When parallel worlds collide, quantum mechanics is born

October 24, 2014 by Howard Wiseman, The Conversation
Many different worlds but a finite number. Flickr/fdecomite, CC BY

Parallel universes – worlds where the dinosaur-killing asteroid never hit, or where Australia was colonised by the Portuguese – are a staple of science fiction. But are they real?

In a radical paper published this week in Physical Review X, we (Dr Michael Hall and I from Griffith University and Dr Dirk-André Deckert from the University of California) propose not only that are real, but that they are not quite parallel – they can "collide".

In our theory, the interaction between nearby worlds is the source of all of the bizarre features of that are revealed by experiment.

Many worlds in existing interpretations

The existence of parallel worlds in quantum mechanics is not a new idea in itself – they are a feature of one of the leading interpretations of quantum mechanics, the 1957 "many worlds interpretation" (MWI).

Now quantum mechanics is the most widely applicable and successful physical theory of all time, so you might wonder why it needs interpreting. There are two reasons.

First, its formalism is extremely remote from everyday experience. It is all based on a "wavefunction" which is like a wave, except that it lives not in ordinary three-dimensional space but in an infinite dimensional space.

Second, the so-called Bell correlations, which can be experimentally measured using distant quantum systems originating from a common source, violate the usual laws of local cause and effect.

This implies that the wavefunction formalism can't be replaced by anything in ordinary space.

There are several competing interpretations of quantum mechanics and each one gives a quite different portrayal of the ultimate nature of reality. But each portrayal is profoundly strange in some way, because of the weirdness of quantum mechanics itself.

Heads or tails? Does the universe divide when faced with different possibilities? Credit: Flickr/Connie Smith, CC BY-ND

The strangeness of the MWI is in postulating that any time any quantum system is observed in a universe, that universe "branches" into a bunch of new universes, one for each possible outcome of the observation.

The MWI has been criticised for the fact that it doesn't define precisely when an observation occurs. Thus it is vague about how many worlds there are at any given time, and each world is somewhat fuzzy in its properties, being described by a wavefunction.

Also, because different outcomes happen with different probabilities, the MWI has to postulate that different worlds have different "weights" – some worlds are more important than others even though they are all supposed to be real.

Finally, once they are created, these different worlds don't interact, so some critics say they are purely hypothetical and serve no purpose.

Many interacting worlds

Our new theory also involves many worlds but there the similarity to the standard MWI ends.

First, we postulate a fixed, although truly gigantic, number of worlds. All of these exist continuously through time – there is no "branching".

Second, our worlds are not "fuzzy" – they have precisely defined properties. In our approach, a world is specified by the exact position and velocity of every particle in that world – there is no Heisenberg uncertainty principle that applies to a single world. Indeed, if there were only one world in our theory, it would evolve exactly according to Newtonian mechanics, not quantum mechanics.

Third, our worlds do interact and that interaction is the source of all quantum effects. Specifically, there is a repulsive force of a very particular kind, between worlds with nearly the same configuration (that is, having nearly the same position for every single particle). This "interstitial" force prevents nearby worlds from ever coming to have the same configuration, and tends to make nearby worlds diverge.

Fourth, each one of our worlds is equally real. Probability only enters the theory because an observer, made up of particles in a certain world, does not know for sure which world she is in, out of the set of all worlds. Hence she will assign equal probability to every member of that set which is compatible with her experiences (which are very coarse-grained, because she is a macroscopic collection of particles). After performing an experiment she can learn more about which world she is in, and thereby rule out a whole host of worlds that she previously thought she might be in.

Putting all of the above together gives our theory – the Many Interacting Worlds approach to quantum mechanics. There is nothing else in the theory. There is no wavefunction, no special role for observation and no fundamental distinction between macroscopic and microscopic.

Nevertheless, we argue, our approach can reproduce all the standard features of quantum mechanics, including twin-slit interference, zero-point energy, barrier tunnelling, unpredictability and the Bell correlations mentioned above.

Implications and applications

We call our theory an "approach" rather than an "interpretation" because for any finite number of worlds our is only an approximation to quantum mechanics. This gives the exciting possibility that it might be possible to test for the existence of these other worlds.

