# Why is QM maximally predictive?

Let's suppose I'm in the lab and I claim that I can predict more than QM can, specifically, I can predict exactly at which moment in time a particle decays. You don't believe me (naturally) so I set up the experiment, provide a piece of paper with a time written on it, and start the clock. At the time I have written down, the particle decays.

Exactly which of the six postulates of QM would this violate? As far as I can tell, it violates none of them so long as the results from multiple identical trials of this experiment reproduce the correct particle decay time distribution.

(And yes, I'm aware of this paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1005.5173, but I would prefer a simpler explanation.)

-
"I claim I can predict how this coin will land. It will be heads." *Tosses coin. It comes up heads.* . "See? I can beat statistics. I don't need to repeat this experiment, I have made my point." What would you do if the particle had not decayed at the time you said? Blame experimental error? That's what I do when my coin demo fails... –  Floris Aug 19 at 19:21
You read my post far too literally. Or you're pretending to read it too literally. –  Nick Aug 19 at 22:48
I'm sorry - I thought that was how science works. –  Floris Aug 19 at 22:59
There are six postulates of QM? –  Bubble Sep 27 at 22:07
@Nick I love this question! But the QM wiki link doesn't seem to list 6 clearly defined postulates, can you enumerate them here or point to a more definitive source? –  CuriousKev Sep 27 at 22:35