On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 3:01 AM smitra <smi...@zonnet.nl> wrote: > On 17-09-2019 13:32, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > > > So why do all Everettians have to add so many additional assumptions > > in order to pretend to get out the Born rule? > > > > Simply assuming the special case of the Born rule that measuring a > system in an eigenstate of an observable will yield the eigenvalue of > that eigenstate with certainty, is enough.
Where did the concept of an observable as an operator in a Hilbert space, and the idea that measurements correspond to the action of that observable on the state, giving a result that is the eigenvalue corresponding to the projected eigenvector, come from? As I said, you have to build an awful lot into the Schrodinger equation in order to get out quantum physics. The Born rule is one of the hardest things to get. And no one has yet produced a convincing argument that the Born rule can be derived in Everettian QM. Bruce You can consider the case of > repeatedly preparing and measuring N copies of a system and then > consider the observable that corresponds to the frequency distribution > of the individual measurement outcomes in the limit of N to infinity. > The special case of the Born rule applied to observable for the > frequency distribution then implies the general Born rule. > > Saibal > -- 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/CAFxXSLTDkPX9u6j5cWV_coDm%2BackwBGD5_7CTYvVCvJa4upPUQ%40mail.gmail.com.