The ability to approximate quantum evolution using a finite number of worlds could also be very useful. Specifically, it could be to model molecular dynamics, which is important for understanding chemical reactions and the action of drugs.

Quantum mechanics has always been a puzzle because of the subtle but deep ways it deviates from Newtonian mechanics. That these deviations could be due to a delicate interaction of essentially Newtonian worlds with "nearby" parallel worlds is an entirely new solution to the quantum puzzle.

For us at least there is nothing inherently implausible in the idea, and for fans of it makes those plots involving communication between parallel worlds not quite so far-fetched after all.

Explore further: Experiment makes Schrodinger's cat choose—things can be real, or certain, but not both

Related Stories

Quasi-particle swap between graphene layers

February 3, 2014

Belgian scientists have used a particle physics theory to describe the behaviour of particle-like entities, referred to as excitons, in two layers of graphene, a one-carbon-atom-thick honeycomb crystal. In a paper published ...

Breaking the limits of classical physics

June 7, 2012

(Phys.org) -- With simple arguments, researchers show that nature is complicated. Researchers from the Niels Bohr Institute have made a simple experiment that demonstrates that nature violates common sense – the world ...

A quantum leap forward?

November 23, 2009

The dusty boxes that line the walls of Jeff Barrett's UC Irvine office mark a high point in his academic career. Their contents: pages and pages of notes, most more than 50 years old, penned by late quantum theorist Hugh ...

Recommended for you

Uncovering the secrets of water and ice as materials

December 7, 2016

Water is vital to life on Earth and its importance simply can't be overstated—it's also deeply rooted within our conscience that there's something extremely special about it. Yet, from a scientific point of view, much remains ...

Blocks of ice demonstrate levitated and directed motion

December 7, 2016

Resembling the Leidenfrost effect seen in rapidly boiling water droplets, a disk of ice becomes highly mobile due to a levitating layer of water between it and the smooth surface on which it rests and melts. The otherwise ...

The case for co-decaying dark matter

December 5, 2016

(Phys.org)—There isn't as much dark matter around today as there used to be. According to one of the most popular models of dark matter, the universe contained much more dark matter early on when the temperature was hotter. ...

78 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

erson
Oct 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
erson
Oct 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
thefurlong
4 / 5 (13) Oct 24, 2014
On the one hand, it's a cool idea, if it is successful in emulating QM. On the other hand, well, it almost sounds delusional. No offense to Dr. Wiseman. I mean, isn't it kind of a humongous leap to postulate that other worlds exist, when we have no evidence for them? In the comments section of the original article, http://theconvers...n-32631, Dr. Wiseman mentions that he hasn't thought about how we might even test this theory. It seems that that should be one of the first things we should think about, though. Otherwise, how are we to know that the edifice we've built isn't made of straw?

Speculation is great, but I think its dangerous to post this as a science article. It isn't science. It's creative curve fitting. We need suggestions for how to possibly break our own theories in experiment, not fantastical models that attempt to uphold them.
KBK
2.6 / 5 (13) Oct 24, 2014
On the one hand, it's a cool idea, if it is successful in emulating QM. On the other hand, well, it almost sounds delusional. No offense to Dr. Wiseman. I mean, isn't it kind of a humongous leap to postulate that other worlds exist, when we have no evidence for them? In the comments section of the original article, http://theconvers...n-32631, Dr. Wiseman mentions that he hasn't thought about how we might even test this theory. It seems that that should be one of the first things we should think about, though. Otherwise, how are we to know that the edifice we've built isn't made of straw?


Skepticism, is fine.

However, you are poorly read. Meaning, you've not got out much. There are thousands of cases of evidence. Thousands, all overlapping.

one must be careful to not use skepticism as a cover for what is really a deepset fear of loss of control ---ie projected pseudoskepticism. Which is far too common.
thefurlong
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 24, 2014
However, you are poorly read. Meaning, you've not got out much. There are thousands of cases of evidence. Thousands, all overlapping.

Such as? Before you answer, here is what I could be persuaded is evidence: intercepted signals from shows or events that never existed or happened. Interference patterns from elements that can't exist in our reality, seeming violations of conservation of energy/momentum that don't have ordinary explanations, and so on...
Here's what I definitely wouldn't consider evidence: anything that might have more ordinary explanations. Dark matter, for example, is not evidence to me, because we know that it is possible for matter not to interact with the electromagnetic field. So please, if you have evidence of parallel universes, I would be happy to hear it. I am being serious.
johnksellers
1 / 5 (8) Oct 24, 2014
Of course there are multiple Universes.

