On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 9:25 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:

*> **a deterministic interpretation of a probability theory must mean that
> the wf collapse can be modeled dynamically, and this is what Objective
> Collapse theories are attempting to construct.*


*No. Schrodinger's Equation is 100% deterministic but the Objective
Collapse people modified it by adding a new term to it that is random. As I
may have mentioned before, Many Worlds is my favorite quantum
interpretation but my second favorite would be objective collapse because
it's testable; it makes some specific predictions that would be different
than standard quantum mechanics. *

*Today we don't yet have the technology to perform these experiments but I
wouldn't be surprised if we do in a decade or so. If their predictions turn
out to be correct then Many Worlds is definitely wrong, and if their
prediction*s are* wrong then Objective Collapse is definitely wrong.  The
reason Objective collapse is not my favorite interpretation right now is
that by introducing a random element into Schrodinger's Equation **they've**
made it vastly more difficult to solve, and it was already fiendishly
difficult. That's why nobody has yet found a way to make th*e* modified
Schrodinger Equation compatible with Special Relativity, Paul Dirac was
able to do that for the unmodified version as far back as 1927.*

*> In my view, this would be an extension of Copenhagen, not its
> capitulation. *


*Some Copenhagen fans might agree with you but certainly not all.
Copenhagen believers can't agree among themselves about much of anything,
the only thing they agree on is what we should do now, and that would be to
give up, shut up and just calculate with numbers.   *

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
jsu

>
>

-- 
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/CAJPayv1JiVNzk%2BWWrC6L%3DGt5ENusvKL2zsyVoEdT%3DR3dBDYyvA%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to