On Sat, May 14, 2022 at 5:51 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote: > On 12-05-2022 22:18, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > I agree. And in fact SE fails all the time. It fails to predict a > > definite outcome...which is OK if you accept probabilistic theories. > > Physics doesn't work in this way. You always need to define a well > defined hypothesis first in order to interpret experimental results and > be able to test various alternative hypotheses/theories. If you don't do > this, you are not doing physics. >
Tell that to the army of people who pounce on every anomaly that appears in analyses of partial data from the LHC or Tevatron. Every anomaly produces a slew of papers, all proposing "explanations" of the anomaly. This is an industry, it is not physics. Generally the anomalies go away with time and further data -- there are no "well defined hypotheses" at work here. > But then its real failure is that it doesn't tell you exactly when and > > where and why it stops unitary evolution and produces a result. > > That's a failure of particular interpretations of QM, e.g. the CI that > postulate collapse. > > > The Born rule tells us the probability of a result...IF there is one. > > Decoherence tells there's an asymptotic approach to a result and > > why...but not when and where it arrives. > > Decoherence does does tell you how the different sectors split over > time. > Not if unitary evolution is exact and always. You have often argued that the original superposition never really goes away. Strictly, that means that the initial state is still intact, and nothing has in fact happened. Decoherence has to work through to a conclusion if the sectors are to split and a definite result is to emerge. This is where unitary evolution breaks down. Taken literally it never leads to a result. Just as in a quantum computer -- the internal unitary evolution has to invoke decoherence and collapse in order for a result to emerge. You need some marker of the point at which the different sectors finally differentiate. The SE itself is clearly not the whole story.......you need something like a minimum non-zero probability! Or an acceptance that FAPP is good enough, along with an understanding of when FAPP is good enough. Bruce -- 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/CAFxXSLQuT%3DzffD-fgKTvd6kJk7Pg5NxfXz_LE6BLqJ-Qd8_JzQ%40mail.gmail.com.
