On 12/20/2021 7:17 AM, John Clark wrote:
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 eigenvalueof 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 ofthat 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.
It's the projection postulate in the Copenhagen interpretation that applies the Born rule. In MWI it's the Born rule plus some kind of self-locating uncertainty to allow for the probabilistic observations. So those are things not in the Schroedinger equation.
No, you can't observe the Born rule to be true any more (or less) than you can observe Schroedinger's equation to be true. They are theories that predict a result in every time and place, past and future. If they fail, even on a set of measure zero, in this infinitude they are invalidated. Every theory must go beyond what has been observed to be useful...that's the whole point of having theories instead of just catalogues of observations.>> 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 theBorn Ruleis *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.
Brent -- 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/4d7d7228-47ef-41a5-4da3-7af016daad32%40gmail.com.
