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

Jesus was not a physicists, but was consciousness and brain firmware specialist. He attempted to recalibrate the human mind and its perception. Calibration of the mind also makes the most important tool of science, work properly. He was also a technician. A divergent genius will not find reality, but will only create questions. While even a convergent moron will find the center which connects all the roads. He may not be able to travel the roads of the genius, but will find the center that eludes him.

A divergent mind is not calibrated for science. This is calibrated for music and hit songs, that will come and go, creating stars that shine brightly, and then fade away. Each new study of coffee diverges, but it create a hit song, along with some celebrity, that comes and then fades away.

Jesus lived in a time of almost pure emotional thinking, with few if any able to use thought first as their base perception. This was due to fears, appetites and desires that triggered the subroutine. His solution was the emotion of love. Love is the emotion that can induce convergence, more than any other emotion; love unites.

Desire will also lead to convergence, but it tends to set limits to itself; object of desire. But loves have wider boundaries that can transcend sex or differences. The love philosophy created the paradox of using a convergent emotion, to drive a divergent sub-routine of the brain. This paradox inhibited the sub-routine, because the convergence of love became the sand in the gears of divergence. There had the effect of canceling the subroutine. Jesus said, I will leave behind a comforter, the sprits of truth. Truth is convergence that applies to all. It symbolically implied the thought first became triggered leading to convergence and truth; spirit of truth. Opening the gates of heaven was to remove the residual fear of death than is common to atheism that keeps emotion first engaged; can cancel love.

Atheism is about divergence, or individual ego It is not about a collective center, like God. This came about based on using the emotions of fear and hate for religion, against religion and faith. This cancelled out love your enemy, added fear of death. These divergent emotions became sand in the gears of the thought first subroutine.

Science has no place in an emotional debate but allowed itself to be pulled in, anyway because this is consistent with divergent thought. The atheists philosophy, spawn by the original emotions of hate; atheism cannot live and let live, added sand to the gears of even the thought first subroutines of those who could control emotion; Einstein, This helped to jump start emotion first even in science. The Church diverges, empires diverge, countries diverge, religions diverge, melting pots diverge, the universe becomes random, then we have science divergence, and then relative morality. It went backwards to emotion first and divergence.

Here we are today. I am throwing sand in the gears of emotion first by allowing the mind to see how its works. An optimized human can use both via a sand switch.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sadly I think there are some similarities between "quantum mysticism" and religion. People peddle nonsense which doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and for which there is no evidence whatsoever. And when you challenge them on the logic or the evidence, they get all outraged and apoplectic, and they huff and puff and call you names and try to persuade people not to listen to the heretic. IMHO the thing to appreciate is that people don't believe in heaven and hell and sweet baby Jesus because they're religious. They believe in all that rubbish because they just love their mysticism and mystery and woo, and they are convictional. They believe in time travel and the multiverse and quantum mysticism for the same reason.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I thought he was a carpenter.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well, I have to say this for SciForums - at least it attracts a representative cross-section of scientifically illiterate cranks

 

I don't see how weak measurements prove or even imply the physical existence of the wavefunction. The quote's use of language certainly exhibits a presumption (i.e. to "learn" about the wavefunction without "destroying" it endows it with an actual existence). If I catch a glimpse of red on the top card in a deck does that change the superposition of its possible states in some physical manner?

You've already said you don't think the wavefunction is physical anyway so I'm not sure what your point is. I frankly don't know of a popular alternative; it's either the wavefunction is (or has) a physical manifestation or we must rely on some variant of having an emitter "knowing" how it is absorbed in the future. You apparently seem to believe that time isn't a dimension through which we move, and that resolves things, but I can't understand how it would.

One of the points from Q-reeus' link was fantastic (paraphrased): in a time-symmetric world, the idea that a photon can be emitted without an absorber should be just as absurd as the idea of a photon being absorbed without an emitter.

 

James, What are you implying, quote below, about Farsight when you say his bluffing again?
Deliberate deceiving, deliberate lying or something else? By ''again'', do you mean he is a regular deceiver on this site?

 

That thread actually raises a really good point, one I wouldn't have thought of on my own. If the universe is expanding into oblivion - as many cosmologists believe it is - many emitted photons will in fact never be absorbed. Instead, they will just slowly be redshifted out of existence. Since the transactional interpretation frames everything in terms of paired emitters and absorbers, this would seem to be a significant gap in the framework. I hope further work can smooth out this problem, since the transactional interpretation still strikes me as a sight better than many worlds. In any event, thanks for the link.

I didn't mean to imply you instigated the derail, just that it was a derail.

