Exactly. I was thinking the same. Have to expand that argument a bit, mostly rephrase it in one package. But time is real short, and I am travelling big time.

LikeLike

]]>Actually rereading your answer to Ian Miller, I think it is there: classical objects have waves, not just states

LikeLike

]]>LikeLike

]]>LikeLike

]]>LikeLike

]]>Dear Ian: What you exposed is the conventional view. This is the one Sean Carroll embraces.

However, the first problem with it, is that it’s not proven. It’s not proven that all there is are states.

That implicit axiom has a magnificent pedigree: Einstein got the ball rolling. Einstein assumed that the “Licht Quantum” (named photon by others in 1927) was a dynamical process. However, all he needed for the photoelectric effect was for the photon to end up in discrete states with energy E = hf.

Einstein supposed more than what he needed, and so his children did too. Later Einstein was unhappy because his children misbehaved. But he should have educated them differently.

Why don’t I believe in this: *All There Is Is States *mantra? Simple: a fundamental processes is as Quantum Mechanics describes it: a time-parametered wavefunction ensemble in a Hilbert space spanned by said states. Fine. That fundamental process, THUS, is NOT a state.

This is a case of simple logic: if W is not S, then W is not S.

The **formalism ITSELF says that the world is made of states AND fundamental processes**. My friend Feynman was crafty enough to recognize the problem, and, at least in the title of one of his books, make the distinction.

Thus **what’s a classical object? It’s an object made of Wavefunctions AND States. **

**What’s a Quantum object? Something that will end up in a State.
**

At least, that’s what I propose.

Experiments have recently been conducted to study the transition.

PA

LikeLike

]]>LikeLike

]]>