On Mon, Jul 30, 2018 at 8:57 PM, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
*>maybe it works because the Born rule is the only consistent way to put a > probability measure on Hilbert space. Born just inuitited the rule (and > actually got it wrong and corrected it in a footnote); but Gleason proved > it in 1957.* True. Gleason's theorem says that in 3 spatial dimensions only the square of the absolute value of Schrodinger's wave (the Born rule), can yield probabilities that are unitary, that is to say the only one where all the probabilities add up to exactly 1. So the real question is why we have to deal with probabilities at all instead of certainty. > > > *So the Born rule comes a lot closer to being "derived from first > principles" than does Schroedinger's equation* Without the Schroedinger's equation the Born rule would be talking about square of the absolute value of a undefined function, and that wouldn't be of much use to anybody. > > > *Mathematics never includes the interpretation that allows you to apply > it. * > Schroedinger's equation is not always correct, a electron doesn't have a wave that Schroedinger says it should when it is observed. But what exactly does that mean? Nobody knows for sure, that's why there re so many different quantum interpretations. 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
