Re: Rovelli on EPR



Cl.Massé wrote:

I believe this program was successfully completed a while ago:

G. Birkhoff and J. von Neumann,
The logic of quantum mechanics, Ann. Math. 37 (1936), 823.

G. W. Mackey, The mathematical foundations of
quantum mechanics (W. A. Benjamin, New York, 1963), see
esp. Section 2-2.

C. Piron, Foundations of Quantum Physics,
(W. A. Benjamin, Reading, 1976)


They aren't, by far, the only people who claim to have "understood" quantum
mechanics. Alas, all these works either muddy the water, claim to "shed
some light" on an anyway unessential part of QM, or merely reformulate or
renomenclaturize it without solving the interpretation problem.

But we don't yet know what is the incorrect assumption, that is, something
contradictory with, and replaced by the logical consequences of the
postulates. Indeed, many assumptions may be removed giving back
consistency, but at the expense of completeness.

I think the incorrect assumption is linearity and locality, for a good and
simple reason, without them it is virtually impossible to make
calculations. Together, they reduce the set of available tractable concepts
to a doubleton: corpuscle and wave. For long the question has been "which?"
Now it should be "What else?"

Are you saying that quantum mechanics is logically inconsistent?
Do I understant you right? Where do you see the inconsistency?

Eugene.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Rovelli on EPR
    ... The logic of quantum mechanics, ... Benjamin, New York, 1963), see ... But we don't yet know what is the incorrect assumption, that is, something ...
    (sci.physics.research)
  • Re: A New Foundation for Physics
    ... > Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity Theories are based upon several ... > errors and incorrect assumptions. ... <CHOP> ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: A New Foundation for Physics
    ... > David Thomson wrote: ... >> Quantum Mechanics and Special Relativity Theories are based upon ... >> errors and incorrect assumptions. ...
    (sci.physics)
Loading