On 2/17/2025 5:15 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 16, 2025 at 8:33 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]>
wrote:
*>> There must be a fundamental reason why we can't make
predictions better than those allowed by HUP, and
self-locating uncertainty is that reason.*
/>//?? Most physicist think it's because conjugate operators don't
commute. /
*That is true but of no help whatsoever in explaining what's actually
going on. I want to know WHY momentum and position, and energy and
time are conjugate operators,I want to know why Schrodinger's equation
and the Born rule describe what we see in experiments.
*
Seems more explanatory than "There are other worlds where....what?"
*>> If you make a record of which slit an electron went
through in the two slit experiment then you will not see an
interference pattern on a screen, but if you don't make a
record of it then you will. And if you make a record and place
the screen a light year away from the slits but erase that
record one second before the electrons hit the screen then you
will see an interference pattern. This is certainly odd but
it poses no problem for Many Worlds.*
/> You only see the interference pattern after you know the
identity of the ones whose partner was erased. Otherwise you could
use it for faster than light signalling. /
*Also true but irrelevantto the subject at hand. *
/> But it's not subjective; the pattern is really there for anyone
to see./
*I agree, it's not subjective. Anyone could see the pattern, anyone
who is in a universe where _the information about which slit the
electrons went through before they hit the screen does NOT exist_. But
anyone in a universe _where that information DOES exist_ will NOT see
an interference pattern.*
/> //It's curious that you criticize QBism because it's not
explaining what's "actually going on"/
*I respect QBism, a.k.a. Shut Up And Calculate, more than Copenhagen
because it's more honest, it doesn't even attempt to explain what's
actually going on, Copenhagen attempts to do so but the result is a
ridiculous convoluted mess. Copenhagen fans can't agree, even among
themselves, what it's saying. *
/> but you like MWI versus spontaneous collapse//. Yet
spontaneous collapse does explain what's "actually going on". /
*That's why I think MWI and spontaneous collapse are the two least bad
quantum hypotheses that attempt to explain what's actually happening;
they may both be wrong but at least they're clear and at least they
try; the others just give up or hide behind an opaque fog of bafflegab.*
It's a probability, so some things happen and others don't. A lot
clearer than "Everything happens and we don't know how it's a probability."
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/cb2ba399-6fcf-41eb-adb0-20011e74b8e3%40gmail.com.
