Recent content by selfsimilar

I agree. That is the sense I was talking about, nothing controversial. You can complicate it like what is mass but mass is equivalent to energy, what is energy( calculational accounting tool!) ...etc.

That is why the answer is qualified by some sense which I mean that something "measurable" is the outcome. As far as I know the equation is generally considered correct that is why we say "shut up and calculate" the dispute is what that answer means, hence interpretations which all claim to make...

all variables used in equations are used to indicate some aspect of the behavior of the system.

its real in the sense that you can derive the density matrix from it which gives the probabilistic interpretation or derive the quiding wave in bohmian interpretation.

this is how physics is done. Schrodinger did basically the same.

Doing physics or science in general amount to doing something like plumbing an old house. As long as you can get the water running in the right places with as little ugliness as possible then it is good enough until the next renovation. Then you can document. Anybody who has done his PHD/Masters...

So the trick was von Neumann equation. A stroke of genius from him and you.

I think I understand TI/UQP now much better courtesy of AI. I will compile some of the questions in a few pages for the interested. I especially agree on the answer it gave regarding the wavefunction , since I long held the idea that the wavefunction had no QM interpretation and does not need...

So in a sense because of the complicated nature of these measurements I give TI the benefit of the doubt until I understand these experiments better.

I have already discussed this issue. While it does seem to be consistent but the explanation makes it borderline since it does not agree on what exactly is been measured which should be eigenvalues as in conventional theory. That is why I brought up more information about what the experiments...

This has added additional uncertainty in my understanding:smile: https://www.google.com/search?q=Quantum+projection+noise&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:08491694,vid:gmbkokgR28Y,st:40

I have heard of many attempts to derive the Born rule but only in the context of the origin of eigenvalue in QM which is not controversial, but TI's case is a quite different take. Moreover, It is quite surprising that after 100 years of studying the subject in many sophisticated research...

Is this propensity different from q-expectation.

While there is no higher committee to decide. I personally only care for what makes sense to me taking into consideration the consensus, I just expect for people to put forth arguments like your demotion of Born rule which is looked upon as a postulate of QM ( a lot more than less). To my mind...

Thanks. Yes the way I wrote "atom" created confusion, I meant another atom. Just thought will be understood by the context. The word keen was about if TI/UQM would be considered an interpretation or something else.