On 5/21/2018 1:16 AM, [email protected] wrote:
It's not a matter of being incorrect, just incomplete. And there
may be several attributes of a system such that different
observers are ignorant of the values of different attributes and
so they all write down different initial states and evolve
different wave functions.
OK, incomplete. But if an observer makes the wrong assumption about an
initial state, do you really want to say his/her wf is as
representative of the system as one with a value that is more
accurate? I agree that different observers will posit different wf's,
but I balk at the (Baysian) idea that all are equally representative
of the system. AG
It's a peculiarity of QM that one can never have complete knowledge of a
system, e.g. you can't put the system into an eigenfuction of two
conjugate variables. So even though different observers may have
different information, you can't necessarily say that one observer's wf
is more complete than another's . They may both be as complete as
theoretically possible and yet different by being incomplete in
different ways.
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 [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.
