On 4/11/2015 1:26 pm, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 11:59:41AM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote:
I disagree. I do not think the quantum mechanics /ab initio/ is in
any way possible.
This is what I do in appendix D of my book. It then behooves you to
point out where exactly that is wrong.
You don't actually derive QM /ab initio/ there: you know where you want
to get and then make a series of appropriate assumptions. You postulate
that the observer can choose an observable, which has a discrete set of
possible outcomes. You then assume a probability interpretation. The
relationship to observations is simply assumed. I do not see any
derivation of the fact that possible outcomes of measurements are the
eigenvalues of the corresponding operator. You have a major basis
problem because the best you have is that a state (vector) is a linear
sum over some complete basis set, but you don't know what that basis set
might be, or what it might represent.
The derivation of a time evolution equation depends on the assumption of
a classical time variable, which you assume is uniform and universal.
You do not demonstrate that the 'Hamiltonian' you have in your time
evolution equation is the energy operator. In fact you show nothing at
all about H, or about any dynamics -- which presumably you take over
from classical mechanics or something similar.
This scarcely counts as a derivation of any useful physics at all, much
less of quantum mechanics that relates to observational results.
Bruce
--
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.
