On 2/22/2025 2:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Le sam. 22 févr. 2025, 21:01, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> a
écrit :
On 2/21/2025 11:19 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
You're just restating that amplitudes only matter for
probabilities because of the Born rule, which is exactly the
point in question. You're assuming what you need to prove.
Proof is for printers, mathematicians, and whiskey. Science goes
by evidence.
Brent
We confirmed the Born rule empirically, yes. But the question is why
it holds in a purely unitary framework.
Yes, good question. But just saying it does is not help. If you have a
derivation, publish it. A lot of people have tried and each try has
been found wanting.
If science goes by evidence, then interpretations must account for
that evidence.
That's flat out nonsense. Interpretations, by definition, are just
stories that relate a theory to facts. They don't add to the theory.
Just stating that squared amplitudes determine frequencies doesn’t
explain why they should without assuming it outright.
True. But so far it is simpler than any of the other, logically
equivalent additions to the theory that have been proposed.
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/498df2dc-91d7-4c69-8d64-b9acf97db082%40gmail.com.
