On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 2:56:59 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 17, 2017 at 2:29:01 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: >> >> [email protected] >> Wrote: >> >> >> > >>> Not a problem. Easily solved. >> >> >> *Well that's a relief, physicists have been worrying about this for the >> last 90 years. I guess they can relax now.* >> >> >>> > >>> collapse, or whatever you want to call it, occurs when the isolated >>> system interacts with the macro environment, in this case when the box >>> opens, >> >> >> *Which box, the cat's box, Wigner's friend's box, Wigner's box, or >> any of the infinite number of other nested boxes?* >> > > The box containing the cat.The point is to violate its isolation, which is > the necessary condition for undoing the superposition of states. AG > >> >> >>> > >>> or more generally when the system interacts with a macro system called >>> 'the measuring device'. >> >> >> *The measuring device itself is part of the universe, so explain to me >> what a cosmologist is supposed to do with the Copenhagen interpretation. * >> > > Please be more specific. Maybe they should use Heisenberg's Picture. AG > >> >> > >>> I now tend to agree with Lawrence that the wf has no ontological status. >> >> >> *The* >> * Schrodinger Wave Function is a computational tool with the same >> ontological status as lines of latitude and longitude, but the square of >> the absolute value of the wave function at a point is more concrete because >> that is a probability and unlike the wave function itself humans can >> measure probability. And you can do quantum mechanics without the wave >> function, in fact Heisenberg came out with a way to do that about 6 months >> before Schrodinger discovered his wave function; they both give the same >> answers but in most situations Schrodinger way is easier to use. * >> > > I studied it at the graduate level but can't recall any details. If > there's no collapse in that theory, maybe collapse isn't a real issue; just > a feature of the wave picture. AG > >> >> >> *If you dislike the wave function you'll really hate Heisenberg method, >> its even more abstract and Heisenberg took pride over the fact its >> completely un-visualizable; you input some measured values into >> Heisenberg's mathematical machinery and it outputs the probability of >> getting other measured values And Heisenberg doesn't treat variables that >> haven't been measured as having a unknown value, he treats them as having >> no value at all. * >> > > It seems like a promising approach. If you use it, will the Many Worlds of > the MWI go away? AG > >> >> * John K Clark* >> > Any waves in Dirac's relativistic approach? Much better than Schrodinger's which is non-relativistic. Does MWI survive Dirac? AG
> >> >> >> >> -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
