It seems like a reasonable conclusion, doesn't it? But, I have no way of *knowing* ifgptejms said:I think you have contradicted yourself here.You say 'photons and electrons don't have any
objective (ie., verifiable) existence other than as formal constructs related to detection
attributes' and then you conclude that 'oscillations of the transmitting medium are quantized'.
it's an accurate description of what is happening in the experimental setup prior
to detection. I can *know* whether or not a photon or an electron has been
produced, because these terms have verifiable operational meanings -- and the
physical effects (the data) that they refer to don't exist until detecting instruments
produce them. So, there's no contradition to resolve.
Having said that, I must say that I find it to be a rather unsatisfying way of talking
about things. I believe that the medium between emitters and detectors
is behaving in a real, quantized way that is directly related to the recording of
individual quantum measurement values. However, the qualitative characteristics
of whatever it is that is moving from emitter to detector, and eventually producing
a photon or electron, aren't known.
If you say "as if", then you're using the terms 'photon' and 'electron' in agptejms said:I think the resolution lies in understanding that quantization aspect is revealed to you
only upon measurement--and then to avoid the contradiction say 'before that the
photons/electrons don't exist' (though I prefer the 'as if').
way that requires you to clarify exactly what you mean.
Two open slits transmit two disturbances which interfere with each other.gptejms said:The disturbance model does not explain EPR, but why should it? It's just an interpretation
that I have given to TFC (time-like part of field commutator). It gives you a new way of looking
at some of the things -- when you introduce a double slit in between a source of electrons and
a screen, you've given rise to a disturbance in the field,which propagates (at vel. of light) and
readjusts the field at the screen to 'interference pattern'. When you make a measurement at
one of the slits, it again gives rise to a disturbance that propagates and causes the field at the
other slit to correspond to 'no electron' and at the screen to 'no interference effects'. I think it's
a beautiful way of looking at things.
One open slit transmits one disturbance which has nothing to interfere with
on the other side. But, how to account for the single localized
detection when both slits are open? Maybe the two open slits transmit a single
disturbance. How does that happen, and if that *is* what is happening, then
what is that single disturbance interfering with to produce the interference pattern
observed with both slits open? I don't think you've solved *the problem*. If you do,
then that will indeed be beautiful and you will probably get a some sort of prize.
What does your model have to do with Bell test (EPR) results? And, what does this part ofgptejms said:I can only tell you that this disturbance model does not contradict EPR results -- EPR results
are tested or arrived at at space-like intervals. Your measurement at '1' has not had sufficient
time to travel to '2' and affect the measurement there.
your reply have to do with my question about your use of the term 'entanglement'?
Quantum entanglement is an observed effect (eg. Bell inequality violating correlations).
But you were using the term as a *cause* -- so I was asking what you meant by the
term wrt that usage.