Re: HUP Fails Via Nonexistent Distributions 2: The Uniform Claim
- From: "OsherD" <mdoctorow@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 17 Aug 2005 21:20:14 -0700
>>From Osher Doctorow
Wouldn't the error in Born's claim have been discovered by now if there
"really is an error"?
The fact is that probability is not observable in the same sense as
length, distance, or even massive objects that can be seen
macroscopically or through an electron microscopic or even somewhat
indirectly via photographs or other ways microscopically. The more
useful parts of the Schrodinger equation in practice have been things
like energy levels, momentum levels, etc., rather than probabilities.
In fact, I don't know of any "precise to the nth decimal place" (n
large) result involving probability in quantum theory. This doesn't
mean that probability isn't theoretically important, but it simply
isn't experimentally part of the "amazing accuracy" attributed to
quantum theory.
Osher Doctorow
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: HUP Fails Via Nonexistent Distributions 2: The Uniform Claim
- From: macromitch
- Re: HUP Fails Via Nonexistent Distributions 2: The Uniform Claim
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Bjoern BBT flops yet again.
- Next by Date: Re: Nuclear Secrets
- Previous by thread: HUP Fails Via Nonexistent Distributions 2: The Uniform Claim
- Next by thread: Re: HUP Fails Via Nonexistent Distributions 2: The Uniform Claim
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|