Dear Saibal,

     The idea that photons, electrons, etc. are "real" or not might make
sense
if we consider the role of virtual particle/wave fluctuations involved in
the Hawking Black Hole evaporation process and the Unruh effect.
    From what I have read (cf. Kip S. Thorne, et al), it seems that the
reality (or unreality or
"virtuosity") of particles/waves depends on the reference frame of the
observer - inertial ("free- falling") or non-inertial ("accelerated"), etc.
    Perhaps consideration of the context of observation might help us get
past
 this difficulty.
     Would you happen to know the reference to 't Hooft's paper?

Kindest regards,

Stephen

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "scerir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "FoR" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 8:11 AM
> Subject: Copenhagen interpretation
>
>
>  This all assumes that photons, electrons, etc. are real. We don't know
> that.
>  If you were Einstein, and you were faced with Bell's result, you could
> have concluded that the nonexistence of local hidden variables implies
that
> elementary paricles don't exist. They are mere mathematical tools to
> compute the outcome of experiments. The real underlying theory of Nature
could be
> still be deterministic. Recently 't Hooft has shown how QM can emerge out
of
> a deterministic theory. In this case QM has to be interpreted according to
> the Copenhagen interpretation.



Reply via email to