On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 11:40 AM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 7:30 PM 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.* >> > > What a devastating retort, you sure put me in my place! Jason ,the > Schrodinger equation is deterministic and describes the quantum wave > function, but that function is an abstraction and is unobservable, to get > something you can see you must square the absolute value of the wave > function and that gives you the probability you will observe a particle at > any spot; but Schrodinger's equation has an "i" in it , the square root of > -1, and that means very different quantum wave functions can give the exact > same probability distribution when you square it; remember with i you get > weird stuff like i^2=i^6 =-1 and i^4=i^100=1. That's why we only get > probabilities not certainties. > > >> >>> *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* [...] >> > > The Schrodinger wave equation tells precisely, unambiguously and > deterministically what the wave function associated with the system will be > but it says nothing unambiguously about the system itself. We do know the > square of the absolute value of the wave function gives us the > probability of obtaining a certain value if we measure a particular aspect > of the system, but other than that things become controversial. Some people > (the shut up and calculate people) say that's the only thing the math is > telling us, but others (the Many World and Copenhagen and Pilot Wave > people) say the math is telling us more than that but disagree about what > that is. But everybody agrees about the math itself, and if an observation > is made forget about what the math may mean the very mathematics of the > Schrodinger > wave changes. > > >> > 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). >> > > I don't have a quantum computer and I don't have direct access to any mind > other than my own so I can't do that, I could tell you my hunch about what > I believe would happen and it's probably similar to your hunch but other > people, including some very smart ones, disagree so we could be wrong. > > Such people disbelieve in the Schrodinger equation. 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.
