Ah. So it’s not the idea that it’s weighted so much as the specific act of squaring the amplitude. “Why squaring the amplitude, why not something else?”.
I suppose the way I had been reading, I thought that the problem came from expecting a different result given the squared amplitude probability thing, not from the thing itself.
“Why squaring the amplitude, why not something else?”
That’s one issue, but as Warrigal said, the other issue is “how this even makes sense.” it seems to say that the amplitude is a measure of how real the configuration is.
“Why squaring the amplitude, why not something else?”
That’s one issue, but as Warrigal said, the other issue is “how this even makes sense.” it seems to say that the amplitude is a measure of how real the configuration is.
Ah. So it’s not the idea that it’s weighted so much as the specific act of squaring the amplitude. “Why squaring the amplitude, why not something else?”.
I suppose the way I had been reading, I thought that the problem came from expecting a different result given the squared amplitude probability thing, not from the thing itself.
That is helpful, many thanks.
That’s one issue, but as Warrigal said, the other issue is “how this even makes sense.” it seems to say that the amplitude is a measure of how real the configuration is.
That’s one issue, but as Warrigal said, the other issue is “how this even makes sense.” it seems to say that the amplitude is a measure of how real the configuration is.
Yes, precisely.