On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:37 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 9/17/2019 3:49 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 3:01 AM smitra <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 17-09-2019 13:32, Bruce Kellett wrote: >> > >> > So why do all Everettians have to add so many additional assumptions >> > in order to pretend to get out the Born rule? >> > >> >> Simply assuming the special case of the Born rule that measuring a >> system in an eigenstate of an observable will yield the eigenvalue of >> that eigenstate with certainty, is enough. > > > Where did the concept of an observable as an operator in a Hilbert space, > and the idea that measurements correspond to the action of that observable > on the state, giving a result that is the eigenvalue corresponding to the > projected eigenvector, come from? > > > The operator should be expressible in terms of the Hamiltonian of the > measuring instrument and its interaction with the system. But nobody tries > to write down the Hamiltonian of the instrument; they just look at what > it's supposed to measure classically and then they write an abstract > operator that does that. > So it is something added to the supposed "minimal QM" of the Schrodinger equation. The eigenvector/eigenvalue link is pretty well established. Zurek has a good argument to derive this. Bruce -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLS%2B6YpHrU1H1GtsQkfx_ceHYa9d8H%2BREABksar4pKNE1w%40mail.gmail.com.
