Recent content by zonde

Well, the answer is of course correct but it leaves out important part: how comes that evolution of the wave function is not influenced? Because interaction of say silver atom with SG apparatus at arbitrary angle can not be predetermined from atom's trajectory. Otherwise we would have to...

Speaking about option 1. it is actually quite simple - it contradicts observations. It is obvious with quite simple three polarizers experiment:

Speaking about option 3. which basically is about MWI. In Maudlin's paper objections to MWI are related to Born's rule. I would say that there is more serious philosophical problem. MWI denies that my perception of certain consistent observations as objective physical facts is justified. I will...

Well, in order to understand what to do with SD it seems reasonable to look what this arguments by itself represents. First, it's not a theory. So there is no point disproving it. It is rather a loophole for Bell inequality. But it is a type of loophole that we can never close in actual...

And two of the factors are Justin Bieber and One Direction fan tweets: https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.05705 How is that "minimally presumptuous"?

Really nice idea in this paper. If you want to understand what are the problems with QM you have to investigate the areas where QM is weak and that is individual events. Hmm, to me it seems rather clear just by reading 1A statement: "1.A The wave-function of a system is complete, i.e. the...

PeterDonis and stevendaryl, I see sort of contradiction between your answers, and this is related to where I see the problem. In short - is there randomness involved in spin measurement? In QM we can write the wavefunction in different bases (according to superposition principle), so it would...

So you say there is continuous wave. Fine. But please explain, does this continuous wave have a property "polarization", or no? When it passes polarizer, is the amplitude of the wave changing as we rotate the polarizer around the clock?

Here is one well known experiment: https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9810080

That's exactly my point. It does not matter how you call emission or detection events as long as they come in pairs. You are the one who is claiming there is difference: It seems like you do not really know what assumptions are needed to build a a proof about Bell inequalities. I would suggest...

Well, I don't care if we call detections events "particles". But I care that they happen in pairs. If both models agree with observations then we can't discard one of them if favor of the other. Well, of course it's possible that one is more practical. Sorry, but I still don't see an argument...

You describe the situation after beamsplitter, where there are two separate branches. But even at beamsplitter particle is not behaving randomly. In which branch particle will end up is determined by pilotwave and initial position of particle. But too much determinism will make it contradict...

Interpretations can use quite different math. They just have to demonstrate that it can be reduced to standard QM math. But it is conceivable that it reduces nicely to QM math in some cases, but in other cases it doesn't. For example Bohmian Interpretation is claimed to be no collapse...

Yes, good point. I recognize your position as quite rational. However I have different take on interpretations. As I see it is possible to find flaws in interpretations even if they declare that they agree with all the predictions of QM. It is possible that they can't predict outcomes of some...

It does not matter. From the text I quoted I read Cramer as saying that (1) never represents physical reality i.e. there is no superposition of entangled particle states.