Imagine an interaction decaying to an electron here on Earth, and about the same time a similar event decaying to an electron 100 light years away. Those electron for ALL purposes are in separate Universes since there is absolutely no possibility of the interacting for the next 100 years. You don't think so? Then why would the two particles in two actually distinct Universes be no more isolated than our two particles are?

I maintain that our two particles ARE in separated in two separate Universes with walls consisting of 100 light years between them. After 100 years the particles interact and slightly effect each other and that is called the collapse of a probability function and at that moment their respective Universes merge. But don't worry we won't run out of Universes because every particle has its own Universe, which we call an entanglement, and that entanglement persists until it interacts with any other particle.
thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 24, 2014

Imagine an interaction decaying to an electron here on Earth, and about the same time a similar event decaying to an electron 100 light years away.

This is irrelevant. The electrons are just separated by space. Eventually the physical information from each one will reach the other by propagating over space.
I maintain that our two particles ARE in separated in two separate Universes with walls consisting of 100 light years between them.

This is not a useful hypothesis (though it is quite odd), because it doesn't actually help us expand our knowledge of the universe. What I mean is that it doesn't suggest how we might set up an experiment to predict new physical effects. You're just supplanting one mysterious effect with another, and even worse, you're using fantastical claims to do it. Why would parallel universes be superior to the Copenhagen interpretation?
You should look up quantum decoherence. It is a very good candidate for explaining WF collapse.
tritace
Oct 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Oct 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Oct 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Oct 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Oct 24, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
travisr
5 / 5 (5) Oct 24, 2014
I don't think this could be tested... Quantumness derived this way would indicate that no matter what you're doing there would have to be another you doing the exact same thing just a bit out of position. So what you wind up with is one: a lot of universes, and two just a little "bit". If these other universes are plank lengths out of position with each other, how are you going to measure that?

A plank length has the same difference in magnitude with visible light as the height of a man has to the size of universe. Imagine standing in one place then taking a step over and observing that change on the most distant object we can see in the universe. Not going to happen...
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2014
In AWT the Brownian noise is
@ZEPHIR/tritace
the brownian noise is not what you proclaim because there is NO aether nor is there proof of aw/daw in ANY way...

there IS empirical evidence supporting the debunking of said fallacious beliefs, however, and they are in the following studies... studies which prove, empirically, that aw/daw is a false belief!
http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf
and
http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

I have also noticed that you have never been able to provide like empirical evidence supporting your aw/daw religious belief

please quit posting pseudoscience and trolling a science site
johanfprins
2.1 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2014
I wish people would stop claiming that quantum mechanics is "weird". Physics is by definition NOT absurd or "weird". If it were, we would not be able to apply reductio ad absurdum; which is the most fundamental prinicple on which all physics-logic is based.

When physics seems "weird", it only means that physicists are too stupid too understand what is going on; or that they prefer superstition to reality. The many worlds interpretation is so absurd that only insane persons will advocate it. It falls in the same catergory as claiming that the stars and planets are being pushed around by gods or angels.
thefurlong
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2014
wish people would stop claiming that quantum mechanics is "weird". Physics is by definition NOT absurd or "weird".

I think what they mean is that it is atypical of our macroscopic day-to-day experiences. For example, we are not used to the idea of matter diffracting. They don't mean absurd.

The many worlds interpretation is so absurd that only insane persons will advocate it.

I agree that the many worlds interpretation is a silly hypothesis. It isn't a good idea to use an unsubstantiated claim to explain something, or at least, if you do, you should at least use your unsubstantiated claim to make a testable, non-post-hoc, prediction. Otherwise, you're just using a more complicated version of the "God of the Gaps" argument.
axemaster
5 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2014
Well, uh... I never thought I'd see something more speculative than the original Many-Worlds hypothesis, but now...

