 Quote by akhmeteli
Again, there is absolutely nothing in this quote confirming “that we initially agreed to assume that VBI and nonlocality meant the same thing”. Absolutely nothing. The word “nonlocality” itself is just missing, pure and simple. Some agreement indeed. And I tried to explain to you several times that your reasoning in the quote brazenly defies logics (see, in particular, what you called a “horrible analogy”). I also dispute your phrase about dBB from the quote.
|
First off, it doesn't defy logic at all, and you would know that if you understood QM. Secondly, VBI obviously means the same as entanglement nonlocality. Seriously, what the hell do you think VBI means?
Quote by akhmeteli
I am not going to read those references for the purpose of this discussion until I know what exactly I am expected to find there, sorry. I believe you failed to explain how dBB and GRW are relevant to this discussion, and I tried to explain to you several times why I believe so.
|
As I said before, you have too look at the description of the theory of measurement interactions in deBB. Then you will learn why unitary evolution is preserved in deBB even during measurement interactions. And that the PP turns out to be an "effective colapse".
Quote by akhmeteli
|
I don't know what you mean by "approximation", but what I mean by approximation is the "effective collapse" described exactly in the Passon paper.
Quote by akhmeteli
And I told you repeatedly something that can be rephrased as follows: if in such theories experimental predictions of both unitary evolution and of the projection postulate of SQM are expected to be rigorously confirmed, those theories include the contradiction between UE and PP, if such predictions are not expected to be rigorously confirmed, then those theories are not empirically equivalent to SQM.
|
No. See the paper again.
Quote by akhmeteli
Yeah, sure, and you did not accuse me baselessly of dishonesty and what not.
|
Yes, that's not an insult, that's what I really think.
Quote by akhmeteli
As for laziness, I don’t work for you, and you are not in a position to accuse me of it.
|
I am in every position to call it as I see it.
Quote by akhmeteli
Frankly, I am fed up. I warn you in no uncertain term: just one more personal attack, and I’ll leave this discussion all to yourself. If you don’t want a civil discussion, I don’t want any discussion with you.
|
Frankly, I am glad you are fed up. At least this has shaken you out of your previous behaviors. Oh and I could really care less at this point if you decided to leave. If you don't want to get serious about a discussion like this, then have fun with the rest of your life.
Similar Threads for: QED Lagrangian lead to self-interaction?
Physorg.com Science News Partner
