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

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by stateofmind, Feb 12, 2015.

  1. river

    Messages:
    17,307
    To your second statement

    Because of the speed of electron

    If I remember rightly , the speed of the electron is the speed of light or very close

    Now consider the circumference of the electron , going at the speed or near speed of light
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    Captain Kremmen: From your Post #6
    Many Worlds is silly. It requires a new universe for every possible result of a quantum process.
    This requires more than multi-trillions of new universes per second, with each spawning multi-trillions in the next second.

    It is the easiest interpretation to describe & understand. I am convinced that its advocates & believers prefer an understandable interpretation which is silly to any less understandable interpretation. I do not think the more intelligent ones have considered its implications.

    I favor the Copenhagen POV, which is a bit different than your description. Also from your Post #6
    I think that Bohr said something like the following.
    BTW: Different from, different than, or some other phrase?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,740
    I believe is is a dogmatically uniformed assertion.

    For, a measurement of a quantum system is simply to select one of the available eigenvalues of an Hermitian operator acting on the state vector that describes the system. The set of all available such eigenvalues is called the "spectrum" of the operator, and it is often (usually?) continuous i.e. of uncountable cardinality in the quantum world

    Anyway, having "selected", by measurement, one such eigenvalue, what happens to all the other available eigenvalues? Since a subsequent determination of the same operator acting on the same state vector usually yields a different eigenvalue (btw the average of multiple such measurements is called the "expectation value" for the operator) - I repeat this being the case, does it make more sense to say that for any single determination of an eigenvalue, all the others are suddenly unavailable?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Is is uniformed?

    Here's an informed assertion: many-worlds is quantum quackery peddled by woo-mongers.
     
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    And what about the silly woo mongers who peddle such quackery as the speed of light is not constant...or that light just stops at the EH of a BH...or the buffoons that preach the anti Einstein crap that FoR are not all as valid as each other.....or the even bigger buffoons that come to a science forum, claiming to rewrite 20th/21st century cosmology and that they have a TOE?
    Quantum quackery as you put it, fails into insignificance when compared to shit like that.
     
  9. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    The interpretations of quantum mechanics is pedagogical in nature and can be summed up by this comment. "Interpretations of quantum mechanics attempt to provide a conceptual framework for understanding the many aspects of quantum mechanics which are not easily handled by the conceptual framework used for classical physics:"
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Challenges_for_interpretations
    To qualify they have to recover QM in all it's glory. If they don't then they're not an interpretation. They're all contrived since they try to do what I put in parenthesis. If you enjoy the physics the different interpretations are fun to go over.
     
  10. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    And yet it seems to be the most common interpretation from people working in quantum physics and related fields at Oxford.

    So on the one hand, we have Farsight--who can't do the math, hasn't studied the physics in detail, and who is peddling his own personal book about physics --and on the other hand we have the people who study at one of the most prestigious institutions of higher learning in the history of the world. One should make one's own decision about who the "woo-monger" is.

    Personally, I don't like the many-worlds interpretation. But that doesn't mean I like to see the people who study it slandered by Farsight.
     
    Kristoffer likes this.
  11. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    I think (and I don't know that it's much of an insight) that we have to abandon to some extent (maybe altogether) any notion of particles with definite trajectories.

    I mean, quantum measurements are about interactions (between particles which aren't exactly 'particulate'), on the other hand, solid objects do have definite trajectories. We sorta kinda have to adjust what we mean by a path, and what motion is exactly for quantum objects.

    I conjecture that nobody knows exactly, but some (perhaps more educated or experienced) will agree that we have theories which are damn useful. Maybe it isn't about how weird or strange it all seems, rather it's about what's useful.

    Just sayin'
     
  12. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,740
    Once again, a bald assertion with no recourse to reasoned argument. Which is the same reason I bit Dinosaur's head off.

    For the record, I am agnostic as to the different interpretations of QM - incidentally, I think PhysBang defined a QM "interpretation" perfectly - I say I am agnostic because I do not know enough about QM.

    I suggest that the judgement as to what is a "silly" or a "quantum quackery" interpretation be left to those who DO have a deep understanding of the subject.