Certainly an interesting idea, but postulating a finite number of non-branching INTERACTING universes is kind of illogical when you also require that there be more than one of them. Sure, you can propose that the thing exists, but the nature of it seems to preclude any way of building such a structure in the first place. The only scenario I can think of where this might be possible, is where all the universes are exact mirror images of each other - but that ruins the whole point.

I think this idea bears more work, but isn't likely to go anywhere.
tritace
Oct 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2014
Author talks about testing it, but doesn't say how. And I don't see a way.

And this is not a theory. It's a conjecture at best, like all interpretations of QM. If they come up with a way to test it, I'd like to know how they're going to test it against other interpretations as well as test for these additional alternate worlds.

We need more information on this.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 25, 2014
For everyone's convenience, the arXiv paper: http://arxiv.org/...44v3.pdf

I'll be looking for information on how they propose to test for this. If they do.

After reading it: nothing. I don't see how the author justifies his statement that this might be testable.
russell_russell
4 / 5 (1) Oct 25, 2014
Weird is the set of elements (probabilities) in probability space.
An infinite set of elements makes the definition of an event in probability space moot.
tritace
Oct 25, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (10) Oct 25, 2014
I wish people would stop claiming that quantum mechanics is "weird". Physics is by definition NOT absurd or "weird". If it were, we would not be able to apply reductio ad absurdum; which is the most fundamental prinicple on which all physics-logic is based.


It is not contradictory that a theory be non-intuitive ("weird") and yet allow for predictive knowledge to great accuracy. It is contradictory to artificially force a theory to satisfy your arbitrary intuitive biases and yet demand predictive knowledge.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2014
You should look up quantum decoherence. It is a very good candidate for explaining WF collapse. - thefurlong


@DaSchnieb,... you're not going to take this bait? What's wrong, lol.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2014
,... now thefurlong is a knowledgeable and valued commenter at phys.org, but yet makes this statement, as well as many others at the physicisforum site.

Do you concede you were wrong to attack me in the other thread yet? :) I notice you did not object to the post. Why not? :)
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 25, 2014
Here's a case in point nou. The guys who did the work in the above article are physicists. Philos could NEVER have done work like this. They lack the proper training and experience. This is what hawking meant when he said that philos no longer keep up. They are simply not qualified. And because they continue to profess that they are, they waste money and resources and spread confusion and misunderstanding.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 25, 2014
Here's a case in point nou. The guys who did the work in the above article are physicists. Philos could NEVER have done work like this. They lack the proper training and experience. This is what hawking meant when he said that philos no longer keep up. They are simply not qualified.


If someone is not trained in physics, evidently they're not doing physics. Isn't that a truism? Why are you telling me this?

If one writes on 'philosophy of physics', which even physicists do, they are discussing interpretations of physical theories,... they are not developing those theories nor testing them. Yes.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 25, 2014
They are simply not qualified. And because they continue to profess that they are, they waste money and resources and spread confusion and misunderstanding.


The philosopher, Roberto Torretti, has written some interesting books, here, some of which I've read. Perhaps you would like to read one, and then tell me how he is not qualified.
tritace
Oct 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Oct 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Oct 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Oct 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
johanfprins
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2014
Physics is by definition NOT absurd or "weird". If it were,


It is not contradictory that a theory be non-intuitive ("weird") and yet allow for predictive knowledge to great accuracy. It is contradictory to artificially force a theory to satisfy your arbitrary intuitive biases and yet demand predictive knowledge.


It remains contradictory until you can explain in logical physics-terms why it at first seemed to be contradictory. This does not mean that one must "force a theory to satisfy your arbitrary intuitive biases": It only means that one must modestly accept that although the model seems to work, one does not yet understand why it works. Epicycles worked, but the physics was wrong!

To assume that nature is contradictory, and therefore we must accept that absurdities and paradoxes are reality, means that you are not doing physics but are acting as a priest propagating superstition. No wonder Bohr has had a horseshoe on the back of his office door!
tritace
Oct 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Oct 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
johanfprins
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2014
Epicycles worked, but the physics was wrong
It does sound well - but if only you would be willing to accept, it does apply to your own models too, Johan.
Zephyr! Usually I ignore your posts since they are mostlly hypothetical superstitious impossibilities. I must respond by stating that I am very meticulous in this respect.

