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.