On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 1:16:36 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 24 Dec 2018, at 00:15, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote: > > > > On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 5:37:21 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> 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]> 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. >> > > *BS. You utterly fail to understand the point of the horse race example. > The SE doesn't extend to other worlds. * > > > ? > > The SE is what define the other worlds, or superposition terms, and the SE > describes them literally. The double linearity (tensor product and > evolution) makes the SE describing the prediction relatively to each > branch. The collapse of the wave is a non linear process (if it is seen as > a process) violating the SE. >
*You insist that everything that's possible to happen, must happen. Nothing to support this idea but your bias. In a horse race, you are demanding that universes are created in which each horse wins. Do you really think this is how the universe functions? As for the SWE, you've imposed your will on where it applies, and appeal to the non linearity of the collapse process to justify your preference. But there ARE non linear processes in nature. So your claim is poorly based. AG* > > Many-worlds (or many-histories, …) is basically just the SWE, without > collapse. Everett theory is just Copenhagen minus the idea of a physical > collapse. > > *Those who claim otherwise are adding something to QM which suits their > fancy; that everything that's possible to happen, must happen.* > > Only with a special probability, and relatively to the observer. > Yes, that “everything” needs to be realise, or we don’t get the > interference. > *I don't see why interference depends on everything happening. The many universes you claim come into existence when a single outcome occurs, are disjoint. So it's hardly obvious why the interference observed over many outcomes Iin our universe, depends on these other universes. AG * > > > *Talk about bad metaphysics! You're one of its prime culprits! As for > Aristotle's physics creeping into physics, it doesn't. AG * > > Aristotle is just the idea that there is a primary physical universe. If > you agree this could be wrong, that will help you to see the immaterialist > consequences of Digital Mechanism. > Most people today don't know or care what Aristotle thought. Physics is basically phenomenological. 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.