They cannot see the problem from their dual perspective ("everything is a wave, not particle", "the Sun encircles the Earth, not vice versa", "the vacuum is a field, not particle environment")
It is arguments like these that prevents me from entering into a discussion with you. You think you know what my models encompass without even being able to understand elementary physics.

Once they derive some schematic model, they adhere on it even outside the scope of its validity. In dense aether model it's quite common..
Hilarious! It is YOU who adhere to your "dense aether model", which cannot even be called a "physics model" at all!
tritace
Oct 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Oct 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
johanfprins
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2014
My strategy therefore is, the most general model must use the simplest and most natural/trivial formal background possible.
No it is not: Your strategy is to hallucinate about farting ducks and then claiming that you are modelling physics.

Because the main rule of emergent universe is, there are no rules - this model is random in its essence.
In contrast, physics is based on the assumption that nature works according to rules and that the purpose of the physicist is to TRY and discover these rules. The mere fact that you can claim that ""the main rule of emergent universe is, there are no rules, proves that you are an insane ignoramus who should refrain from commenting on physics.

I have nothing more to say to you: Since all one gets back is the insane mantra: AWT, AWT, AWT, AWT etc.
tritace
Oct 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Oct 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Oct 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Oct 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Oct 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
saposjoint
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 26, 2014
Please, all: When a new Zephir sock appears, report him!

The fool has had more bans than anyone here, and that's just not enough.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2014
Here's a case in point nou


If someone is not trained in physics, evidently they're not doing physics... Why are you telling me this?
Well you're attempting to do physics by setting limits on what science can know. You aren't qualified to do this.
If one writes on 'philosophy of physics', which even physicists do, they are discussing interpretations of physical theories,... they are not developing those theories nor testing them. Yes
There is no 'philosophy of physics'. More shameless philo attempts to interject themselves where they don't belong.

The physicists above are discussing 'interpretations of physical theories' using experimentation and mathematics. They are trained and qualified to do so. You and your merry band of bards and poets are not. The proof is that you are never involved in what scientists are doing.

The guys above are members of a team. Check them out. Do you see any philos on that team? No. Only physicists and mathematicians.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2014
Here's another such team:

"Our group conducts research on quantum field theory beyond the standard model, string theory, mathematical physics and quantum gravity.

"The main research topic is the string/gauge theory duality or AdS/CFT duality with a focus on exact results and the hidden integrabilities in the system. Additional research themes are scattering amplitudes in gauge theories, the perturbative study of quantum gravity as an effective field theory and supermembranes."

-They are attempting to explore areas beyond quantum mechanics and the standard model, something that your 'limits to human inquiry' theory says is impossible because these things are beyond what QM says we can know. According to you.

Thank god physics is relatively immune to such religious and pseudo-religious attempts to hobble it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2014
Please, all: When a new Zephir sock appears, report him!

The fool has had more bans than anyone here, and that's just not enough.
I wonder how much of his stuff is copy/paste from his 1000s and 1000s of previous posts? When you search a phrase you do get refs to many other forums which I assume he's been kicked out of.

Maybe some some small university or votech school would take pity on him and give him a teaching position in their philosophy of physics and applied poetry dept or something.

If he's preaching to an empty classroom maybe at least he won't be preaching here.
tritace
Oct 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Oct 26, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
KBK
1 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2014
The many worlds interpretation is so absurd that only insane persons will advocate it.


I agree that the many worlds interpretation is a silly hypothesis. It isn't a good idea to use an unsubstantiated claim to explain something, or at least, if you do, you should at least use your unsubstantiated claim to make a testable, non-post-hoc, prediction. Otherwise, you're just using a more complicated version of the "God of the Gaps" argument.


Again, the 10's of thousands of cases of support evidence have probably not been seen or viewed seriously, by above folks of such an 'opinion'.

Linear narrowed mundane scientific interpretation puts up a wall, and blocks the evidence and it's evolved/explicit pattern.

The evolved evidence explicitly illustrates that consciousness as a directed force paints the desired picture and projects into a individual and collective path, thus the link of scientific rule and standard is irretrievably broken.
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2014
If someone is not trained in physics, evidently they're not doing physics... Why are you telling me this? - Noumenon

Well you're attempting to do physics by setting limits on what science can know. You aren't qualified to do this. -Ghost


I accept mainstream physics. I never see you actually discuss science at this site. I do.