For someone who loves Maxwell as much as you do, I'm kind of surprised this is your response. If you solve Maxwell's equations for radiation, you get both advanced and retarded waves. That's a fact. The typical approach is to then throw away the advanced solutions based on causality arguments, but at least according to the paper I linked, you can make all the same predictions by keeping both solutions and framing EM interactions as fundamentally two-way in time. Is it counterintuitive? Sure. But according to Bell's theorem, any working interpretation of quantum mechanics has to be counterintuitive. Until I read about transactionalism, I thought there were only two options:
1. Discard the idea of an objective, universal reality in favor of one that's profoundly observer-centric. or
2. Assume that instantaneous signaling can and does happen all the time, but the rules governing it are such that no information can actually be transmitted.
I really don't like either of those options, so for me, allowing a restricted form of backward causality is comparatively palatable. Along those lines, what interpretation of quantum wavefunctions do you prefer? Because you don't strike me as a shut-up-and-calculate kind of guy.

Steingberg and Lundeen have done some fantastic work, and the importance of weak measurement to foundational quantum mechanics is hard to overstate. I'll try to provide an overview.

When QM was first formulated, it basically included an axiom that observers can collapse the wavefunction by measuring it. This immediately raised the question: what counts as an observer? Does it have to be a human scientist, or would an unmanned microscope suffice? And who are we to say that physics works differently when we're watching it? Schrodinger's cat was originally described to highlight the absurdity of this axiom. Since then, a number of experiments have refined our understanding of measurement-based collapse, or "measurement backaction" as it's now often called. (For more detail, I'd suggest looking at the aforementioned weak measurement stuff as well as the "delayed choice" experiments proposed by John Wheeler and implemented by Marlan Scully.) In essence, physicists realized that in order to measure a quantum state, they had to make it interact with a detector of some sort, like the output photodetector on an interferometer or the screen on a Stern-Gerlach device. As a result, the state necessarily becomes entangled with the detector, which is an extremely complicated and microscopically noisy object. Whether or not anyone actually looks at the detector, the state's phases are now evolving in rapid and uncontrolled ways depending on the detector's internal dynamics, making any sort of coherent quantum interference impossible. The state has "collapsed", but the critical feature is now decoherence rather than measurement. Measurement is just a special case where we take note of the system's state after decohering it.

Now entanglement, unlike "measurement" in the original sense, is not a binary quantity. Two systems can be entangled to various degrees, and the question naturally arose: what if we just entangle our quantum system with the detector a little bit? This, in a sentence, is weak measurement. A little bit of entanglement leads to a little bit of decoherence, which in turn leads to a little bit of wavefunction collapse. In the two-slit experiment, you could think of a strong measurement as completely destroying the interference pattern, while a weak one might just smear it out somewhat. With weak measurement, we can describe the dynamics of a system we're learning about a little bit at a time, or one being continuously measured (as when the measurement is a time-varying voltage through an output line). We can even model noise and imperfect measurement, by saying that some portion of the decohering information escapes without being recorded. All of this comes together in the beautiful, elegant theory that is the density matrix formulation. The observer effect has been reduced to a philosophical problem, and all quantum mechanics can now be performed without invoking the observer at all.

That said, I recognize your quote from Jeff Lundeen, and I share my adviser's opinion that he overstates his case for the reality of the wavefunction. What he's really doing is quantum state tomography - collecting the measurement statistics of many different copies of a system to reconstruct the original distribution from which the statistics were drawn. Tomography itself is an extremely valuable tool, and this is a good illustration of the power of weak measurements. But just as QM itself can be equally described by non-local or non-realistic interpretations, so too can tomography be interpreted as either measuring a real wavefunction or reconstructing a statistical distribution conditioned on hidden variables. In the transactional interpretation, the future state of the particles with which the system will eventually interact plays the role of those hidden variables.

Even as intended this quote was pretty off-the-wall, but including typos it gets downright Dada-ist.

 

If you've only just been introduced to the Transactional Interpretation and this is your takeaway from it then I'm pretty impressed because it's dead on.

The notion of causality is just a familiar construct; any time we try to formalize it we realize it is necessarily time symmetric.

 

So, wait, some brand-new member named "sweetpea" is trying to nail Farsight in their FIRST POST after all this discussion of sock puppets being unethical and ban-worthy?

Give it a rest, yall. I don't agree with a lot of what Farsight believes but some of you have allowed your frustration over his "delusions of grandeur" to perhaps lose some intellectual integrity yourself.

 

Well, for what it's worth, sweetpea doesn't share an IP address with anyone... though with the ease of using a proxy, that doesn't mean much at all.

 

...yeah...some strange "going-ons", eh RJB?

..."lose" implies possession of said "intellectual integrity" in the first place!

BTW: ... time-symmetry does not necessarily entail, nor demand, retro-causality, ...does it?

