Dec. 24th, 2016

yoginka: (thinking)
(https://www.quora.com/Is-The-Many-Worlds-Interpretation-of-QM-deterministic/answer/Viktor-T-Toth-1)
Много раз встречала подобные взгляды. Но здесь мне понравилось, как кратко и точно они выражены здесь. Где-то читала, что и сам Бор так же считал насчет природы вероятностей (жаль, не помню, где читала об этом). Т.е. расхождение взглядов Бора и Эйнштейна не совсем в том, что принято подавать в популярной литературе, а более тонкое.

"Quantum mechanics tells you exactly, in a very deterministic way, how the wavefunction evolves. No probabilities are involved"

"The uncertainty principle, in its modern form, is not about probabilities: it is about commutation rules. "

"So why are we talking about probabilities, then? We do because in the end, we insert into the system something that does not exist: a classical thing (an instrument, an observer). By doing so, we force the quantum system to “collapse into an eigenstate”. But the wavefunction does not tell us which eigenstate the system collapses into; it can only provide probabilities. If instead, the “classical” thing was properly described quantum mechanically by its wavefunction, there would be no collapse nonsense. No probabilities would be involved"

"The moment you introduce this nonquantum abstraction, a classical thing, forcing the quantum system to pick an eigenstate, probabilities show up. "

February 2017

S M T W T F S
   1234
5678 91011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728    

Links

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 21st, 2017 07:33 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios