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

```
On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 11:45:08 AM UTC-6 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:```
```
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 11:05 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@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.
>
>
The advantage for you is your use of a private language. In the SE, I see
d/dt. Ergo, the equation is time *dependent*. I am not impressed or

As for the Sagan issue, as I distinctly recall that I posted the citations
to those articles, one with Sagan and one of his doctoral students at the
time at Harvard, David Morrison (check him out on Wiki), and a second
paper. possibly just with Sagan or just with Morrison, in 1967 or 1968. And
No, I wasn't at Harvard, but working at the Smithsonian Astrophysical
Observatory, located at 67 Garden Street, in Cambridge MA. One or both were
printed in The Astronomical Journal. I also told you that my real name is
NOT Grayson, but apparently you couldn't connect the dots.

As for Roswell, for someone who firmly believes in the most fantastical and
improbable interpretation of QM, I don't see that you're in a position to
cast aspersions on my belief in the Roswell Incident. What do you think the
US Navy pilots were chasing fairly recently? Do you have a clue, or do you
just like to demonstrate how closed you are to unusual phenomena? You
regard yourself as an objective analyst of scientific facts, but you're
anything but; just another fool shooting off your mouth.

AG

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
> ews
>
>
>
>

--
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