= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
cousin_it comments on Scott Aaronson on Born Probabilities - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (7)
So, this
combined with this
implies the Born rule?
The conclusion also needs that what happens in one branch can't renormalize the probability of another branch.
And further, if the wavefunction didn't need to preserve the 2-norm, then presumably there would be no computational advantage to probability being split by absolute value of amplitude instead of squared absolute value?
(By the way, how come they don't just say "product of wave function with complex conjugate" instead of "square of absolute value of wavefunction", since the magnitudes are the same?)
Because "square of absolute value of wavefunction" is shorter and clearer than "product of wave function with complex conjugate", I'm guessing.
(Counting by words, syllables or letters gives that result; I also tried counting morae and ended up with the same count for both.)
True. But wouldn't your meaning be clear if you used the shorter term "wavefunction conjugate product"? Then again, maybe not.