On Thursday, November 21, 2019 at 11:36:33 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 11/20/2019 11:26 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 3:00:25 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 11/20/2019 11:49 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, November 20, 2019 at 12:59:32 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/19/2019 11:41 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 at 3:59:47 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/19/2019 1:43 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A diffraction pattern emerges in video recordings of single-photon
>>>> double-slit experiments whether anyone sees the video or not. what changes
>>>> is the image on the video frame-by-frame. If you take a video of a an
>>>> arrow
>>>> shot from a bow, it follows a parabolic curve, and what changes is its
>>>> position frame-by-frame.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So when your path integral formulation predicts various probabilities
>>>> for position of photon absorptions by the video camera nothing has changed
>>>> when positions are actualized in the recording. All the same
>>>> probabilities
>>>> obtain. Which is the MWI view.
>>>>
>>>> Brent
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the cases of *Quantum Measure Theory* (Rafael Sorkin), *Real Path
>>> Quantum Theory* (Adrain Kent), or -- in another type of formulation --
>>> *Cellular
>>> Automaton Interpretation* [of Quantum Mechanics] (Gerard 't Hooft), I
>>> don't see what "change" means in your terms.
>>>
>>>
>>> Those methods assign probabilities (measures) to specific possible
>>> outcomes (measurements). When one is observed, it is used as an initial
>>> condition for further predictions. If it's not observed then further
>>> predictions are conditioned on all the possible outcomes. That's a change.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>>
>> Except in the theories -- QMT, RPQT -- themselves, nothing is observed
>> (or needs to be observed), because *there are no observers*
>> ("alternative to the textbook formalism of state-vectors and external
>> *observers*").t
>>
>>
>> And that's why they fail to predict observations. But they do assign
>> probabilities to specific events and they condition those on prior events
>> or not.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>>
>
>
> They all make predictions.
>
> *The Schrödinger equation is not the only way to study quantum mechanical
> systems and*
>
> * make predictions.*
>
>
> *The other formulations of quantum mechanics include matrix mechanics,
> introduced by Werner Heisenberg, and the path integral formulation*,
> developed chiefly by Richard Feynman. Paul Dirac incorporated matrix
> mechanics and the Schrödinger equation into a single formulation. *
>
>
> How will we know whether the predictions are right or not, unless they are
> predictions of observations?
>
> Brent
>
>
> ** From path integral formulation to Schrödinger's equation*
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relation_between_Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_equation_and_the_path_integral_formulation_of_quantum_mechanics#From_path_integral_formulation_to_Schr%C3%B6dinger's_equation
>
>
They make predictions of outcomes whether or not those outcomes are ever
observed.
Whether predictions are "right" or not is a pragmatic practice that is
outside the scientific model/formulation/theory itself.
@philipthrift
--
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/7d6546b1-9cb4-4feb-b34c-bb3dfb8525f6%40googlegroups.com.
