--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shanti2218411" <shanti2218411@...> wrote: <snip> [Xeno wrote:] > > An acquaintance of mine recently emailed this link to me. > > Some interesting work on the nature of the quantum wave > > function: > > http://phys.org/news/2012-04-quantum-function-reality.html
This is one of the clearest articles on quantum mechanics for the layperson that I've seen. > > And the abstract of the original paper: > > http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i15/e150402 > > (If you want to get the original paper online, it costs > > US$25. I declined.) > > I would think that the statement "based only on the > assumption that measurement settings can be chosen freely," > maybe problematic i.e exactly what does "freely" mean in > that sentence(see abstract). So would the researchers think, according to the article at the first link: "'Our result is based on the assumption that an experimenter can, in principle, "freely" choose which measurements he would like to carry out,' Renner said. 'Hence, if one is ready to accept this assumption, our answer can be considered final. However, it is certainly legitimate to question this "free choice" assumption (as well as the way "free choice" is defined). We are currently working on a proof that the assumption can be replaced by a weaker one (which one might term "partial freedom of choice").'" > I think that part of the problem with trying to resolve > questions regarding what is the nature of reality has to do > with the likelihood that assumptions must be made in any > explanation that are themselves unprovable. Good point. Wonder how one would go about proving "partial freedom of choice"?
