Thank you kindly for your reply! I was impressed by the article, and it made a lot of sense to me -- but I've also found that, given sufficiently persuasive wr

Thank you kindly for your reply! I was impressed by the article, and it made a lot of sense to me -- but I've also found that, given sufficiently persuasive writing, I'm easily persuaded that something incorrect is correct in QM, and the only way to get the 'right' answer is to do actually the math. This is why I was curious about your background: if I could reasonably surmise that you had 'done the math' so I didn't have to! (: (Note that I realise this is not how science is meant to work, but is a quite useful filter in practice)