The idea that photons, electrons, etc. are "real" or not might make
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
Would you happen to know the reference to 't Hooft's paper?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Saibal Mitra" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Bruno Marchal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "scerir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: "FoR" <[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
> If you were Einstein, and you were faced with Bell's result, you could
> have concluded that the nonexistence of local hidden variables implies
> elementary paricles don't exist. They are mere mathematical tools to
> compute the outcome of experiments. The real underlying theory of Nature
> still be deterministic. Recently 't Hooft has shown how QM can emerge out
> a deterministic theory. In this case QM has to be interpreted according to
> the Copenhagen interpretation.