On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 2:29:54 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 2:03:06 AM UTC, Jason wrote: >> >> >> >> 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 >> > > 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 >
Moreover, if you insist that all possible outcomes must exist in some world for a given experiment, then if there are N horses in the race, N worlds must be created when the race STARTS, to allow each horse to win in some world. Does this seem reasonable? I am using a macro example for convenience, but you can caste the problem into a quantum context if you wish. 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.
