When you say the MWI + Born rule "yields an unambiguous framework for a fundamental theory" are you assuming the idea of probability being equal to amplitude squared only applies to "measurements", or that it would somehow apply at all times in the MWI? If the former there would seem to be some ambiguity about what a "measurement" is; if the latter, I believe MWI advocates still don't have an agreed-upon answer to the "preferred basis problem" discussed at https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/65177/is-the-preferred-basis-problem-solved
On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 4:03 AM smitra <[email protected]> wrote: > On 20-12-2021 03:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 20, 2021 at 12:23 PM John Clark <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 7:59 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> On 12/19/2021 5:25 AM, John Clark wrote: > >> By contrast the Many Worlds Theory only makes one assumption, > >> Schrodinger's Equation means what it says. So Many Worlds wins. > >> > >> _> 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. > > > > The Born Rule cannot be derived from the Schrodinger equation; it has > > to be added as a further independent assumption. So it is not true > > that Many Worlds makes only one assumption. It requires just as many > > assumptions as collapse theories. > > > > Bruce > > Yes, but with those assumptions it yields an unambiguous framework for a > fundamental theory. In case of collapse theories, you're stuck with a > phenomenological theory that cannot be improved, because you are not > allowed to describe observers and observations within the collapse > frameworks. It's a bit like the difference between statistical mechanics > and thermodynamics, if in the latter case textbooks were to insist that > you are only allowed to consider certain types of heat engines that > operate in the quasistatic limit. > > Saibal > > > > >> If it were not true Schrodinger's Wave would be completely useless > >> and there would be no reason any physicist would bother to calculate > >> it. > > > > -- > > 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/CAFxXSLTFdzA%3Dg9GTTiC2aLdJZ76tHYA3Bvxo2WrrvdnAXY-QQg%40mail.gmail.com > > [1]. > > > > > > Links: > > ------ > > [1] > > > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLTFdzA%3Dg9GTTiC2aLdJZ76tHYA3Bvxo2WrrvdnAXY-QQg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer > > -- > 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/8cffa6afc016a115e5fa8bd104135059%40zonnet.nl > . > -- 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/CAPCWU3JOTt6Msg%3DXiGTpoEK8TNq3mqqWtSi-s9xgA4OPpQGRjw%40mail.gmail.com.
