|
|
|
|
Alexander1304
Skeptic Friend
75 Posts |
 Posted - 09/07/2012 : 17:06:39
|
Hello all,
On one forum I found this link:
http://oyhus.no/QM_explaining_many-worlds.html
claiming to demonstrate correctness of Many Wordls interpretation of QM.
On the one hand - seems like well presented arguments.
On the other: it claimes to be discovered in 1990,and it seems to to appear in any peer-reviewed scientific editions.I think: if it REALY is the case - I even didn't come across any apologist of Many Worlds using THIS argument. Any thoughts?
Quantum physicists here?
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/07/2012 : 21:04:08 [Permalink]
|
As with all people who claim to be able to "prove" one interpretation of QM or another, the proof seems to rest upon a conflation of reality and our mathematical models. Actual electrons aren't carrying wave functions around with them and running calculations, and so the "collapse of the wave function" must be something that occurs in our models, and not in real life. Thus, the author's differentiation of scenarios 2 and 3 is unsupportable.
The only way I can see for us to prove which interpretation is correct (and please note, that these are interpretations of what the math might imply about reality, and that's all) is to somehow be able to measure what happens in one of the other Many Worlds. Until we can do that (and nobody has a clue as to how), we won't be able to experimentally differentiate between them. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Alexander1304
Skeptic Friend
75 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2012 : 03:51:20 [Permalink]
|
Thanks,Dave
Indeed,he didn't observe actual behaviour,but just built computer model.I felt something suspicious immediately,but I am very gullible/easy believing person.But even with that - the fact that this experiment is described only on his site(pretty ugly one) and nowhere else raised my suspiction.I think no matter what arguments are presented - it is good to be "on guard" unless they are reviewed and critically analyzed in good peer-reviewed journals...
Besides,should it be the case,his work should be real revolution!Think about that - there is ongoing debate about which version of QA is correct,and suddenly one guy appears and settles the question once and for all.His name should on the air from all Many Worlds advocates!Didn't happen
I emailed to few physicists,so far got response only from well-known physicist Vic Stenger.His reply: "It is impossible to prove interpretation" |
|
|
|
Doctor X
Voluntary Exile
151 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2012 : 04:09:06 [Permalink]
|
Earth-shattering discoveries in science tend not to linger on personal webpages.
--J.D. |
His secrets are not sold cheaply.
It is perilous to waste his time. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2012 : 05:19:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Alexander1304
Indeed,he didn't observe actual behaviour,but just built computer model. |
It wouldn't have mattered. Unless xe could show that xe was making observations in another one of the Many Worlds, xe wouldn't have been able to differentiate the Many Worlds interpretation from the Copenhagen interpretation or any other interpretation. QM interpretation is a philosophical endeavor because there is, currently, no known empirical method which could determine the truth or falsity of any of them.But even with that - the fact that this experiment is described only on his site(pretty ugly one) and nowhere else raised my suspiction.I think no matter what arguments are presented - it is good to be "on guard" unless they are reviewed and critically analyzed in good peer-reviewed journals...
Besides,should it be the case,his work should be real revolution!Think about that - there is ongoing debate about which version of QA is correct,and suddenly one guy appears and settles the question once and for all.His name should on the air from all Many Worlds advocates!Didn't happen |
I remember many years ago reading a letter to the editor of a popular-press science magazine (like Scientific American or something), in which the author (a physicist) stated (paraphrased), "I could design an experiment right now which would prove the Many Worlds interpretation." And I thought, "well, why the hell haven't you done so?!" It's not like the debate hadn't been raging for decades. Resolving it would be a Nobel-Prize-level achievement.| I emailed to few physicists,so far got response only from well-known physicist Vic Stenger.His reply: "It is impossible to prove interpretation" |
Yeah, most working physicists aren't going to have the time or inclination to evaluate the work of crackpots. They get letters constantly from people claiming to have disproven Einstein or to have solved some intractable problem or other, usually based on one or more basic misunderstandings of the physics involved. Scientists have no obligation to educate these folks.
Speaking of basic misunderstandings, the author of the piece you linked to is also just factually wrong from almost the beginning:But fortunately, I knew computer science, which most physicists do not know, with the Church-Turing thesis, which roughly states that anything physical can be simulated by a computer. The Church-Turing Thesis states no such thing, so the idea that xe "knew computer science" is questionable, at best. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Alexander1304
Skeptic Friend
75 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2012 : 05:20:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Doctor X
Earth-shattering discoveries in science tend not to linger on personal webpages.
--J.D.
|
That also was my point.I just wanted to hear some opinions about details of his work.But,yes,whatever details are - the fact that it is only on personal site speaks for itself |
|
|
|
Alexander1304
Skeptic Friend
75 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 09/08/2012 : 21:55:47 [Permalink]
|
Actually, the one intriguing argument xe makes is that there is no hard-and-fast, unambiguous point in most quantum interactions where anyone could say that the "worlds" should "split."
The and/or thing misses the point of the Many Worlds completely. Simultaneous up and down electrons don't matter when there's just an up in one "world" and a down in a brand-new, completely separate "world." And his objection to how many worlds might be created due to an interference experiment falls flat when the hypothesis is that there are an infinite number of "worlds" already, and gazillions more being created every second.
No, it's only the "fuzziness" objection that makes a lot of sense, but it makes a whole lot of sense. If the wave function of a particle varies over time without (or before) collapsing... actually no, this doesn't make sense as an objection, either. Because the MWI only "splits" worlds at the point of collapse, when particles take on one state or another due to an observation (interaction) taking place. It doesn't matter how the probabilities vary, all that matters is the final collapse.
(By the way, I read an interview with an MWI-proponent physicist years ago who said that he tries to be a good person since MWI suggests that if he is good, then every time the "world" "splits," there are more copies of "good him" in the multiverse. Unfortunately, this exemplifies a tremendous ignorance of the concept of infinity, as by the time he said that, there were already an infinite number of "good" hims and an infinite number of "bad" hims doing their respective things in an infinite number of worlds. The idea that he could shift the balance towards more "good" is silly, since some "bad" him would have the same inclination, except in the opposing direction.) |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
energyscholar
New Member
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2012 : 16:17:36 [Permalink]
|
| Good answers, and properly skeptical. I am a Physicist with a strong background in QM. I agree completely with Dave's answer. I'll be posting some thoughts of my own in future. This is my first post. |
"It is Easier to get Forgiveness than Permission" - Rear Admiral Grace Hopper |
|
|
|
Machi4velli
SFN Regular
USA
854 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2012 : 22:32:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by energyscholar
Good answers, and properly skeptical. I am a Physicist with a strong background in QM. I agree completely with Dave's answer. I'll be posting some thoughts of my own in future. This is my first post.
|
Welcome energyscholar! I look forward to reading them. |
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
-Giordano Bruno
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge."
-Stephen Hawking
"Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable"
-Albert Camus |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Does this theory REALLY proves Many World theory o