    Do we include you, Farsight, in this category? So far, the evidence has not been provided - which is not to say, of course, that it doesn't exist.

    Well?
     
  13. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    I am so pleased. However, I don't think it was me that gave a definition. I'd like the props to go to the right person.
     
  14. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,740
    Ah right, it was Wikipedia via Brucep. Sorry Wik
     
  15. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Yes you do. You know that my physics knowledge is extensive, you have ample evidence of that. Just as you have ample evidence for the wave nature of the electron. However you fool yourself into rejecting that evidence. And yet you don't reject abject pseudoscience for which there's no evidence whatsoever, and never will be. And for the cherry on top, you say the judgement as to what is quantum quackery should be left to those "who have a deep understanding of the subject". Get this, Quarkhead: the people who peddle the many-worlds multiverse say that they have the deep understanding and nobody else does. But they don't. They will however pull stunts wherein they portray the E=hf photon as a point-particle, then express amazement that it can be in two places at once. Then it's sleight-of-hand and sophistry, and then with a flourish, they pull the multiverse out of the hat and claim they have proven its existence. Only they haven't. Au contraire, they have deceived you, they have lied to you. Because they are charlatans, snake-oil salesmen, and peddlers of fairy-tale nonsense who have painted themselves into a corner for decades, and will not admit that they are wrong.
     
  16. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Actually, we have ample knowledge that your physics knowledge is extremely limited. You have admitted to being unable to do the mathematics of the physics you discuss; you say vague claims about your own personal interpretations at best and contradictory at worst; and you refuse to answer difficult questions about physics claims (e.g., you are now hiding from two threads on this forum in which people asked you difficult questions).

    Do you have evidence for this claim? I have read a great deal of articles by proponents of multiverse theories of many different types and I have never come across a claim like this.

    Indeed, the only person I can recall making a claim like this on this topic is you, Farsight. You have claimed that you have a deep understanding that nobody else does.
    Do you have an example of this? I cannot recall any such thing in the literature.

    You seem to be making a lot of claims without providing evidence.
     
  17. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,740
    Actually - and you will, I am sure, forgive my skepticism - I have seen no such evidence
    Sure, just as I have ample evidence for the point-like nature of the electron. As we all do
    Interpretations are not the science - as the Wiki via Brucep says
    I rank this as one of your more outrageously arrogant claims EVER
    In fact Hugh Everett was awarded the PhD from a highly prestigious US university, and his thesis included just this interpretation. Where did you gain your PhD in quantum physics? Don't be modest, we are among friends
     
  18. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    On the contrary, it is one of the most troubling statements ever.

    As I pointed out, Farsight is projecting on these people his own behavior. He seems to be reasoning that they come to their conclusions in the same half-assed way that he comes to his conclusions.
     
  19. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    From your Post #34
    If the above is valid (I am not doubting it), his Phd might have been in spite of his Many Worlds view. As I Posted in this & other Threads.
    I wonder how many advocates & believers in Many Worlds are aware of this aspect of Many Worlds. I doubt that any consider this implication.
     
  20. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    I wonder why you think this matters.
     
  21. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,740
    This is getting silly. Look, the term "universe" in the so-called Many Worlds Interpretation of QM is not meant to refer to a space occupied by stars, planets etc. It refers to the possibility that, say, if I am drinking tea at a particular point in spacetime - call it "now" - rather than coffee, then the 2 "me's" are in different universes - each is possible and weighted by my preference
     
  22. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    QuarkHead: From your Post #38
    To me, the semantics of the above imply that the two versions of me are in different universes. That surely implies a different universe for each of my possible activities (milk or water, whatever) & for each of the possible activities of other persons.

    As indicated in my Post that POV implies the existence of a lot of universes. It further implies each spawns new universes based on activities with more than one possible outcome.

    BTW: Since Many Worlds is an interpretation of Quantum Theory, talking about possibilities like drinking tea or coffee are not pertinent. One must consider it as referring to possible results of Quantum Processes.

    I stand by my POV from Posts 22 & 36: Many words implies a new universe for each possible result of a Quantum Process. Paraphrase
     
  23. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,364
    Why can't I unlike this?
     

Share This Page