On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 11:50:41 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: > > On 1/12/2017 10:43 am, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 5:20:51 PM UTC-6, [email protected] > wrote: >> >> >> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 11:16:07 PM UTC, [email protected] >> wrote: >> >> >> On Thursday, November 30, 2017 at 9:47:37 PM UTC, Bruce wrote: >> >> >> Collapse would be non-linear and non-unitary -- >> intrinsically non-reversible. This is not necessarily a problem since there >> are plenty of non-linearities in physics. It has nothing to do with hidden >> variables. >> >> *Why would it be non linear? Brent claimed (on page 1)* >> >> >> Page 1 of what? >> >> > Weinberg looked into nonlinear QM, and it went nowhere. The linearity of > QM is one thing that makes it so bizarre. If you make QM nonlinear you tend > to make it obey Bell inequalities. > > > Perhaps you don't make the SE non-linear, but add some other non-linear > dynamics, such as the 'flashes' of GRW theory. > > Bruce >
But wouldn't this approach still run amok of Bell and be a hidden variable? AG -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
