: Mon Jul 15 12:24:34 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 18-Jul-85 06:36:02 EDT Lines: 16 I don't really follow you. The point of my posting was that Young's slit (and other experiments) indicate that there is something going on more than particles flying along - something is interfering with something to produce an interference pattern. This does indeed reflect the state of the system. A "measurement" (in the quantum sense - this does not require an observer but what Bohr called an irreversible quantum event, I think) either results in the "collapse" of the wave equation if you're a fan of the Copenhagen view or something else (switching into one of the available time-tracks in the many-worlds view, say). I certainly agree that's ambiguous, but so what? Nobody claims we know all there is to know about physics. Objecting to a successful (if perhaps unappealing) scheme like quantum mechanics is just pointless griping unless something better is being offered as an alternative.