# Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

```On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 11:05 AM Alan Grayson <agrayson2...@gmail.com>
wrote:```
```
>>>> Schrödinger's Equation is time independent,
>>>>
>>>
>>> *>>> Then why, for example, does the solution for a free particle spread
>>> out as time progresses? AG *
>>>
>>
>> >> As time progresses things change, that is in fact what time means. So
>> if something spreads out as time progresses if you reverse time then that
>> "something" would converge. Schrodinger's wave equation works in either
>> direction, no information is lost so if you know what the wave looks like
>> now you can figure out what it will look like tomorrow and also figure out
>> what it looked like yesterday.
>>
>
> *> If you don't know that the SE is time DEPENDENT, at least one of its
> forms, you should refrain from posing as a expert on its interpretation*
>

You've forgotten how all this started, you said "but S's equation just
gives the time dependent probabilities BEFORE a measurement is taken" , and
I made it clear that Schrödinger's Equation is independent of if time is
going forwards or backwards, so if you know what the quantum wave of a
particle is today the day after a measurement has been taken then
Schrödinger's Equation can tell you what the quantum wave will be tomorrow,
and also what the quantum wave was the day before yesterday, the day before
a measurement will be taken. This is my exact quote and I still stand by
every word of it:

"*Schrödinger's Equation is time independent, it works just as well
forwards or backwards, so "before" or "after" are irrelevant terms. And
Schrödinger makes no use of "measurement" and says nothing about it*".

So there are only two conclusions possible, either Schrödinger's Equation
is just wrong and needs to be drastically modified, or Many Worlds is
correct. I think Schrödinger's Equation works pretty well just as it is.

By the way, Erwin Schrödinger made no secret of being a sexual libertine,
but now his politically incorrect lifestyle is catching up with him, there
is a move afoot by the same sort of imbeciles who dreamed up the phrase
"defund the police" to change one thing in the equation, its name. They're
also trying to change the name of the James Webb telescope.

*> Further, in the case of a free particle, the solution changes its form
> as tIme goes backward,*
>

Of course the solutions change depending on if time is going forwards or
backwards! If it didn't it wouldn't conform with reality and would be
absolutely useless because since the days of Ogg the caveman humanity has
known that yesterday was different than today and feels very confident that
tomorrow will be different from today.

> * your comment shows ignorance of what time dependence means. AG *

At least I'm not so ignorant as to think that we've been putting things
into orbit for nearly 70 years without obtaining hypersonic speed, or that
flying saucer men landed in Roswell New Mexico in 1948. And I never
claimed, as you have, that you were the co-author of a scientific paper
with Carl Sagan sometime in the 1960's but have completely forgotten the
exact date of the paper, the journal the paper was printed in, the topic of
the paper, and even the name you were using back then; and if anybody on
this list believes that then there's a bridge I'd like to sell you.

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis