tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7782629678785397724.post1876069307632597216..comments2023-09-29T05:45:18.939-07:00Comments on Scientific Pearls of Wisdom: Quantum Mechanics is not the final answer.Max Wellinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06800595470095643387noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7782629678785397724.post-91081254548233177372009-09-10T20:07:16.475-07:002009-09-10T20:07:16.475-07:00What does "macroscopic" mean in this cas...What does "macroscopic" mean in this case? The normal QM scale?<br /><br />I personally think that trying to somehow get around the Bell inequality is a waste of time and that people working on the foundations of QM should accept a non-deterministic universe (and abandon the collapse postulate since it never is really used).<br /><br />If you are interested in various intriguing interpretations of quantum mechanics, you might want to look into so-called "Relational Quantum Mechanics"; "correlations have physical reality, that which they correlate does not". Affirming the existence of correlations and yet denying the existence of the correlata is a fascinating point of view to me.Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790096318551866567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7782629678785397724.post-66205241052717430382009-09-08T09:04:11.114-07:002009-09-08T09:04:11.114-07:00No, the new theory is supposedly completely causal...No, the new theory is supposedly completely causal AND dyterministic (and local). The the transition in going from a microscopic fundamental theory to "macroscopic" QM that will artificially introduce non-causality. So, nothing is been given up really.Maxnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7782629678785397724.post-71150060907164199462009-09-05T17:05:29.830-07:002009-09-05T17:05:29.830-07:00You would rather give up causality than determinis...You would rather give up causality than determinism?Ghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12790096318551866567noreply@blogger.com