Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 8/28/84; site lll-crg.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!gymble!lll-crg!brooks
From: brooks@lll-crg.ARPA (Eugene D. Brooks III)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Re: Bell's Inequality
Message-ID: <589@lll-crg.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 16-May-85 23:30:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: lll-crg.589
Posted: Thu May 16 23:30:27 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 19-May-85 04:42:08 EDT
References: <590@astrovax.UUCP> <90@utastro.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Labs, CRG group
Lines: 14

> > My own opinion is that QM is at best an incomplete theory since it must rely
> > on classical (non-quantum) descriptions of the act of measurement to obtain
> > "the collapse of the wave function".  If one sticks entirely to QM wave
> > functions, there is no collapse to particular eigen states.  
> > 
> > Ed Turner
> > astrovax!elt
> 
> This is the crucial point.  Suggestions I have heard to solve this problem
> range from
What problem?  Wavefunction collapse is part of the theory
of measurement.  The theory works.  That the theory might not be intuitively
appealing at first sight does not imply that the theory is wrong or incomplete.
It might imply that there is something wrong with your intuition.