> Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:02:31 +1100
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [[email protected]: Jacques Mallah]
>
> All I have ever said was that effective probability given by the
> squared norm of the projected eigenvector does not follow from Born's
> rule. It can't follow, because Born's rule says nothing about what the
> normalisation of the state vector after observation should be. It is a
> conditional probability only.
I still don't understand the connection you're making. When people say the
effective probability is equal to the amplitude squared, it doesn't require you
to assume anything about the state vector *after* observation (in particular
you don't have to assume an objective collapse), it's just the square of the
norm of the vector you get when you project the system's (normalized) state
vector at the instant *before* observation onto an eigenvector.
Jesse
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
