- #1

- 19

- 0

So anyway someone is trying to convince me that Quantum Physics is in a muddle. That we don't need to be going down the path of non-locality and can safely use almost classical type explanations. The paper they cite is Marcella on Quantum Inference Slits.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0703/0703126.pdf

I found a rebuttal quantum inference revisted by Rothman, Boughn.

http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.2408

I may have got something wrong on my understanding. I think the Marcella paper is a hidden variable and contradicts Bell inequality. I was told no it doesn't. ok. but I also pointed out that the paper contains problems with equation #5 and it appears Rothman has identified Marcella is saying nothing new and presents us with models that are well known and it turns out to be a case of normal problems in classical optics.

I think Marcella can be rejected on the grounds put forward by Rothman. One argument they have made is that Rothman can't critic Marcella for using Dirac Formalism if Bell used it also. However I think Bell based his work on Bohms non-local hidden variable. Anyway I have been told that in textbooks Bell uses Dirac's formula and therefore the critic isn't valid.

Now for some reason I think they don't understand Marcella's paper or the rebuttal but I could be wrong.

I have always believed that CI as an interpretation is not equivalent to other interpretations but have been told that Bohms model is just as right but that ensemble is better. So I have a grasp of the interpretations, I just don't understand why ensemble is supposed to be better or even if it works at all!

Also is ensemble saying the interference pattern on the screen in the double-slit experiment is just coincidentally like one waves would make, but its really just random scattering of particles and no waves are involved at all??? Yet isn't particles in oscillation waves?