From: richalivingston@gmail.com   
      
   On Monday, June 20, 2022 at 3:05:28 AM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:   
   > ...   
   > Still, we don't actually know that there is anything underneath quantum   
   > mechanics (QM) that exists. Unless there are infinite layers of   
   > mechanism, there must be a point at which it just does what it does,   
   > with no more explanation being possible.   
   >   
   > Perhaps QM has reached the bottom level, and that's just how the   
   > universe is.   
   >   
   > Sylvia.   
      
   That is certainly a possibility, but I'd argue that there must still be   
   some deeper layers that we should be curious about.  For example, in   
   something like the two slit experiment, how does the photon end up in   
   only one spot always, as opposed to only statistically on average one   
   spot?  For a given photon we calculate a wave function that can be used   
   to predict the probability distribution of photon destinations.  If the   
   wave function represents some aspect of something real, then why don't   
   we sometimes see two photons arriving in different places?  (NOTE:  I'm   
   not suggesting that the wave function IS a real thing, it is a   
   mathematical object that we use to calculate probabilities.  Rather I'm   
   suggesting that the wave function appears to capture some aspect of   
   something that is real.)   
      
   Now one way around that question is to say that the photon DOES follow   
   one path, and thus does end up in one location.  But that suggests that   
   there is some mechanism that ensures that the photon is guided so that   
   it ends up, after many trials, reproducing the probability distribution.   
    This is the pilot wave interpretation of QM.   
      
   But even this has a problem with entanglement experiments and Bells   
   Inequality.  It appears that the results of a measurement at one   
   location depends on a measurement at another spatially separated   
   location.  This coordination of results is very hard to understand if we   
   still believe special relativity and locality.  This reasoning is why I   
   strongly suspect that there is a deeper mechanism that we would like to   
   understand.   
      
   Of course this deeper mechanism, if it exists, might be too subtle for   
   us to discern experimentally. In that case, as I believe you've   
   indicated, this level is not scientifically accessible.  But there are   
   enough hints that our physics is not complete yet that I'm hopeful that   
   we can still dig a little bit deeper.   
      
   Rich L.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)