On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 10:38 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
> *> >> It also makes the assumption that the eigenvalues of a measurement >>> are realized probabilistically.* >> >> > >> What is the eigenvalue of a temperature of 72°F? It doesn't have one. A >> measurement doesn't have an eigenvalue but a matrix does, such as the one >> that describes the Schrodinger Wave. And no quantum interpretation needs to >> assume there is a relationship between the square of the absolute value of >> that wave and probability because it is observed to be true. > > > *A temperature operator, which would be matrix, might very well return > 72degF as the eigenvalue of a state eigenvector. * > A temperature measurement taken at a particular time and place is not a temperature operator, and a measurement is not a probability, although the square of the absolute value of a wave function might tell you the probability of you getting that temperature measurement at that time and place. *> Yes, it's empirically supported; So's the Schroedinger equation. But > it's part of the application of the Schroedinger equation. It's not in the > equation itself. * I don't know what you mean by that. >> No quantum interpretation needs to derive the Schrodinger Equation nor >> does it need to be assumed because it can be experimentally verified to >> be true. And no quantum interpretation is inconsistent with observation, >> at least not so far. >> > > *>It can't be experimentally verified that the other world branches exist * But an astronomical number, or even an infinite number, of other world branches is not inconsistent with experiment or observation, and if you want to hypothesize about what's really going on at the deepest level of reality while making the fewest possible assumptions then Many Worlds is your best bet. At least it's the best bet anyone has come up with so far. > *> and the Schrodinger equation cannot be verified except statistically by > assuming the Born rule. * I must insist yet again that the Born Rule is *NOT *assumed to be true nor is it required to be derived to be true because we can do far better than either one of those two things. We can observe the Born Rule to be true. *> Without the Born rule the Schroedinger equation* [...] Without the Born rule the Schrodinger Wave Equation would be a silly worthless equation of no interest to anyone, but thanks to observation we know for a fact that the Born Rule is true, and that makes Schrodinger's Equation very important indeed. John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> swq > -- 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/CAJPayv1Azc%2BzqgkBQaoz-b03Fo3qJxw2BdB0rokfTTC2TWcxvw%40mail.gmail.com.
