On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 10:37 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> On 9/17/2019 3:49 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: > > 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? > > > The operator should be expressible in terms of the Hamiltonian of the > measuring instrument and its interaction with the system. But nobody tries > to write down the Hamiltonian of the instrument; they just look at what > it's supposed to measure classically and then they write an abstract > operator that does that. > So it is something added to the supposed "minimal QM" of the Schrodinger equation. The eigenvector/eigenvalue link is pretty well established. Zurek has a good argument to derive this. Bruce -- 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/CAFxXSLS%2B6YpHrU1H1GtsQkfx_ceHYa9d8H%2BREABksar4pKNE1w%40mail.gmail.com.
