- Original Message -
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: TI interpreation of QM
- Original Message -
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL
- Original Message -
From: Robert Seeberger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: TI interpreation of QM
The example that I find offensive goes something like this:
Locations A, B, and C are seperated
I wrote (re TI):
Thanks for the explanation, I appreciate you taking the time to cover
the
pros and cons.
Dan replied:
Did what I say make sense to you? Do my posts on QM make sense? Or are
you just being polite? There are times I get very frustrated with my own
ability to communicate ideas
At 10:55 PM 7/25/03 -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: TI interpreation of QM
I wrote:
I'd love to see your opinion of it
when you get a chance. It's called
- Original Message -
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: TI interpreation of QM
- Original Message -
From: Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday
- Original Message -
From: Reggie Bautista [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2003 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: TI interpreation of QM
I wrote:
I'd love to see your opinion of it
when you get a chance. It's called the transactional interpretation,
and
John
- Original Message -
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 6:41 AM
Subject: Re: TI interpretation of QM
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 01:41:25PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
Obviously, this cannot be falsified. Which
On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 09:37:54AM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
Given this, I cannot see how you cannot grant that my viewpoint, at
the very least, is wrong.
Yawn. Wake me when you have a falsifiable prediction that is a
consequence of your viewpoint.
I talked to Wigner personally about this,
I wrote:
I'd love to see your opinion of it
when you get a chance. It's called the transactional interpretation,
and
John Cramer's paper on this interpretation can be found at:
http://www.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_toc.html
Dan replied:
Its been kicking around since David Bohm in
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 01:41:25PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
Obviously, this cannot be falsified. Which invokes a significant
problem for realism.
No, no problem. I have seen you complicate lots of things by imposing
your interpretation on them, and you say there are contortions when
they are
From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: TI interpreation of QM
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 07:41:38 -0400
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 01:41:25PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote:
Obviously, this cannot
I wouldn't say it's a post you owe me an answer to, but in the middle of
another thread I mentioned an alternate interpretation of quantum
mechanics
along with a link to the original paper. I'd love to see your opinion of
it
when you get a chance. It's called the transactional
12 matches
Mail list logo
