Feb 9
Talked a bit about Feynman stuff. Whether or not it is an interpretation or not.
I ate dinner with Travis the night before, discussed some of what we talked about. Got a bunch of resources from him which I will forward to you.
Looking forward I need to nail down the schema for my arguments regarding formalism, interpretation and extended formalism. I need to finish writing the copenhagen/orthodox part of my paper and connect in the Feynman stuff.
What I am thinking with the Feynman stuff, is that it cannot stand by itself as an interpretation as there are aspects missing from the formalism: spin operators. Feynman makes his own notes on these. It offers some deeper meaning to the copenhagen/orthodox interpretation, but in the end is a method for calculation which should be applicable to any theory of quantum phenomena which uses the wavefunction. I do agree that it does offer an easier way of thinking about the orthodox stuff. it seems like it totally leaves out any notion of wave collapse. I'm not sure how to rectify it with Bell's theorem and locality stuff. It seems like it would essentially demand spooky action at a distance. Feynman doesnt really make too much use of the language of observation or measurement, I need to hammer this out more thouroughly.
You suggested that I look at the wikipedia grid thing. I've done a bit of that and am familiar with it once again.
My goal this week is just to write some more and get more of my ideas out on paper. I should have some more by Tues/Wednesday.
Thanks
