RE: Explaining QM to the layperson

[Leigh Palmer <palmer@sfu.ca>]

> 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.

I've stated them in a posting. I don't consider the results of those very
difficult experiments persuasive because I think the interpretations are
too convoluted (for me) to accept uncritically. I would not have bought
the quantization of em radiation based on Planck's brilliant work on the
spectrum of a black body. Einstein's interpretation of the photoelectric
effect, on the other hand, would probably have persuaded me. Einstein did
believe Planck, of course, but I'm no Einstein. I await the definitive
experimental resolution of EPR.

Remember, I'm a relative layperson here. The topic is "Explaining QM to
the layperson". I guess what is transpiring here is the process which
was being discussed. You (the teachers) have the task of explaining your
view of QM to me (the layperson) who still believes in objective reality.

> 	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.

Nonsense! (pardon me)

I find the Schrodinger's cat experiment persuasive of the vacuity in the
Copenhagen interpretation of QM. As I said before, this is matter of
belief. At some level every scientist must base his cosmology in belief.
I now believe in objective reality and causality is a part of that. The
appearances may be otherwise in EPR experiments, but my faith is not yet
shaken.

Leigh