3 ms·
Are you perhaps confusing Born with Bohm? There is no possible sense in which QC critically depends on anything to do with Bohm. Neither does it depend on very
by gjm11 16y ago
Are you perhaps confusing Born with Bohm? There is no possible sense in which QC critically depends on anything to do with Bohm.
Neither does it depend on very much about exactly what those Born probabilities mean. All that matters is that, e.g., when one of them is very close to 1 and the others very close to 0, you will almost always find yourself observing an outcome corresponding to the nearly-1 probability. Again: if you disbelieve that -- which is what you'd need to disbelieve to have a problem with QC here -- then what you are rejecting is not any particular interpretation, but quantum mechanics itself as a description of what the universe does.
- Estragon 16y ago> Are you perhaps confusing Born with Bohm? Sorry for my misunderstanding. I thought you were using "Bohmian" to refer to the standard interpretation. (I'd forgotten about that reference in the "Motivation" section of the wikipedia article.) I wasn't referring to the Bohmian interpretation two comments back, I was referring more to the kind of hidden variable Einstein had in mind. (I realize it would have to be non-local.) > All that matters is that, e.g., when one of them is > very close to 1 and the others very close to 0 That's just begging the question. The "nearly-1 probability" comes from the assumption that the initial state in the algorithm is a superposition over a large number of classical states. > what you are rejecting is not any particular > interpretation, but quantum mechanics itself as a > description of what the universe does. No, I accept that the probabilities which come out of the QM formalism accurately describe the frequencies observed in QM systems in the aggregate over many observations. I don't accept that those probabilities tell the whole story in one particular instance.