Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Bell's Inequality (Reply to E. Brooks)
Message-ID: <11247@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 7-Jun-85 13:03:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.11247
Posted: Fri Jun  7 13:03:57 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Jun-85 02:38:32 EDT
References: <612@astrovax.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 8

"Collapse of the wave function" when a measurement is made has been
"explained" in several different ways, none of them universally
accepted.  To my mind, there are equally severe problems:
	(a)  Quantum theory is inherently linear; interactions aren't.
	(b)  Quantum theory calls for its own strange logic about
		probabilistic matters, but it uses conventional
		mathematics that is based on the normal Boolean lattice.
	(c)  Spinors are not generally covariant and cannot be made so.