On 1/7/2025 4:09 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Jan 6, 2025 at 7:51 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
*
*
*>> You agree thatSchrodinger's Equation produces worlds that
are orthogonal to our own so you would not expect to be able
to detect them, and yet you insist, despite the fact that in
every experiment ever performed it is been proven to be
extraordinarily accurate, Schrodinger's Equation is wrong when
it predicts those other worlds. You just wave your hands and
Schrodinger's equation stops working and all those other
worlds magically disappear. *
*It's true that you can't make an experimental test for those
worlds but I think a theory should be judged on the
predictions that you can test not on the predictions that you
can't test, and on every prediction that we can test
Schrodinger's equation has been shown to be correct. *
/> I propose Meeker's equation, which is the same as Schrodinger's
equation except that the worlds orthogonal to our own disappear
when they become orthogonal. Meeker's equation has also shown to
be correct by all known tests.
/
*You're too late, the objective collapse people have already modified
Schrödinger's equation by adding a nonlinear randomly determined term
to it that makes an already difficult to solve equation far far more
difficult. *
Hence the advantage of the Meeker equation which is no harder to solve
than Schroedinger's equation.
*And if you're worried because at the cosmological level according to
General Relativity mass/energy is not conserved then you should be
even more worried because if objective collapse is correct then energy
is not conserved in quantum mechanics either, kinetic energy increases
at a constant rate. *
Sebens and Carroll already published a paper several years ago showing
that energy is not generally conserved in any single branch of a Many
Worlds measurement event. Only the averaged value of energy is
conserved in the limit of many events.
*And although the modified Schrödinger's equation has passed many
experimental tests it has not passed them all because, at least so
far, nobody has found a way to make it compatible with special
relativity as Paul Derek *<Dirac>*did in 1927; it's difficult because
they need to make it so that Bell's Inequality is violated, as
experiment insists it is, with special relativity's concept of
locality, and that is a very tall order. *
*Among the tests the modified Schrödinger equation passed, those in
which Special relativity does not make a significant contribution, the
answers it produces are almost, but not quite, the same as the ones
that the unmodified equation produces. The margin of error in these
experiments makes it impossible to determine which is right, but
technology is improving so fast that I think in a few years that
situation will change. If it turns out that the modified Schrödinger
equation makes more accurate predictions than the unmodified equation
then the Many World idea is just wrong because it contains no wiggle
room. So much for the old cliché about Many Worlds being unfalsifiable. *
*John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>*
7v!
**
>///branch counting doesn't work. /
*Obviously.*
/> It appears that the Born rule adds another axiom; it's
*not* just the Schroedinger equation./
*Gleason proved in 1957 that if probability is involved in any
way then the only mathematically consistent way to do it it's for
the probability to equal the squared magnitude of the quantum
amplitude, a.k.a. the Born rule. So the real question is,
Schrodinger's equation gives us an exact description of the
quantum wave, so why do we need probability at all? Because until
you open the box you won't know if you are in the environment
where the cat is alive or in the environment where the cat is
dead, until the box is opened you just don't have enough
information to know for certain what you are going to see,
although you have enough information to have a probability. *
*As for cases where things are not perfectly orthogonal you'd
expect to see some interference between the two worlds, and WE DO
for very small objects like electrons which can be kept isolated
from their environment for a measurable amount of time, but we
should not expect to see interference patterns in large
microscopic objects like a cat that contains upwards of 10^24
atoms because something that big would become entangled with the
environment before you had time to look at it. *
*John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis
<https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>*
--
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/CAJPayv0G7SHYypOq8y3ie-O%3DMzbazK9wu7D2Yq6wyVwDTQ1%2Bmg%40mail.gmail.com
<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0G7SHYypOq8y3ie-O%3DMzbazK9wu7D2Yq6wyVwDTQ1%2Bmg%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
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/9104f92e-52a6-48fe-9af9-e121c71beda3%40gmail.com.
