> It's a convention in physics to call it probability amplitude because, you know, it makes sense, as a direct analogous to energy. Wait, what? Could you plea

> It's a convention in physics to call it probability amplitude because, you know, it makes sense, as a direct analogous to energy. Wait, what? Could you please flesh out the analogy between probability and energy? --- From the Wikipedia article: > Probability amplitudes provide a physical meaning of the wave function, a link first proposed by Max Born, and this is a pillar of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. Oh, my… I'd say the real pillar of the Copenhagen interpretation is the word "probability". Which is rather weak, compared to the fact that the collapse postulate of the Copenhagen interpretation is non-linear, non-unitary, non-differentiable (even discontinuous!), non-local, violates CPT-symmetry and Liouville's Theorem, non-deterministic, and faster-than-light. Oh, and it's strictly more complex than a many-world interpretation, since it adds an extra postulate on top of existing equations. http://lesswrong.com/lw/q6/collapse_postulates/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/q6/collapse_postulates/ Seriously, how many arrows to the chest does the Copenhagen Interpretation must endure before we declare it dead, and stop saying "probability" before every occurrence of "amplitude"? --- Fire a photon through a half sieved mirror, with 2 sensors to catch the 2 possible paths, such that no matter what, one of the sensors will go off. What do you think happens? The equations (you know them more than I do) say the amplitude will flow and decohere into 2 non-interacting blobs. The blob where sensor 1 goes off, and the blob where sensor 2 goes off. (Note from Captain Obvious: the equations are deterministic. They do not say that God plays dice with the universe.) Now say you fire the photon, and observe sensor 1 going off. What do you think happened to the other blob, the one you don't interact with? Do you think it went away just like that? It would be like believing that a colonization spaceship going beyond the observable universe disappears, not only from your view, but for good. http://lesswrong.com/lw/pb/belief_in_the_implied_invisible/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/pb/belief_in_the_implied_invisible/ --- Of course this sequence is sketchy and hand waving (it doesn't even try to hide it). Its purpose is not to teach us Quantum Physics. Only certain aspects of it, to serve a philosophical agenda (most notably questions around personal identity and Free Will).