The problem with quantum superposition is the assumption that a physical system can be simultaneously in two different states. Quantum superposition may be a useful model to predict the outcome of an experiment but in reality the system is in a single evolving state. This applies to macroscopic (Schrodinger's cat) and microscopic (atomic level) systems. Observers have nothing to do with this. It is real physical detectors interacting with real physical waves that determine experimental results. www.academia.edu/5927513/The_Spacetime_Wave_Theory Richard

The basic problem is with the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics. Looking at a specific example of the light interference experiment, we must interpret the light quantum (photon) as a real physical wave which is dispersed in space. The nature of the dispersion in space is revealed by the detection screen. When the photon reaches the screen it interacts with a specific atom of the detection screen. An orbital electron of this atom absorbs the photon even though it is spread out. The detector is playing an active role in the experiment. We should not consider that the wave is collapsing and then hitting the detector but rather that the interaction of the incoming light wave with the screen operates in a probabilistic way to result in the interference pattern. The measurement process is then the interaction of a photon with an orbital electron. There is no measurement problem when the nature of reality is considered in the spacetime wave theory. www.academia.edu/5038836/The_Unification_of_Physics www.academia.edu/5927513/The_Spacetime_Wave_Theory Richard

+1:12 Binney nails it, yet the philosopher Saunders makes the error. Saunders makes the error of mistaking the concept of the wavefunction as the thing in itself. Saunders correctly says that our theory does a good job at making predictions, but does not mistake the theory the world in itself.

Why hasn't anyone concluded the obvious... that the actual instrument used to measure has introduced some level of resistance which alters the behavior of the subject? The instrument is causing interference.

The quantum measurement problem and many other difficulties of quantum theory are resolved by establishing a new perspective on the nature of reality. Look at experimental results from the point of view of the spacetime wave theory. More about the Spacetime Wave Theory here: www.academia.edu/5927513/The_Spacetime_Wave_Theory Or search Google for: Richard Lewis The Spacetime Wave Theory

This is speculative metaphysics. No empirical differences are brought up. There are always different ways of describing anything. Different ways of describing exactly the same observations are just arguing semantics.

Good to hear this project is progressing positively.

"I seem to remember that the thing does not exist until it is known or viewed by a being" Actually that's not true.

So it seems we have our world and then we have those possible other worlds that are the result of the branching evolution of one instant of our world and then we have those possibilities that have nothing to do with our world. so why place the second set of worlds in the set of actuals instead of non actual possibles. If the worlds were observable clearly they would be but can a"mere" theory confer actuality? where lies the burden of proof? Ask Occam?

I seem to remember that the thing does not exist until it is known or viewed by a being , if we are watching the cat then , if the cat died we would have the answer , there is still the chance that it could be relative to the viewer , in that case God does play dice :) QC

I didn't quite understand . James is saying the state of the result is defined by the state of the measuring instrument. If that is so then this state of the measuring instrument changes depending on where we take the measurement ( before the slit to know which slit the particle goes through or after the slit where we observe interference) .So in essence the measuring instrument itself is in multiple state (or in many world)..i am confused here probably I misunderstood what he is saying.