On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 7:51 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
*>> You agree that Schrodinger's Equation produces worlds that >> are orthogonal to our own so you would not expect to be able to detect >> them, and yet you insist, despite the fact that in every experiment ever >> performed it is been proven to be extraordinarily accurate, Schrodinger's >> Equation is wrong when it predicts those other worlds. You just wave your >> hands and Schrodinger's equation stops working and all those other worlds >> magically disappear. * > > *It's true that you can't make an experimental test for those worlds but I >> think a theory should be judged on the predictions that you can test not on >> the predictions that you can't test, and on every prediction that we can >> test Schrodinger's equation has been shown to be correct. * > > > > *> I propose Meeker's equation, which is the same as Schrodinger's > equation except that the worlds orthogonal to our own disappear when they > become orthogonal. Meeker's equation has also shown to be correct by all > known tests.* *You're too late, the objective collapse people have already modified Schrödinger's equation by adding a nonlinear randomly determined term to it that makes an already difficult to solve equation far far more difficult. And if you're worried because at the cosmological level according to General Relativity mass/energy is not conserved then you should be even more worried because if objective collapse is correct then energy is not conserved in quantum mechanics either, kinetic energy increases at a constant rate. And although the modified Schrödinger's equation has passed many experimental tests it has not passed them all because, at least so far, nobody has found a way to make it compatible with special relativity as Paul Derek did in 1927; it's difficult because they need to make it so that Bell's Inequality is violated, as experiment insists it is, with special relativity's concept of locality, and that is a very tall order. * *Among the tests the modified Schrödinger equation passed, those in which Special relativity does not make a significant contribution, the answers it produces are almost, but not quite, the same as the ones that the unmodified equation produces. The margin of error in these experiments makes it impossible to determine which is right, but technology is improving so fast that I think in a few years that situation will change. If it turns out that the modified Schrödinger equation makes more accurate predictions than the unmodified equation then the Many World idea is just wrong because it contains no wiggle room. So much for the old cliché about Many Worlds being unfalsifiable. * *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* 7v! > > > > *branch counting doesn't work. * > > > *Obviously. * > > *> It appears that the Born rule adds another axiom; it's not just the >> Schroedinger equation.* >> > > *Gleason proved in 1957 that if probability is involved in any way then > the only mathematically consistent way to do it it's for the probability to > equal the squared magnitude of the quantum amplitude, a.k.a. the Born rule. > So the real question is, Schrodinger's equation gives us an exact > description of the quantum wave, so why do we need probability at all? > Because until you open the box you won't know if you are in the environment > where the cat is alive or in the environment where the cat is dead, until > the box is opened you just don't have enough information to know for > certain what you are going to see, although you have enough information to > have a probability. * > > *As for cases where things are not perfectly orthogonal you'd expect to > see some interference between the two worlds, and WE DO for very small > objects like electrons which can be kept isolated from their environment > for a measurable amount of time, but we should not expect to see > interference patterns in large microscopic objects like a cat that contains > upwards of 10^24 atoms because something that big would become entangled > with the environment before you had time to look at it. * > > *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* > > > -- 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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0G7SHYypOq8y3ie-O%3DMzbazK9wu7D2Yq6wyVwDTQ1%2Bmg%40mail.gmail.com.
