On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 8:50 PM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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]> 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. >> > > *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 * > >> >> I am not sure I understand the question.
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.
