On 5/14/2025 4:09 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2025 at 3:36 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]>
wrote:
*>> you are _assuming_ that only the electron must obey
Schrodinger's Equation, _not_ the lab equipment needed to
measure the electron, and most importantly _not_ the
experimentalist who is looking at the measuring device; they
still follow classical physics. That clumsy poorly defined
assumption was just tacked on by the Copenhagen people because
they were frightened by the logical consequence of not doing
so. That's why Many Worlds is barebone no-nonsense Quantum
Mechanics that contains everything that is necessary and not
one bit more. As Richard Feynman said “nature isn't classical,
dammit".*
/> I made no such assumption. You're just making up objections.
Are you asserting that a measurement does *not* leave a system in
an eigenstate of the variable measured?/
*You are not the only Brent Meeker doing that exact same
_measurement_! If Many Worlds is correct then there are an
astronomical number (or an infinite number) of yous in a world where
the observable variable A has just been _measured_. In one of them
_experimental results_ tell "you" there is a 100% probability that
"you" are in the world where the value of variable A is X is exactly
equal to 1. But there are many many more Brent Meekers in which their
_experimentation_ tells them that there is a 100% probability that
variable A has a very different value than X. And all those Brent
Meekers believe in Quantum Mechanics just as strongly as "you" do. *
/> This has nothing to do with being observed or by whom/
*It most certainly does _IF_ the question asked is "what will an
experimenter observe?" And that was the fundamental question Brent
Meekerasked.
*
No, I referred to measurements and results, with no mention of
observers. You're thrashing straw men. You're inserting the word "you".
And the correctness of MWI is what is in question, so you're begging the
question by assuming it's true. You seem to have missed the point of
the argument which is based on successive measures of the same
variable. The second measurement has only one possible outcome contrary
to you assertion that all values consistent with Schroedinger's equation
must obtain; thereby neglecting the role of state preparation.
Brent
--
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/f3d39bf7-8541-4fc9-8c5d-5b5e3666b692%40gmail.com.
