> On 22 Dec 2018, at 03:29, [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] <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
The SE remains always correct. It is only if you make the other “universe" disappearing that the SE is not correct. Bruno > > -- > 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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list > <https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout > <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>. -- 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.
