Referring to Quanta, foundations of physics expert Dr. Ian Miller said in a comment on this site: *“What the particle does it will do irrespective of whether you wish to try and calculate it.”*

**This is, rephrased, an affirmation of LOCALITY found in Einstein’s famous EPR paper of 1935** [1]. Let’s try to dispose of it.

The “particle” “is”/or is “guided by”… a wave W… Of this all those who passed a course in Quantum Mechanics agree. Basic QM consists in computing amplitudes of complex probability waves W.

That W is the Quantum Wave appearing all over Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory. Right, the nature of the wave W will change according to what Quanta we consider… Let’s neglect this for a moment.

[[*In SQPR, the quanta is a nonlinear wave with a linear tail, expanding and contracting at a quasi-infinite speed (that allows SQPR to quasi-duplicate Bohm’s quantum potential)… But this is irrelevant here for the most general argument*.* We only need the concept of a wave*.]]

Now **if one sets up an experiment E, wave W, being a wave, will interact specially with E. The point is that (W,E) is different from (W, E’), if E is different from E’.** Niels Bohr made, basically, that argument to Einstein, who couldn’t understand it… (Nor could I, for the longest time!)

But SQPR makes clear why that’s true… And, even simpler, so does the simplest wave mechanics, as long as the wave interferes with the environment. But **that matter wave interferes with the environment, we know, and have known for a million years, because light coming out of a hole diffracts, or makes rainbows coming out of eyelashes**…. Diffraction patterns are everywhere.

More sophisticated, and for spin: Stern-Gerlach magnets…. Which shows that spin measurments don’t commute, and “*which path*” information is crucial… The “*which path*” data is itself nonlocal…

**We know of “the particle” W because we put some experiment E in its way. W is different from the entangled pair (W,E). This is the core of what Einstein didn’t get. The biggest notions in physics are the simplest [2].**

***

TRYING TO BE MORE SOPHISTICATED REINFORCES THE ARGUMENT:

So the argument was disposed of, and Einstein instructed…I agreed with Einstein for years before realizing my mistake, and that Bohr was right.

However, classically inclined skeptics will moan, what is this W?

Well W, the Quantum Wave, is all we have to compute with. W “IS” the Quantum.

W could be the Dirac wave representing the relativistic electron, W could be the wave of the W boson, whatever, they are in different spaces. And they all need to be “*renormalized*”, right… because the fields self-interfere (“fields” and “waves” are the same things)

But that greater complexity doesn’t change the simplicity of the argument above. It actually makes it even more powerful. Indeed W is truly a wave in the appropriate Hilbert space, itself revealed by the nature of the experiment E one intends to reveal W with…

If I remember well, Niels Bohr made that argument to Einstein, but in a more obscure way, and he aggravated his case with some philosophical mumbo-jumbo…

The point remains: what we want to measure, the Experiment E that we have in mind, determines the grossest mathematical nature of the wave W. W does not just interfere with E, E creates the grossest nature of the W to start with (for example Dirac wanted a first order PDE conserved by relativity to depict the electron; out of that requirement popped out spin and antimatter… Among other things…)

Patrice Ayme

***

P/S: Some want to grab the wave W, and complain they can’t, because W lives in “phase space” (aka the Hilbert Space which is the experiment E. But that’s misunderstanding about how thinking works: One can’t decide the universe, and all its objects are three dimensional, when we have plenty of forces, and, as Riemann more or less pointed out, each of them brings us one or more dimensions, each of them potentially (joke intended) in a fancy space (for example so-called Clabi-Yau manifolds…)

***

[1] Einstein used that point, that the particle was always there, untouched, to affirm that, thus, there were HIDDEN (from Quantum Mechanics) variables. It’s not really an argument, because it’s the reaffirmation of the same point. Alain Aspect’s experiment for which he got the Wolf and Nobel prizes in physics, disposed of that the “particle” was TOUCHED… demonstrating that god refused to listen to Einstein.

[In SQPR, there are hidden variables, however they are, de facto nonlocal, as they change at speed in excess of 10^23c. Thus SQPR doen’t contradict the prohibtion against “LOCAL” hidden variables. Anything above c is “nonlocal”. As in “NONLOCAL hidden variables”. We know from experiments (Aspect, Zeilinger, labs in China, etc.) that the QUANTUM NONLOCALITY proceeds at speeds orders of magnitude greater than the speed of light…]

***

[2] E itself is typically NONLOCAL (for example two arms of an interferometer…