Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!ucbvax!ernie!rimey
From: rimey@ernie.BERKELEY.EDU (Ken &)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Re: Blimey, Rimey (QM & Many-Worlds)
Message-ID: <11561@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Sun, 26-Jan-86 20:30:12 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.11561
Posted: Sun Jan 26 20:30:12 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 28-Jan-86 05:24:54 EST
References: <408@umich.UUCP> <11524@ucbvax.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU> <419@umich.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: rimey@ernie.UUCP (Ken Rimey)
Distribution: net
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 32

Paul Torek writes:

>You can try to get out of "wave packet collapse" by
>saying that measuring devices exist in an "uncollapsed" state too, but when
>you get to the experimenter your position breaks down.  The experimenter
>thinks "aha, the result was E1" or "aha, the result was E2", but not both,
>not neither, not in-between (etc.).  (Unless you start postulating multiple,
>branching universes, but you said you weren't going to do that.)

You misunderstood me.  Both happen.  In one universe.

It is very wrong to say that the various possible outcomes take place
in corresponding independent branching universes.  The possible
outcomes constructively or destructively interfere with each other.

It is often argued that macroscopically different outcomes will not
interfere noticably with each other.  Though this may not be true for
superfluids, superconductors, and such, it is probably accurate when
the different outcomes involve different behaviors of a macroscopic
classical system like a human.  The fiction of a branching universe
may therefore be approximately correct on the scale of human
experience, but the fiction confuses more people than it enlightens.
They think it has something to do with what they read in science
fiction books.

Maybe all this discussion will only confuse more people.  Maybe the
only people who could safely be entertained by it are those who
already understand quantum mechanics on a formal mathematical level --
Hilbert space, not Schrodiger's equation.

					Not really a snob,
					Ken Rimey