On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 11:36:33 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/20/2019 11:26 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 3:00:25 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/20/2019 11:49 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 12:59:32 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/19/2019 11:41 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/19/2019 1:43 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A diffraction pattern emerges in video recordings of single-photon
>>>> double-slit experiments whether anyone sees the video or not. what changes
>>>> is the image on the video frame-by-frame. If you take a video of a an
>>>> arrow
>>>> shot from a bow, it follows a parabolic curve, and what changes is its
>>>> position frame-by-frame.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So when your path integral formulation predicts various probabilities
>>>> for position of photon absorptions by the video camera nothing has changed
>>>> when positions are actualized in the recording. All the same
>>>> probabilities
>>>> obtain. Which is the MWI view.
>>>>
>>>> Brent
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the cases of *Quantum Measure Theory* (Rafael Sorkin), *Real Path
>>> Quantum Theory* (Adrain Kent), or -- in another type of formulation --
>>> *Cellular
>>> Automaton Interpretation* [of Quantum Mechanics] (Gerard 't Hooft), I
>>> don't see what "change" means in your terms.
>>>
>>>
>>> Those methods assign probabilities (measures) to specific possible
>>> outcomes (measurements). When one is observed, it is used as an initial
>>> condition for further predictions. If it's not observed then further
>>> predictions are conditioned on all the possible outcomes. That's a change.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>>
>> Except in the theories -- QMT, RPQT -- themselves, nothing is observed
>> (or needs to be observed), because *there are no observers*
>> ("alternative to the textbook formalism of state-vectors and external
>> *observers*").t
>>
>>
>> And that's why they fail to predict observations. But they do assign
>> probabilities to specific events and they condition those on prior events
>> or not.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>
>
> They all make predictions.
>
> *The Schrödinger equation is not the only way to study quantum mechanical
> systems and*
>
> * make predictions.*
>
>
> *The other formulations of quantum mechanics include matrix mechanics,
> introduced by Werner Heisenberg, and the path integral formulation*,
> developed chiefly by Richard Feynman. Paul Dirac incorporated matrix
> mechanics and the Schrödinger equation into a single formulation. *
>
>
> How will we know whether the predictions are right or not, unless they are
> predictions of observations?
>
> Brent
>
>
> ** From path integral formulation to Schrödinger's equation*
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relation_between_Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_equation_and_the_path_integral_formulation_of_quantum_mechanics#From_path_integral_formulation_to_Schr%C3%B6dinger's_equation
>
>
They make predictions of outcomes whether or not those outcomes are ever
observed.
Whether predictions are "right" or not is a pragmatic practice that is
outside the scientific model/formulation/theory itself.
@philipthrift
--
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/7d6546b1-9cb4-4feb-b34c-bb3dfb8525f6%40googlegroups.com.
