Sure, but that's what advocates of Everett consider important. In Copenhagen you have to
apply the Born rule and then say those are the probabilities of my observation and *one*
of them occurs. Everett says they all occur and different instances of *you* observe
them. So which is your theory. You did not answer my question below.
Brent
On 12/28/2013 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
You are quibbling. It's just in other equations in the process. If it wasn't, it
couldn't be computed and we would have no theory of decoherence that produces results
but of course we do...
Edgar
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 7:28:24 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 12/28/2013 4:21 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Brent,
The equations produce the results, you are trying to impose unwarranted
interpretations on them...
But decoherence doesn't "produce" *a* result. It produces a set of probabilities.
How do you get from there to the definite observation?
And indcidentally, there's a step in decoherence which is NOT "in the equations".
That is taking a partial trace over the environment in some particular basis (the
"pointer" basis). This is not an evolution of the Schrodinger equation.
Brent
EDgar
On Saturday, December 28, 2013 6:12:47 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 12/28/2013 1:44 PM, Edgar L. Owen wrote:
Jason,
You'll have to ask the physicists who do think that. I can't speak for
them.
There is a good mathematical theory of decoherence that works fine in
this
world. It says nothing about MW whatsoever.
Why do you think there is a connection?
Decoherence only diagonalizes the system+measurement density matrix
under a
partial trace (over the environment). The diagonal them contains the
probability values for the different eigenstates of the measurement operator.
So then how do you get from there to a definite result? Do you, like Omnes,
simply observe that you have predicted probabilities and so one of them
obtains. Or do you go with Evertt and say that all of them exist with
different measures and the apparent randomness is an illusion due to our
consciousness being relative to the different outcomes?
Brent
--
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
everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
<javascript:>.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out
<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out>.
--
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
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
