tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post813341260839476894..comments2024-03-27T19:47:13.475-07:00Comments on Dark Buzz: The Marxist critique of Bohr’s alleged idealismRogerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03474078324293158376noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-65793551489293558042021-02-06T11:41:12.460-08:002021-02-06T11:41:12.460-08:00While there are some initial flaws in the theory, ...While there are some initial flaws in the theory, some attribute the strange behavior of QM to relativity: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/ab76f7<br /><br />This angle seems completely neglected.MD Coryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05342743632013663077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8148573551417578681.post-87330712436279049592020-12-24T07:18:31.001-08:002020-12-24T07:18:31.001-08:00Dear Roger,
1. I've earmarked the paper for r...Dear Roger,<br /><br />1. I've earmarked the paper for reading. [Ahem! We the Bohmians are *always* pleased by *any* mention of our "ism".]<br /><br />2. After a quick look at its abstract: <br /><br />Concerning the irreversibility of the quantum mechanical measurements, I have a question: <br /><br />Has any one ever experimentally verified the "repeated measurement" postulate? (cf. Griffith's textbook on QM.) Doesn't the assumption of irreversibility necessarily imply the impossibility of making a second measurement on the same particle? What would it take to ensure that a quick second measurement was also actually referring to the *same* particle, and finding it in a very nearby state? ... Have been re-thinking through this entire issue too!<br /><br />3. Oh yes! Merry Christmas to you all!<br /><br />Best,<br />--Ajit<br />Ajit R. Jadhavhttps://ajitjadhav.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com