On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 12:27:23 AM UTC, Jason wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2018 at 9:29 PM <[email protected] <javascript:>> 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 >> >> >> > It isn't clear to me what you mean by the horse race, or winning it. >
*If you would stop lying, yes lying, we might be able to make some progress here. AG* > But regarding the status of the SE: > > In the many worlds view, the SE never ceases to describe the behavior of > the system. > *If you apply the SE to a horse race -- where it would be an N dimensional wf, N being the number of particles which I am now calling "horses" moving along an oval track which starts and ends -- what happens to the SE when the race is over? AG* It is only collapse theories that suppose sometimes the SE applies some of > the time, but at other times it does not apply (e.g., during measurement, > observation, consciousness). > to a > 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.
