"noisy digitizer" interpretation of QM

From: <vznuri.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 2002 11:43:41 -0600

hi all.

the dialogue here on everything-list is extremely interesting & I know
several subscribers/participants from long ago acquaintances.

I was tipped off on this list by "scerir", who posts regularly
on qm2 & whom I have a lot of admiration for!!
he has some really outstanding credentials
but will rarely ever mention them!! the address again

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/qm2/

I am not so into the philosophical side of QM, and as soon
as wigners friend is mentioned I know I am ready to leave, but
let me write a little here for this great audience. by the
way, how many subscribers are on this list??

I wrote a paper, quant-ph/9808008, that reveals my directions
from 4 years ago.

let me summarize my current directions as follows since it
impinges on the current dialogue, which Ive hammered out after
about a half decade.

we have a purely **classical model** version of the double slit experiment
for both photons & electrons in the new theory, the "noisy digitizer"
interpretation of QM, which stands in contradiction to some of
the aspects of the copenhagen interpretation.

noisy digitizer

---
the atom is seen as a digitizer of incoming light wavefronts.
each wavefront causes the atom to "click" or "not to click"
(that is the question!!) a click is an energy transition. 
therefore, collapse of the wavefunction is the same as the way
the LSB of a digitizer is in fact a strange combination of
noise and signal.
the interpretation holds that the click is precisely determined
by the internal state of the atom, but that state is "so far"
unmeasurable, although I believe there are experiments that
reveal this connection but are not being interpreted correctly
yet. (bunching and antibunching concepts in the literature). the
atom has a "dead" time after a click such that it cannot click
within a minimum window. possibly based on a formula relating
to planks constant or heisenberg uncertainty eqn.
I would be pleased to answer any questions on the "noisy digitizer"
interpretation.
the collapse of the wavefunction is in fact a mathematical abstraction
that is only an approximation of what happens in reality. I will
expand on this if others like, it would help if some people are familiar 
with the quantum formalism.
digitizers are now ubiquitous in the cyberspace age & I think
a nice new metaphor for quantum mechanics and its future.
Ive found a formula called "noise equivalent power" that gives
a dark count/efficiency tradeoff for all photon detection apparatuses.
it involves the plank constant. its actually a false positive/negative
formula that shows an inherent physical tradeoff. I believe bell
formula derivations are not properly taking it into account. I believe
there may be a derivation that says there can be no violation of
nonlocality based on taking into account the NEP of the detector.
therefore apparently QM is in fact an approximation of reality where 
NEP=0, i.e. a detector with no noise. all detectors have noise, NEP>0,
and I believe right now this noise is enough to invalidate the existing
theoretical/mathematical derivations of the bell inequality.
interesting, eh? right now would really like to correspond to
someone who understands NEP of detectors. maybe even the original
derivation. apparently its very obscure.
this is my latest writeup on the subject.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1e0fd315.0209032055.48273d70%40posting.google.com

Received on Thu Sep 05 2002 - 10:52:09 PDT