If one writes on 'philosophy of physics', which even physicists do, they are discussing interpretations of physical theories,... they are not developing those theories nor testing them.- Noumeno

There is no 'philosophy of physics'.


Tell that to Heisenberg, d'Espagant, Penrose, Schrodinger, Omnes, Bohr, Pauli, J. Jeans, David Albert, Tegmark, E. Mach, Einstein, Henri Poincare, Eugene Wigner, David Bohm, Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, etc, etc... all physicists who have either written on or have had an interest in the subject.

Your self-inflicted ignorance is remarkable especially when Google is at your fingertips.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 26, 2014
Please, all: When a new Zephir sock appears, report him!

The fool has had more bans than anyone here, and that's just not enough.


I wonder how much of his stuff is copy/paste from his 1000s and 1000s of previous posts? When you search a phrase you do get refs to many other forums which I assume he's been kicked out of.


Why ban the cranks? Some of the best threads and opportunities for readers to learn things come from debating the them, ....not from the drive-by troll raters and anti-religion posters.

Cranks like Zephir, and johanfprins, have at least demonstrated that they have forgotten more physics than Ghost and saposjoint have demonstrated they know.

Also, in order for their posts to have effected you in any way, you have to have voluntarily read their posts.

Phys.Org should disable comment ratings, and stop the thought police banning/ratings.
johanfprins
2 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2014
@ Noumenon,

I feel honoured that YOU, who have proved over and over and over again on this forum that you are not just a crackpot but a hopeless superstitious moron, claim that I am a crank!!

If YOU think so, I must be a genius!!
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2014
I accept mainstream physics. I never see you actually discuss science at this site
I do too but I am aware of my limitations and wont try to discuss things I dont know much about, at least not without looking them up first.

You on the other hand think word spaghetti is valid physics, and enjoy demonstrating this misperception here, implying that discussing physics is actually doing physics. Its obviously not..

The list you supplied includes mystics, part-timers, book-sellers, has-beens, and of course religious-motivated tempelton winners.

The remainder are scientists who from time to time may have idly speculated about this and that, or who may have wanted to lend some moral support to the loonies down the hall, and so waxed philosophical. And then they washed their hands and went back to doing science.

Here is an interesting debate with krauss, dennett, and some philo.
https://www.youtu...3AnYyAI8
Noumenon
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 26, 2014
@ Noumenon,

I feel honoured that YOU, who have proved over and over and over again on this forum that you are not just a crackpot but a hopeless superstitious moron, claim that I am a crank!!

If YOU think so, I must be a genius!!


You don't believe that time dilation is real, and some QM results. I'm just using established terminology,... not that I feel bad about insulting the most prolific insulter ever to post at Phys.Org.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (8) Oct 26, 2014
I accept mainstream physics. I never see you actually discuss science at this site
I do too but I am aware of my limitations and wont try to discuss things I dont know much about, at least not without looking them up first.

You on the other hand think word spaghetti is valid physics, [...]

The list you supplied includes mystics, part-timers, book-sellers, has-beens, and of course religious-motivated tempelton winners.


So, your response is to insult those great physicists that I listed, and to manufacturer a reason for them discussing philosophy of physics?

I don't think "word spaghetti is valid physics",... you just made that up.

If you truly knew your own limitations,..... you would admit that what appears to be 'word spaghetti' might just be your lack of understanding and knowledge of the subject,... but yet you routinely attempt argue that philosophy of physics is invalid without having any interest to study it.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (6) Oct 26, 2014
...and enjoy demonstrating this [misconception] here, implying that discussing physics is actually doing physics. Its obviously not.


This is a comment section.

Being anti-this and anti-that is to revel in negative-knowledge, which is about nothing at all.

If you actually understood what my epistemological statements implied, you would agree with me, because they are about delimiting science to non-metaphysics and to not draw conclusions about reality that are not empirically supported,... for example, like many-worlds, or like johanfprins that the quantum wavefunction has a center of gravity.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Oct 26, 2014
I do understand you. Let's see... 'Epistemological... delimiting... metaphysics...' -You're a fashion hog.
routinely argue that philosophy of physics is invalid
-Hawking said it is dead. That's good enough for me. And when he said physics he MEANT PHYSICS. What, you think he was talking about ethicists or aestheticians?? What other philos are trying to do physics (and failing) besides physics philos?

