RE: Explaining QM to the layperson

["Michael N. Monce" <mnmon@conncoll.edu>]

On Wed, 7 May 1997, Leigh Palmer wrote:

> I don't understand "could have". Schrodinger's cat lays it on the line.
> Either you are an objective realist or you are not; it's that simple.
> What you must recognize is that some belief structure is necessary to the
> interpretation of Nature. I am a realist; I believe in objective realism
> without reservation. Schrodinger's cat in its mixed state is anathema in
> my belief structure, but it is a logical interpretation in the Copenhagen
> faith. I reject the Copenhagen faith.


	Your statement on realism is interesting.  My question is then how
do you, as an objective realist, interpret the experimental results of EPR
type experiments which so far have all violated Bell's inequality, thus
rejecting any possibility of a hidden variable theory?  I'm just curious
as to your views.

	As far as Schrodinger's Cat goes, the real flaw there is the
attempt to write what is really a two state *micro*scopic wavefunction and
apply it to a *macro*scopic system.  A real cat is a very large
superposition of (to first order!) atomic eigenfunctions which, of course,
yields classical behavior.  The Fourier Thereom gets you every time.


				Mike Monce
				Connecticut College