 

It's not an easy answer to provide nor accept. On the micro physical level it should be obvious that causality is time-symmetric, correct? Newton's Cradle looks the same if you record it and run the video backwards, agreed? Now, if you break a rack of billiard balls and run the video backwards things would look a bit coincidental (because the "table entropy" would decrease as the balls came to rest in a triangular formation) but otherwise perfectly physical and explainable.

Next extend that idea to watching a video of the molecules on the walls of a kitchen vibrating in a particular synchronized way as to direct sound and heat towards a fried egg in a pan such that the protein bonds in the egg are restructured to uncook it. Nothing unphysical about that in any way, just unbelievably impractical and unlikely.

Take the idea even further and you can make the baseball move from the catcher's mitt to the pitcher's hand which sends electrical signals through his muscles to his brain producing a particular pattern in his neurons which make him "believe" at that moment that he's "about to" through a curve ball.

The above examples are simply increasing in complexity, and therefore unlikelihood, but whatever level of complexity we choose to declare as "impossible due to retrocausality" is arbitrary.

So my answer is yes, time-symmetry demands retrocausality to the same extent that it demands causality. Causality appears to move one direction in time because the universe has an entropy gradient. Causality itself has no preferred time direction, and shouldn't if we want to use the word in any scientific sense. If we were in thermodynamic equilibrium then there would be no information to discern the "past" from the "future" (ignoring the fact that we would not exist to observe anything because we are ordered information ourselves).

 

...but the 'video' cannot be recorded 'backwards' to begin with.
...any rewinding or "running backwards" of said 'video' of any event can only be done after the event has been recorded on the 'video', in the first place...agreed?

 

Watching a recorded video is a process involving information similar in complexity to throwing a curve ball. The fact that information is involved necessitates the entropy gradient. Forget the video, just use your imagination. Surely you agree that the description of the emission of a photon from a molecule in one time direction is precisely as physically feasible and valid as describing the absorption of that same photon by that same molecule in the opposite time direction?

 

Is she/he trying to nail Farsight?
All I see is a few questions which can be Interpreted as either supporting the said obvious concept about Farsight, or a sarcastic approach that can be taken either way. Nailing Farsight, or nailing the poster?
But one thing I do agree with....The number of first time posters of late, that have come into this forum, all spewing anti scientific concepts of one sort or another, or some religious slant that they claim invalidates some scientific concept, is quite notable.
The obvious agenda then is soon realised as they post further.

His obvious delusions of grandeur, inflated ego, and arrogance, coupled with his obvious wrong physical conclusions, have people annoyed.
Why shouldn't they rebuke something as silly as saying, "the speed of light is not constant" without some sort of proviso or explanation.
His bannings from other forums also add weight to his reputation, and claiming to have a TOE, is the icing on the cake so to speak.

 

..."imagination",..."feasible"?..."valid"?

...if you spend the next twenty years watching videos of events 'going backwards',...it will still be the year 2035 when you have finished that twenty year endeavor.

...just because the "Laws of Nature" do not forbid the reverse flow of time - does not mean that the reversal of time flow is ever expressed in reality,...correct?

 

Your mindset is predisposed to believing in a direction of time, or that a flow exists at all; these concepts are not scientific though. Physics can only speak of events, and the flow you experience is a string of events with a set of memories that allow you to conclude something in one temporal direction that you cannot in the other temporal direction. Neither past, present nor future holds any special physical status over the others. They just are.

You asked the question and I answered it with the warning that it would be hard to accept.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2013/10/18/is-time-real/

 

...what I believe is irrelevant...reality is reality.

...one was...one is...one will...

What you actually said was : " It's not an easy answer to provide nor accept."

I have no choice but to 'accept' that it must not have been an easy answer to 'provide'...

 

I see someone has raised the "laws of nature" or the laws of physics and GR as I prefer.
I find this quantum weirdness stuff interesting, including this "many worlds theory" or Feynman's "Sum over Histories" theory that I have read a bit about.

When saying that anything allowed by the laws of physics and GR is not forbidden, I am generally inferring cosmology scenarios.
Which entails GR, gravity, time and space.
And if one looks into this area further we see that with regards to time, time travel, or time symmetry, GR does not only allow such aspects, but it tells us how it can be achieved and is inscribed in the equations.
Remember Einstein himself, who once doubted his own equations of GR, had to admit to the greatest blunder he ever made. He was stuck in time [no pun intended] and could not see past a static Universe, while his equations told him it was dynamic.
The same of course applies to the aspect of time [and space] We once took both to be absolute entities, but we now positively know that they are flexible.
Just have a geek at Alpha Centauri tonight!
Taking that into consideration its possible that what GR says about time, and time travel may also likely be just another concept we have yet to realize as it is still beyond our level of technological ability.