On 16 Nov 2014, at 18:46, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 6:31 AM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Latitudes and longitudes do not interfere.
Maybe Schrodinger's Wave Equation doesn't interfere either, only
other worlds do,
?
and maybe the wave equation is just a way, and certainly not the
only way, humans have of describing that interference between worlds.
Indeed, there is the heisenberg picture, the feynman picture, the
interaction picture, the von-neumann formalism (which shows them all
equivalent) etc.
And you have the computationalist picture, not yet shown equivalent,
as they should be if both are correct in their domain.
> Deutsch and Hayden argues that the many-world picture, and its
locality, are more simply explained in the Heisenberg picture. Those
are different formalism for the same theory
If 2 things as radically different as Schrodinger's Wave and
Heisenberg's Matrices do the same thing then it sounds like both are
just different retellings of the same story, the same plot but just
using different symbols in the mathematical vocabulary; rather like
polar and Cartesian coordinates. Maybe we should take seriously and
think through the implications of what mathematicians have been
saying for years, mathematics is a language.
In math and physics, it is frequent that two apparantly different
theories are equivalent, but that does not make the thing described
into a convention or language. On the contrary, it points on something
real beyond the language. For computability, the fact that all
definition, some of which are very different, leads to the same class
of computable function is often used as an argument that the notion of
computation is language and theories independent.
>> In fact about 9 months BEFORE Schrodinger came out with his wave
equation Heisenberg had his own version of Quantum Mechanics that
had nothing to do with waves. In fact Heisenberg despised the
Schrodinger Wave Equation because he felt that "a good theory must
be based on directly observable magnitudes". And nobody can observe
a quantum wave function.
> Heisenberg was influenced by the positivism of the time (The
Vienna circles, the young Wittgenstein, etc.). That was very bad
philosophy
It may have been very bad philosophy but it was very good science.
Heisenberg's formulation of Quantum Mechanics worked just as well as
Schrodinger's and in fact needed fewer assumptions; Schrodinger
assumed that everything that occurred in the physical world at the
fundamental level could be visualized by the human mind,
Being large about "visualization", as a wave in the configuration
space is not that easy.
Heisenberg didn't need that assumption but his matrix algebra still
produced results that were just as good as Schrodinger's Wave. I
admit I feel a little unfulfilled if a theory is not visualizable,
but it could be argued that the theory with the fewer assumptions is
the better one.
There is no further assumption in Schroedinger. From the matrix you
get the wave, and vice-versa.
> and we can say that is is virtually abandoned.
Not by physicists!
You know positivist physicians still alive? Who?
Bruno
John K Clark
--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
