On Tue, 31 Dec 2002, Nomen Nescio wrote: > One way out is to ditch quantum mechanics as being anything near a >"description" of reality as classical theories in essence are. Tim Boyer >of CUNY and a batch of Italian researchers have done a pretty convincing >job of showing that Ahranov-Bohm can be classically derived in a fairly >straightforward manner. But it doesn't explain how AB is able to predict >said phenomenon in about 4 lines while they need many pages of fairly >difficult E&M theory.
That's pretty cool. In this case QM is just a "short cut". > For me it's clear that A/B and EPR show us that QM is telling us >SOMETHING about reality, but we don't yet understand what it is. Part of the problem is that the detection equipment is many fermions looking at single particles. I think QM is easier to understand when looking at an ion trap. There are lots of photons around for every atom but the interactions are with fields and the detection is of single photons (again with massive amounts of equipment, but the atoms don't interact directly as in EPR or double slit). QM is a nice model that works. It is a good mathematical description of observed phenomena. What else do we need? The idea that a photon "passes thru" one slit or the other is just a model. What is the slit? It's really a whole bunch of fermions in a spacial pattern, and when an electron or photon interacts with that distribution we get the observed "self interaction" result. The model is self interaction. That may have nothing to do with reality. Patience, persistence, truth, Dr. mike
