On Monday, July 30, 2018 at 11:11:56 PM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> > >> >>> Many, perhaps most, physicists do exactly that because they believe in >>> the "Shut Up And Calculate" quantum interpretation and are only interested >>> in predicting how far to the right a indicator needle on a meter moves in a >>> particular experiment. But for some of us that feels unsatisfying and would >>> like to have a deeper understanding about what's going on at the quantum >>> level and wonder why there is nothing in the mathematics that says anything >>> about a wave collapsing. >> >> >> * >That's not true. "The mathematics" originally included the Born rule >> as part of the axiomatic structure of QM. * >> > > > A axiom is supposed to be simple and self evidently true, the Born rule > is neither; and it wasn't derived from first principles it was picked for > reasons that were were empirical and practical, for some strange reason the > damn thing works. Also, the square of the absolute value of the complex > wave produces a probability which collapses into a certainty when a > observation is made, but the mathematics can't say when that happens > because it doesn't say what a observation is. > > John K Clark > > *Isn't it fair to say that the postulates of QM are generally NOT simple, and generally NOT self-evidently true? If that's true, then the case of Born's rule is typical, not an outlier. 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.
