"Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" wrote:
> Tim Bradshaw wrote:
>> > And an assumption that has been generally understood to be wrong for
> > about 70 years, since the discovery of quantum mechanics. There are
> > `deterministic' explanations of QM -- in particular the many-worlds
> > theory -- but they don't help you actually predict things as you
> > can't
> > tell which world you'll end up in until you make the experiment.
>> Sure you can; you wind up in all of them. And the prediction of
> amplitudes for each of the "eigenyou"s coincides with the prediction
> the amplitudes for each of the outcomes in the Copenhagen
> interpretation. Subjectively it still appears random, because the
> different yous correspond to orthogonal states.
His point was that the Everett ("manyworlds") interpretation, just like
the Copenhagen interpretation, is just that -- an interpretation. It
adds no predictive value to the theory, and thus is just a way of
attempting to reconcile quantum mechanics with common sense. When
you're actually doing quantum mechanical calculations, it makes no
difference which interpretation you favor.
Erik Max Francis | icq 16063900 | whois mf303 | email max at alcyone.com
Alcyone Systems | irc maxxon (efnet) | web http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA | languages en, eo | icbm 37 20 07 N 121 53 38 W
USA | 402 days and counting | &tSftDotIotE
/ \ We're the stars on Earth