Realism and QM
Godfrey:
There is no energy flux directly associated with
wave-functions (like with electomagnetic or
mechanical waves) but is a probability density
and a probability flux associated with the square
of linear functionals of the wave-function.
[Scerir]
The question, at this point
Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 04:30:21PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
Your point about the squared modulus is well taken. Just why
*probabilities* emerge from squared amplitudes, I couldn't
tell you. I'm not sure that anyone knows---as I recall, many
this is related to the basis
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 06:12:54PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
I've haven't read your derivation, but I've read quant-ph/0505059 by VAn
Esch which is a proof that the Born Rule is independent of Everett's MWI
and cannot be derived from it.
How do you avoid Van Esch's counter example.
Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Aug 21, 2005 at 06:12:54PM -0700, Brent Meeker wrote:
I've haven't read your derivation, but I've read quant-ph/0505059 by VAn
Esch which is a proof that the Born Rule is independent of Everett's MWI
and cannot be derived from it.
How do you avoid Van Esch's
Godfrey:
There is no energy flux directly associated with
wave-functions (like with electomagnetic or
mechanical waves) but is a probability density
and a probability flux associated with the square
of linear functionals of the wave-function.
The question, at this point, should be:
:51 +0200
Subject: Re: Naive Realism and QM
Godfrey:
My point, if I can break it down a bit,
is that the amplitudes correspond,
not to things but to processes
and that what the amplitudes let you
compute are relative probabilities for
the occurrences of such processes.
Maybe. Amplitudes
From: Lee Corbin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Godfrey writes
As much as I sympathize with your call for preservation of naive
realism
[LC]
Good heavens! How many times must it be said? What is going on
with people? There is a *clear* definition of naive realism.
Try the almost always extremely
Godfrey writes:
[...] at the basis of QM there are amplitudes
that add, multiply and square. Notice the absence
of things! It is the things that ain't there!!!
Not sure I understand. But the usual rule of addition
of probabilities does not apply to quantum probabilities.
This does not mean
: scerir [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list@eskimo.com
Sent: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 22:15:14 +0200
Subject: Re: Naive Realism and QM
Godfrey writes:
[...] at the basis of QM there are amplitudes
that add, multiply and square. Notice the absence
of things! It is the things that ain't
Godfrey:
My point, if I can break it down a bit,
is that the amplitudes correspond,
not to things but to processes
and that what the amplitudes let you
compute are relative probabilities for
the occurrences of such processes.
Maybe. Amplitudes of (whatever) waves
satisfy linear
Godfrey writes
As much as I sympathise with your call for preservation of naive
realism
Good heavens! How many times must it be said? What is going on
with people? There is a *clear* definition of naive realism.
Try the almost always extremely reliable wikipedia:
On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 04:30:21PM -0700, Lee Corbin wrote:
Your point about the squared modulus is well taken. Just why
*probabilities* emerge from squared amplitudes, I couldn't
tell you. I'm not sure that anyone knows---as I recall, many
this is related to the basis problem of the MWI
Russel writes
why *probabilities* emerge from squared amplitudes, I couldn't
tell you. I'm not sure that anyone knows---as I recall, many
this is related to the basis problem of the MWI (though
Deutsch and others say that decoherence takes care of
everything, though).
This is
13 matches
Mail list logo
