On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 2:03:06 AM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 8:50 PM <[email protected] <javascript:>> 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 >
When the horse race is over (in this world), does it continue in other worlds where the losers get a chance to win, or does the SE cease to be relevant in any descriptive way? AG -- 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.
