

Nature hypes anti-Quantum Mechanics crackpot paper - jackfoxy
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/11/nature-hypes-anti-qm-crackpot-paper-by.html

======
Estragon
Motl clearly knows far more physics than I do, but my impression is that he
has misunderstood the paper he is criticizing. For instance,

    
    
      a commenter in the fast comments reminds me that \(\lambda\) is indeed
      meant to be a non-quantum "ontological state" of hidden variables, so
      the very usage of \(\lambda\) means that they violate the basic rules
      of quantum mechanics: but the text makes it clear that they believe
      that they are allowed to do so
    

I have not fully understood the paper, but my fairly clear understanding from
the introduction is that it is addressing precisely the question of whether
there is a (\lambda) which provides a more informative/predictive description
of the physical system. I also think he misunderstood the Einstein quote at
the beginning, ("...even Albert Einstein is accused of being too
probabilistic!") Einstein was implying that he believes there is a more
informative (\lambda) still to be found. The quote is completely consistent
with the hypothesis of the EPR experiment.

The controversy is laid out very clearly and nicely in an essay[1] by E. T.
Jaynes, whom they also quote from. (Incidentally, Jaynes was a physicist at
WashU in St Louis. I accept that he could be a "crackpot" despite this, but I
think Motl should lay off the personal attacks, or at least do a little more
research before he goes on the warpath.)

[1] Pg 1011 of <http://omega.albany.edu:8008/ETJ-PS/cc10i.ps> section
beginning "But What About Quantum Theory?"

EDIT: They didn't actually quote from that essay, they quoted from
_Complexity, Entropy and the Physics of Information_ , but it's the same
message.

------
kenthorvath
Why is it especially important that the author's name is female ("even though
it doesn't look like one")?

Not only is it not relevant, it reveals a deep personal bias that only serves
to taint the rest of the article's assertions.

Less of this, please.

~~~
hugh3
The main thing you got out of this long article about quantum mechanics was a
parenthetical aside in the first paragraph?

------
hugh3
Lubos Motl is a smart guy, but he's known for having his own somewhat
strongly-held opinions on quantum mechanics. I don't believe his assertion
that it's a "crackpot paper", but am sympathetic to his argument that Nature
is over-hyping the paper.

I would really need to sit down and read the paper carefully (as well as
Motl's rebuttal) before I can have a more informed opinion than that, though.

