Demystifier's latest activity

I think I disagree. If there is exactly one scattered particle, then there is no state ##|{\rm neutral}_L,{\rm neutral}_R\rangle##...

So that it can be compared with my argument, so if my argument is wrong I can see why it is wrong.

I meant constructed in a sense I have constructed my operator, as a sum/integral over all possible single outcomes.

But it is not an explicit construction in a way my construction is explicit. The explicit construction should have a sum over all...

That's a lot of talk. Can you write down such an operator explicitly, in a form similar to my operator, so that we can compare them?

It doesn't change anything in my argument. I can define $$|\Psi_{\Omega}\rangle = |\Omega\rangle \otimes |{\rm apparatus}\; {\rm...

After some thinking, I think the Mott-Coleman argument is simply wrong, because the operator ##L## does not exist. To explain it in...

I still don't understand the point. The radially symmetric wave function is not supposed to be an eigenstate of ##L##, so why is he...

Can someone (e.g. @gentzen or @martinbn ) explain the Mott's argument to me in his own words? Because from the paper I haven't...

We are talking about the Coleman's interpretation (which is not RQM), for which you said that you find convincing, so I thought that's...

Right, it doesn't exist in the Neumaier's interpretation, but it exists in your interpretation.

So you would say that they exist, but can't be represented mathematically, right? The Bell's analysis then can't be applied to them...

Fine, but does it mean that the subsystem is not ontological, i.e., that the subsystem does not exist in a strict sense? For example, if...

Yes, you can put it this way.

I mean this thread, post #25.