On Sun, Feb 08, 2009 at 09:34:30PM -0500, Jesse Mazer wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 13:02:31 +1100
> > From: li...@hpcoders.com.au
> > To: everything-l...@googlegroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [kevintr...@hotmail.com: 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

Sure. What you've just said is just an interpretation-free description of the
mathematics. Whether it is a helpful description is another matter. 

But Jacques Mallah is making a metaphysical claim when saying it is
equal to the squared amplitude of the branch. Which is a completely
different beast. He must have some model in mind which tells us how
the "amplitude" of the branches relates to the "amplitude" of the
original state. 



A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
UNSW SYDNEY 2052                         hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Australia                                http://www.hpcoders.com.au

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to