From: paul@mtnmath.UUCP (paul)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Yes, Virginia, there's no superluminal communication
Summary: No, Virgina, there's no scientific basis for a Cosmic Accountant
Date: 11 Apr 92 18:05:11 GMT
Organization: Mountain Math Software, P. O. Box 2124, Saratoga. CA 95070

In article <2694@dove.nist.gov>, gilligan@bldrdoc.gov (Jonathan M. Gilligan) writes:
> 
> What makes people uncomfortable about the wavefunction collapse is the
> same thing that made people uncomfortable about electricity and gravity
> before the advent of quantum field theory. They don't like the idea of
> action at a distance. The principal objection Newton had to address with
> his theory that gravity was responsible for the orbits of heavenly bodies
> was that no one liked to think that one body could influence another
> when there was no physical connection between the two.

Field theory in the form of Maxwell's equations and general relativity both
predate quantum field theory and resolve the problem of nonlocal effects
quite nicely by *eliminating* them. This is not to imply that I have any
objections to quantum field theory, but it was not needed to deal with
these issues.

> ... However, we still get
> uncomfortable with the idea of action at a distance in
> quantum-mechanical measurement.

This is because this is the only place where non local effects remain.
These effect don't make me uncomfortable. I just see no reason to believe
they exist.

> There's another, related, problem: Schrodinger's cat. Put a cat in a
> box with an ``infernal machine.''  The machine contains a single atom
> of a radioactive isotope and a detector that can detect this decay.
> When the detector fires, the machine breaks a vial of cyanide gas,
> which kills the cat.
> 
> The paradox is, when exactly one half-life has passed, the cat's
> wavefunction is 50% alive and 50% dead. If I look into the box
> (perform a measurement) and find the cat dead, did I kill it by
> looking (collapsing the wave function)? If I wait until the
> probability that the nucleus has decayed is 99.9999% and look in the
> box, if the cat is miraculously still alive, have I brought it back
> from the dead?  These conclusions violate our common sense about
> things and it makes people uncomfortable to feel that belief in
> quantum mechanics would require them to say that looking can kill (or
> revive) the cat.

I doubt if a majority of physicists believe that quantum collapse
is caused by making an observation. This is part of the interpretation
or metaphysics of quantum mechanics rather than part of physics. Of course
if quantum collapse has an objective cause, as I think most likely then
it will eventually become part of physics.

What does make be uncomfortable is talking about and even teaching metaphysical
speculation as if it were established scientific fact. I challenge you or
any readers of `sci.physics' to come up with any scientific basis for
preferring the Cosmic Accountant (standard interpretation) theory of
quantum collapse to the local mechanistic version.

Cosmic Accountant theory		Local mechanistic theory
(Standard interpretation)
____________________________________________________________________________

Quantum collapse is instantaneous.	Quantum collapse has an unknown local
					Lorentz invariant structure.

Quantum collapse is caused by a		Quantum collapse has an objective
sentient being making an		unknown cause and can be forced to
experimental observation.		happen by experimental conditions.

There is no mechanism to reconcile	There is an unknown local mechanistic
quantum uncertainty with exact		process that explains both quantum
conservation laws. It is as if a	uncertainty and exact conservation
metaphysical Cosmic Accountant is	laws. This process is nonlinear and
continually balancing the books.	probably chaotic. 

Randomness in quantum mechanics is	This nonliner process produces
fundamental. No more complete model	(probably because of its chaotic
is possible.				nature) the apparent randomness of
					quantum mechanics. Quantum collapse
					may be a completely deterministic
					process.

Paul Budnik
Newsgroups: sci.physics