On 4/29/2022 5:22 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 4:49 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> Any idea that does not conform with quantum evolution being
unitary is an idea that does not conform with experimental
evidence and thus has been proven to be incorrect.
/> Measurement is, and always has been, described in quantum
theory by projection operators...which are not unitary. /
That's because an actual measurement is not a probability, it is a
fact. A *prediction* about what a measurement will be is a probability.
That seems to be a reply to something because the sentence starts with
"That's" but the rest of sentence mentions neither projection operators
nor unitarity. It informs the reader that an "actual measurement" is
not a probability and instead claims a prediction about a measurement is
a probability. This seems doubtful since Kolmogorov says a probability
is a number between 0 and 1 and it's a measure on a set of events.
/> Without them there is nothing in the theory to produce a result
that can be compared to empirical observation.
/
That's why experimental results always outranks any theory, and why
any theory that predicts the Born Rule will not work is a theory that
is dead wrong. It would be nice but a theory doesn't have to have the
ability to rigorously derive the Born Rule mathematically, but it must
be compatible with it.
/> In unitary evolution per the Schroedinger equation there are no
"paticular universes", there's only a ray in Hilbert space.
Multiple universes is a FAPP viewpoint. But so is wave-function
collapse./
Either the wave function collapses or it doesn't.
And there are either multiple universes or one universe. Schroedinger's
equation describes the evolution of one world. I never describes
splitting into multiple worlds...except FAPP.
If it does then collapse then there is no world but this one and
Schrodinger's equation is wrong, or at least incomplete, because it
says nothing about the wave collapsing. If it doesn't collapse then
Schrodinger's Equation is fine just as it is and many worlds exist.
It's fine...but there's only one world.
/> The information interpretation is QBism./
I think the differences between the Copenhagen Interpretation, QBism,
and Shut Up And Calculate are just cosmetic. But if you put lipstick
on a pig it's still a pig.
And it's provided a delicious and nourishing meal for physicists all
these years.
However, if one is completely uninterested in the philosophical
implications of science and just wants to make new gadgets then you
can be a good productive quantum physicist and have no quantum
interpretation at all.
Nobody can do physics without measurement results.
Brent
John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
IlIl
--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1jXJijbeW8rUT31EPit0bj%3DiswspVnqKpJd%2B2fsg83%3DQ%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1jXJijbeW8rUT31EPit0bj%3DiswspVnqKpJd%2B2fsg83%3DQ%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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d41237b7-c872-1856-8ea2-a8ef41a794f2%40gmail.com.
