On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 1:11 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 5/9/2013 10:02 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > Von Neumann thought the extra baggage was required to make the model match > our observations, but Everett later showed that step was unnecessary. The > model (free of additional baggage) predicts the same observations as the > model with it. > > > He showed that IF the wave function separates into orthogonal components > (an irreversible process) then FPI explains the observations. But the > model says it never does that; it only approximates that, in certain bases. > Could you explain this? I don't understand in what sense the Schrodinger equation can only approximate itself? > Decoherence theory tries to fill in the process by which this occurs > give a statistical mechanics type account of irreversibility. > It gives an account of the appearance of an "irreversible wave-function collapse" without their having to be one. It is derived entirely from the theory of QM and is not an extra postulate. > But you could also take the epistemological interpretation of Peres and > Fuchs instead of inventing other worlds just to save the determinism of an > equation. > The other worlds are a required element of the theory, unless you deny the reality of superposition. I think Everett's thought experiment explains the situation the best: Imagine a box with an observe in it who will be measuring the state of a particle and writing the result in a notebook. This box is entirely sealed off from the external world such that the internal result of the experiment remains in a superposition until it is opened. Now a second, external observer models the entire evolution of this box over time, including before and after the observer inside measures the state of the particle and records the result in a notebook. He determines the superposition of all the possible handwritings of all the possible results in the notebook. Is the internal observer not conscious in each of the various superpositions resulting from the measurement? Epistemological interpretations seem to deny there is any fundamental reality at all, aside from what we can see and learn, which to me seems like a dead end in the search for truth. > I like MWI and Bruno's FPI idea, but without some testable prediction > (not retrodiction) I don't find them compelling. > Why do you find compelling about the idea that all other superpositions (except for one) vanish? Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
