Re: Physics questions

Date: Wed, 8 Nov 1995 03:31:55 -0800
From: Arkadiusz Jadczyk <ajad@physik.uni-bielefeld.de>
To: quantum-d@teleport.com
Subject: QUANTUM-D: Re: Physics questions

I would like to comment on Stan Klein's reply to Ellis Cooper's 
second question.
It seems to me that not everybody is happy with the standard
"justification" of "axioms" of quantum theory. These axioms worked fine 
for quite a time but now concensus is growing that they are insufficient. 
They need to be derived instead of being postulated. They need to be 
derived form more fundamental dynamical equations. How can a theory that 
pretends to be fundamental be unable to even *define* what a measurement
is? That was John Bell's question in his  "Against measurement". 

I took his criticism perhaps more seriously than others and this is what 
I am working on: to enhance quantum theory so that its probability axioms 
will follow from dynamics rather than being mere postulates. That program 
partly succeded. So now I am able to derive Born's interpretation of the 
wave function - this is what Ellis Cooper is asking for. Psi square law is 
derived in eq. (14) of 

"Quantum mechanics with event dynamics" quant-ph/9506014.

But of course answering one question causes immediately other questions 
to come. I think quantum theory is full of mysteries. The fact is that we have
very powerful computational techniques. But they themselves give no 
answers to simple questions; like this one for instance: why
anything *happens* at all? If we are able to unswer this question, then 
probably we will be also able to answer why it happens with this and no
another "probability".

Arkadiusz Jadczyk

ref

J.S. Bell, "Sixty-two years of uncertainty",
Nato ASI Serird B, Vol 226, Plenum Press, NY 1990