On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 5:22:55 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/20/2019 3:28 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 3:00:35 PM UTC-7, scerir wrote: >> >> Nevertheless, the SWE does not give a probability without some further >> assumptions. Why do you think that MWI advocates spend so much time an >> effort trying to derive the Born rule? You cannot get probabilities from >> the Schroedinger equation without some additional assumptions. >> >> Bruce >> >> In his Nobel lecture (The statistical interpretation of quantum >> mechanics, 1954) >> Born writes: "Again an idea of Einstein’s gave me the lead. He had tried >> to make the duality of particles - light quanta or photons - and waves >> comprehensible by interpreting the square of the optical wave amplitudes as >> probability density for the occurrence of photons. This concept could at >> once be carried over to the psi-function: |psi|^2 ought to represent the >> probability density for electrons (or other particles). It was easy to >> assert this, but how could it be proved?" >> > > How could any of the postulates of QM "be proved"? All we can do is make > assumptions and determine if they give good predictions. (Have you seen my > email?) AG > > Of course it was "proven" in the empirical sense of being used to > successfully predict observations. > > Brent >
Obviously; that's what I wrote. Did you even read it? But the same applies to Born's rule! 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dc965b36-17d7-4a34-a08b-f9aaefc57743%40googlegroups.com.
