On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 12:11 PM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 4:50 AM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> The Schrodinger equation describes the quantum wave function using >>> complex numbers, and that is not observable so it's subjective in the same >>> way that lines of latitude and longitude are. However the square of the >>> absolute value of the wave function is observable because that produces a >>> probability that we can measure in the physical world that is objective, >>> provided anything deserves that word; but it also yields something that is >>> not deterministic. >>> >> >> > *It is still deterministic. * >> > > That depends on what "it" refers to. The quantum wave function is > deterministic but the physical system associated with it is not. > This is incorrect. > > > *If you say otherwise you are introducing "collapse", * >> > > Well you sure as hell are going to have to introduce something because > after a observation is made there is no longer a probability as there is > always a 100% chance you saw what you just saw. If I won the lottery > yesterday then the day before yesterday there was one chance in ten million > I would win but today there is 1 chance in 1 that I did win. > > > *and saying the other unobserved outcomes have stopped existing* >> > > I'm saying unperformed experiments have no results. > > >> > *Schrodinger's equation does not say this is what happened, it just >> says that you have ended up with a system with many sets of observers, each >> of which observed different outcomes.* >> > > That's what Many World's claims it means but that claim is controversial, > but what is not controversial is the wave function the Schrodinger equation > describes mathematically. Consider the wave functions of these 2 systems: > > 1) An electron of velocity V starts at X and after one second it is > observed at point Y and then goes on for another second. > > 2) An electron of the same velocity V starts at the same point X and then > goes on for 2 seconds. > > The wave functions of these 2 systems are NOT the same and after you've > taken the square of the absolute value of both you will find radically > different probabilities about where you're likely to find the electron > after 2 seconds. And as I said this is not controversial, people disagree > over quantum interpretations but nobody disagrees over the mathematics, and > the mathematical objects that the Schrodinger equation describes in those > two systems are NOT the same. > > If you model the system to be measured, and the experimenter making the measurement, the Schrodinger wave equation tells you unambiguously the system evolves into a form holding the measured system in all of its possible results, together with many experimenters, each of whom observed one of the possible results. If you don't believe me, consider what would happen if you simulated an experimenter's mind on a quantum computer, and then fed in as sensory input one of the qubits registers prepared to be in a superposed state (0 and 1). Jason -- 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.
