martinbn said:
Well, if the particle doesn't exist, then what do you measure? So, there is no particle, I guess it is vacuum. Then you measure the spin(of what, the vacuum?) and pop the particle exists, but only for a moment, only when measure, then it doesn't exist until the next measurement. That seems a very strange way of describing the situation. And I don't see that, nor anything that would suggest it, in the papers you cited.
Suppose there are no particles, but the
event devices we set up cause identifiable changes of voltage,
pops, on signal lines
every so often. In a dark room, there is still the "dark rate", but when we turn on the power to a
source device in the room the
pops happen at a different rate, indeed perhaps with quite different statistics. Suppose we have two event devices in the room, now we can ask about correlations on the signal lines and about whether identifiable
pops happen at the same time, and so on.
Now, we know that how many source devices there are and where the source devices and the event devices are in the room changes the event statistics, so we can think of the sources as causing the
pop statistics. If we want to say more than that, we have to introduce some new idea: we know that thinking that particles cause the
pops is only sustainable if we're willing to adopt something like a de Broglie-Bohm interpretation (which we might or might not be willing to do, or perhaps only sometimes), so we ask whether we might think of the events being caused by a field in the immediate surroundings of each event device. Now there's a lot to do, but the distance between an appropriate random field and a quantum field can be shown to be not very great, so that we can think of QFT as just one way (a
useful way) of doing signal analysis in the presence of noise sophisticatedly. Classical noise is correlated across time and space, and we effectively engineer those correlations when we introduce elaborate sources of the kind that cause violations of Bell inequalities, et cetera. Furthermore, noncommutative operators are commonplace in classical signal analysis, so the violation of Bell-CHSH-type inequalities is not a surprise.
I don't expect many people will read this far, and likely no-one will feel compelled by the discussion above, but I have found it very helpful to think that events
pop, not particles. Events are correlated because the vacuum is already correlated and because we further engineer events to be correlated in a variety of ways. FWIW, a slogan I've been playing with of late has been to speak of field/event duality instead of wave/particle duality, though that seems sometimes too trite and sometimes just right.
Of course this leaves questions as to why the source and event devices exist as distinguishable objects with trajectories, but for me it's one thing at a time, walk before you try to run, ...
