Do Wavefunctions Include All Possible Outcomes?

[Meader]

Nope, I'm referring to a probability for a physical state to actualise (extracted from the wave function), and someone saying it has a really really low probability of occurring that its practically not going to occur, I would think is wrong. For example, say I have 2% probability for sitting on this chair, and 98% for turning the TV off and walking out of the house. Even though it looks more probable that the turning off of the TV is going to occur, there is the possibility for me to go sit on the chair.

But with inanimate objects don't they have a 100% chance of not moving if they are already not moving?

 

[mr.smart]

unless there was a freak wind or an Earth quake.. then it would move... i guess random events have to be figured into the probability calculation. so there would be a slight chance of it moving.

 

[StevieTNZ]

But with inanimate objects don't they have a 100% chance of not moving if they are already not moving?

Not sure, but I guess I'm making a point regarding probabilities for two 'events', not one.

 

[jambaugh]

Nope, I'm referring to a probability for a physical state to actualise (extracted from the wave function), and someone saying it has a really really low probability of occurring that its practically not going to occur, I would think is wrong. For example, say I have 2% probability for sitting on this chair, and 98% for turning the TV off and walking out of the house. Even though it looks more probable that the turning off of the TV is going to occur, there is the possibility for me to go sit on the chair.

The critical issue is how you can make such a statement, how one determines the truth/falsehood, or likelyhood of truth of the statement, and thereby the meaning of the probability quantity.

I can speak of an absolutely deterministic dynamic system in probabilistic terms. "The (classical) particle has probability p of being found in this particular cube of space over this interval of time." These probability statements then relate back to my uncertainty in the initial conditions and in the dynamic environment.

In another setting, one may infer a particular theory of deterministic outcomes and base that theory on empirical data. The lack of infinite samples of data mean we have a certain probability that the theory is incorrect. Hence absolute statements which are 100% certain if the theory is true (a conditional probability) are say 99.999% certain given that is the probability that the theory is true given the available data.

Now take a 99.999% certain theory and make a probabilistic prediction of an outcome based on that theory which, if the theory is true would be 99.999999999% likely. Since the uncertainty in the validity of the theory outweighs the uncertainty predicted by the theory, the statement in the context of that theory is essentially equivalent to an absolute statement.

All statements about physical events are conditional probabilities. Sometimes the conditions are explicit and sometimes implicit. It is too damned inefficient to be totally explicit and so we speak in abbreviated terms. One can never make any statement about physical events which is 100% certain (unless the statement is trivial i.e. tautological). There is always the chance that say QM is wrong, or SR, or GR. There is always the small chance that all the beautiful experiments confirming our various theories happened to have all the random errors align so as to skew the theory instead of being averaged to zero.

However we use that language of absolutes to say it is certain to the degree that the risk of acting as if the statement were true is minuscule relative to the uncertainty of the context. We push that small uncertainty back one or more meta-levels under the rug of infinite regress.

 

[yoda jedi]

QM does imply that one thing could in principle be in two different places at the same time, even macroscopic objects. so there are theories that try to explain away such possibility, like GRW

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber_theory


from

Phys. Rev. D 34, 470–491 (1986)
Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems



An explicit model allowing a unified description of microscopic and macroscopic systems is exhibited. First, a modified quantum dynamics for the description of macroscopic objects is constructed and it is shown that it forbids the occurrence of linear superpositions of states localized in far-away spatial regions and induces an evolution agreeing with classical mechanics. This dynamics also allows a description of the evolution in terms of trajectories. To set up a unified description of all physical phenomena, a modification of the dynamics, with respect to the standard Hamiltonian one, is then postulated also for microscopic systems. It is shown that one can consistently deduce from it the previously considered dynamics for the center of mass of macroscopic systems. Choosing in an appropriate way the parameters of the so-obtained model one can show that both the standard quantum theory for microscopic objects and the classical behavior for macroscopic objects can all be derived in a consistent way. In the case of a macroscopic system one can obtain, by means of appropriate approximations, a description of the evolution in terms of a phase-space density distribution obeying a Fokker-Planck diffusion equation. The model also provides the basis for a conceptually appealing description of quantum measurement.

there is a newer version, full relativistic.

FQXi’s Most Courageous Postdoc prize winner 2011
Daniel Bedingham.
October 5, 2010
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1003/1003.2774v2.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h06783vh08853088/

..."In this article we have outlined a framework for describing the evolution of relativistic quantum systems which consistently explains the behavior of both microscopic and macroscopic systems. To do this the model incorporates quantum state reduction into the standard state dynamics in a way which is not only covariant and frame independent, but also objective, naturally diferentiating between systems of diferent scale and adjusting its effect accordingly. In this way the model offers a potential unifcation of quantum and classical sectors"...


----
"he was nominated for this award by quantum physicist Philip Pearle, Emeriti at Hamilton College in Clinton, New York. He noted that he have solved an issue that had plagued other physicists working on relativistic dynamical collapse theory for a decade."


.

 

[yoda jedi]

QM does imply that one thing could in principle be in two different places at the same time, even macroscopic objects. so there are theories that try to explain away such possibility, like GRW

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber_theory


from

Phys. Rev. D 34, 470–491 (1986)
Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems



An explicit model allowing a unified description of microscopic and macroscopic systems is exhibited. First, a modified quantum dynamics for the description of macroscopic objects is constructed and it is shown that it forbids the occurrence of linear superpositions of states localized in far-away spatial regions and induces an evolution agreeing with classical mechanics. This dynamics also allows a description of the evolution in terms of trajectories. To set up a unified description of all physical phenomena, a modification of the dynamics, with respect to the standard Hamiltonian one, is then postulated also for microscopic systems. It is shown that one can consistently deduce from it the previously considered dynamics for the center of mass of macroscopic systems. Choosing in an appropriate way the parameters of the so-obtained model one can show that both the standard quantum theory for microscopic objects and the classical behavior for macroscopic objects can all be derived in a consistent way. In the case of a macroscopic system one can obtain, by means of appropriate approximations, a description of the evolution in terms of a phase-space density distribution obeying a Fokker-Planck diffusion equation. The model also provides the basis for a conceptually appealing description of quantum measurement.

Right and now full Relativistic:

Relativistic State Reduction Dynamics
Daniel J. Bedingham, Imperial College London.
October 5, 2010

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1003/1003.2774v2.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h06783vh08853088/

..."In this article we have outlined a framework for describing the evolution of
relativistic quantum systems which consistently explains the behavior of both
microscopic and macroscopic systems. To do this the model incorporates quantum
state reduction into the standard state dynamics in a way which is not only
covariant and frame independent, but also objective, naturally dierentiating
between systems of dierent scale and adjusting its eect accordingly. In this
way the model oers a potential unication of quantum and classical sectors"...



-----
FQXi’s Most Courageous Postdoc prize winner 2011.
..."was nominated for this award by quantum physicist Philip Pearle, emeritus at Hamilton College in Clinton, New York. He noted that you have solved an issue that had plagued other physicists working on relativistic dynamical collapse theory for a decade"...


.