On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 1:42:06 AM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 11:40 AM John Clark <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 7:30 PM Jason Resch <[email protected] >> <javascript:>> 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. >
*Suppose (courtesy of Bruce) the SE represents a horse race with the probabilities varying wrt time. What's your view of the status of the SE when one horse wins and others loose? AG * > > 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.
