Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site umich.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!mb2c!umich!torek
From: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek )
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: The Revenge of Probabilism in QM
Message-ID: <425@umich.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 28-Jan-86 03:00:37 EST
Article-I.D.: umich.425
Posted: Tue Jan 28 03:00:37 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 30-Jan-86 04:46:22 EST
Distribution: net
Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI
Lines: 19
Summary: Or, why we don't have to resort to Many Worlds

Quoted without permission from Nicholas Maxwell, "Are Probabilism and
Special Relativity Incompatible?" *Philosophy of Science* 52 (1985) 23-43,
esp. pp. 36-40 [Answer to title question:  yes, and Maxwell favors 
probabilism]:

"... This [Maxwell's] approach requires that precise, microrealistic,
quantum conditions be specified for propensities to be `actualised' --
for probabilistic events to occur in quantum systems even in the absence
of measurement.  My proposed solution to this key problem is that 
probabilistic `actualizations' occur whenever, as a result of potential
particle creation or annihilation, a composite quantum system evolves
into a superposition of two states with rest masses that differ by
[delta]m.  [Sorry folks, I don't have a delta on my keyboard--pt] 
Reinterpreting the time/energy uncertainty relations, I suggest that
such a superposition persists only for a time [delta]t = h / [delta]m c**2,
and then jumps to one or the other rest mass state.  All quantum
measurements can, I argue, be interpreted as special cases of this kind
of probabilistic occurrence (see Maxwell 1976a, 1982).
: