Why the "Many-Worlds" Theory doesn't make sense...

From your first link:

This is exactly what I was referring to. Synchronize all clocks at the BB and allow them to remain inertial as the universe expands...their physical separation is increasing but, presuming the expansion was uniform, all points would have a way to agree on a plane (albeit curved) of simultaneity (which, admittedly, isn't really a "frame" because it exhibits global accelerations...). Now, all that being said, this certainly doesn't mean that I believe this is the "something" that grants a physical manifestation to the concept of now...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Another way to think of this "cosmological clock" is like this: start with a universe of synchronized clocks on a grid spanning all of space. They are all inertial and relatively fixed, so we all agree that a universal plane of simultaneity is possible, agreed? Now, just scale up the space dimension. Make 1m => 10m, and the plane of simultaneity is unaffected (or at least its existence and the method for finding it is).

The cosmological expansion is simply scaling up spatial distance.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No worries - it's not like this is a day job for any of us.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Safe travels, and respond when you've got time to spare.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

RJB - this article may give you some satisfaction: http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.3823
Note the caveats. A God's-eye view is not possible in our universe - but it can be inferred and imagined.

 

There are two aspects to 'gravitational energy'. Energy of the -grad phi type Newtonian field. Which is frame dependent and has numbers of pseudo-tensor definitions. The overall cosmic contribution of such is negligible relative to matter content.
Or the gravitational potential one - which is the action on matter and energy as globally determined. It's that one that is supposed to cancel the energy in matter+radiation+dark energy.

 

Supposed being the operative word. It's a groundless myth, Q-reeus. IMHO it only persists because it's promoted by people who do not understand gravity. Maybe we should have a separate thread on it?

Your comment noted Fednis. Thanks. I got back a couple of days back but tied up.

 

First, have you studied and understood the basic pro zero-energy-universe argument put forward by the likes of Marcelo Burman or Philip Gibbs? If not I suggest first reading through e.g.
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0104060
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0605063 (the (mostly) need for Cartesian coordinates seems suspect)
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9701028 (but outdated re dark energy)
http://vixra.org/abs/1305.0034

Readable reads of contra position:
http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2010/08/why-and-how-energy-is-not-conserved-in.html
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/35431/is-the-law-of-conservation-of-energy-still-valid
http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/dont_stop_presses_energy_conservation_law_questioned-71641

Tempted to rather present you with a simple gravitating system that undergoes a differential partial collapse, and get YOU to work out the net energetics making sure ALL appreciable GR quantities are taken care of. If done right you would likely be in for a rude awakening. But I'd rather not go there now - it's something on my to-do list of future articles.
Anyway, rather than keep hijacking this thread, or open a new one, there is already one open more or less on this topic:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/it...-is-there-something-rather-than.145385/page-2
Good luck diving in there or wherever - I'd rather just lurk again.

 

I've looked into this zero energy universe, and it's a wild goose chase. You get a reference to something which refers to something else ad infinitum, and there is no substantial argument that anybody can elucidate. Like the many-worlds multiverse, it's just fanciful woo, and people love their woo.

I've also read Philip Gibbs talking about conservation of energy in GR, and whilst I disagree with his argument, I agree with the conservation of energy.

 

http://www.crowsmos.pt/mini-black-holes/

 

Isn't this theory (many worlds) was demonstrated back to 90s by Elitzur-Vaidman bomb tester?
Read interview with Lev Vaidman here:
http://joehubris.com/node/78
But the debates still seem to be ongoing,so maybe it is all just speculation/ideas...

 

It wasn't demonstrated, or rather the demonstrations don't allow us to conclude that MWI is "the right one".

 

Did You read the interview in the link I provided? Just asking

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Yep, I truly did. Vaidman says the following:

The interaction-free measurement is extremely interesting but it does not rule out a collapsing wave function (or other interpretations). You can see from his quote that, in his opinion, there is "no plausible explanation for the collapse of the wave function". While I personally agree with him regarding the wave function collapse I do not agree that MWI is the only remaining option.

 

Thank You for taking time reading the interview.I'm personally baffled by this one:


Question: "Relating directly to MWI, are these experiments getting information from a parallel universe?"
Prof. Vaidman: Well, in a sense, yes. Because in a parallel universe there was an explosion. Or in a parallel world--there is only one universe. In the MWI there is one physical universe and many worlds which look like ours. There are many different stories. In one story, there is an explosion. In another, there is no explosion. So, in a sense, with interaction-free measurement, in one world we get information about the bomb which exploded in another one. So, in some sense, it's close to what you are saying.

 

Yep, I read Penrose's proposal of this and it blew my mind. I try to work through the details though and it does confuse me a bit (despite the fact that they claim to have actually built a test like this). For example, you cannot determine that an interference pattern is present from a single photon; you would have to build up confidence that you have "live" or "dud" bomb over a series of photons sent, and you could never be 100% sure. In fact, your confidence level only rises with the increased likelihood that your live bomb has already detonated.

 

From Wikipedia:
"An actual experiment demonstrating the solution was constructed and successfully tested by Anton Zeilinger, Paul Kwiat, Harald Weinfurter, and Thomas Herzog from the University of Innsbruck, Austria and Mark A. Kasevich of Stanford University in 1994"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elitzur–Vaidman_bomb_tester

Ironically, 11 years later,in 2005 ,A.Zeilinger and 3 others wrote this:

"In our view, a common trait of many interpretations is that entities are taken to be ‘real’ beyond necessity. This is most obvious for the case of the ‘many-worlds interpretation’ where the coexistence of parallel worlds is claimed without compelling evidence, but it also holds, for example, for the Bohm interpretation where, again without compelling evidence, each particle is given a well-defined position and momentum at any time."

 

Nice! OK so

This resolves my confusion. I was thinking of interference patterns in terms of the dual-slit experiment, but this arrangement apparently does allow the detection of (the absence of) the quantum superposition of a single photon.

 

I communicated directly to few physicists mentioned in Wiki article, who performed experiments - so far no response. But one other prominent physicist told me that:
"all interpretations of quantum mechanics give the same result. It has nothing special about Many worlds."

 

Yeah that's basically the definition of "interpretation"; if it were testably differentiable from other interpretations then it would be more like an addition to the existing theory.

 

There is another tricky thing on Wikipedip MWI entry:
"Some cosmologists argue that the universe is in a false vacuum state and that consequently the universe should have already experienced quantum tunnelling to a true vacuum state. This has not happened and is cited as evidence in favor of many-worlds. In some worlds, quantum tunnelling to a true vacuum state has happened but most other worlds escape this tunneling and remain viable. This can be thought of as a variation on quantum suicide."