RE: Explaining QM to the layperson

["Paul Camp" <pjcamp@coastal.edu>]

> 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.
>
> Leigh

Interesting arguments and you certainly have good historical company 
making them. However, I am still unclear on how a realist interprets 
the wave function? What is doing the waving when a wave function 
waves? One should take note of the fact that Yakir Aharonov has 
recently been making noises about being able to measure the wave 
function of a single particle so some statistical ideas may be on 
shaky ground. (I heard this in a colloquium about 2 years ago).

Second question: is it necessary for a realist to believe that he is 
independent of that which he observes? That's the classical idea but 
it isn't clear to me what you are promoting.

Paul J. Camp                   "The Beauty of the Universe
Assistant Professor of Physics  consists not only of unity
Coastal Carolina University     in variety but also of 
Conway, SC   29528              variety in unity.
pjcamp@coastal.edu                    --Umberto Eco
pjcamp@postoffice.worldnet.att.net    The Name of the Rose
(803)349-2227                         
fax: (803)349-2926