Physics philos are the ones whose theories no longer have anything to do with science either in theory or in practice.

And your 'measurement tricks' comment in the other thread - these 'tricks' are providing info which your theory says is impossible to get. Philos set limits and scientists surpass them. You should have learned your lesson by now. The teams I mentioned above are not intimidated by your so-called 'limits'.
thefurlong
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 26, 2014
@KBK
Again, the 10's of thousands of cases of support evidence have probably not been seen or viewed seriously, by above folks of such an 'opinion'.

Like what? I asked you for evidence, and you never provided it. See above, please.
Linear narrowed mundane scientific interpretation puts up a wall, and blocks the evidence and it's evolved/explicit pattern.

Why do you think scientific explanation is mundane? I think it's actually quite incredible. Who would have guessed, for example, that space-time can be curved?
The evolved evidence explicitly illustrates that consciousness as a directed force paints the desired picture and projects into a individual and collective path, thus the link of scientific rule and standard is irretrievably broken.

Evolved evidence? What do you mean?
No, there is no evidence that consciousness does this.
thefurlong
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 26, 2014
,... now thefurlong is a knowledgeable and valued commenter at phys.org, but yet makes this statement, as well as many others at the physicisforum site.

Do you concede you were wrong to attack me in the other thread yet? :) I notice you did not object to the post. Why not? :)

What's wrong with my statement about quantum decoherence?
Egleton
3 / 5 (2) Oct 27, 2014
our approach can reproduce all the standard features of quantum mechanics, including twin-slit interference, zero-point energy, barrier tunnelling, unpredictability and the Bell correlations mentioned above.

Quantum erasure?
johanfprins
Oct 27, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
johanfprins
Oct 27, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2014
,... now thefurlong is a knowledgeable and valued commenter at phys.org, but yet makes this statement, as well as many others at the physicisforum site.

Do you concede you were wrong to attack me in the other thread yet? :) I notice you did not object to the post. Why not? :)

What's wrong with my statement about quantum decoherence?


Actually not a thing. It was meant as a jab at DaSchnieb, who in
this thread attacked me, even though agreeing, for saying that 'decoherence does not solve the measurement problem',... part of which involves whether the wavefunction actually collapses or not,.... it gives the appearance of wavefunction collapse and 'explains' loss of quantum behavior. Some people get this confused.

Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (3) Oct 27, 2014
@ Noumenon

or like johanfprins that the quantum wavefunction has a center of gravity.

You see what a nitwit you are! I have NEVER claimed anywhere that the wave-"function" has a centre-of-gravity.


Perhaps I misunderstood you, but in this thread you stated,....

"any stationary Schroedinger-wave of an electron has distributed mass-energy and therefore a centre-of-mass" - johanfprins


.... and also,....

The wavefunction is NOT a physical entity. - Noumenon

Oh yes it is.... - Noumenon


Noumenon
2 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2014
but yet you routinely attempt argue that philosophy of physics is invalid without having any interest to study it


-Hawking said it is dead. That's good enough for me.


That's fine, but is not the opinion of many other physicists of whom I have listed who write on the subject. And yes, qm interpretations IS philosophy of physics.

And when he said physics he MEANT PHYSICS. What, you think he was talking about ethicists or aestheticians??

He said when philosophers speak of physics, not when physicists speak of philosophy of physics. And not everyone even agrees with that. All the preeminent scientists I listed above are Physicists.

And your 'measurement tricks' comment in the other thread - these 'tricks' are providing info which your theory says is impossible to get


Those methods have no baring on the uncertainty relations being valid or not. As I said, it is unavoidably a part of the mathematical structure of qm.
johanfprins
Oct 27, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (4) Oct 27, 2014
And yes, qm interpretations IS philosophy of physics
The interpretations generated by phys philos can certainly be considered philosophy of physics. The pretty paintings of expressionists can certainly be considered similar such explorations of reality.

Do physicists consult expressionists before devising experiments to discern reality? Of course not. Do either of the research teams I mentioned consult phys philos before doing their work? Of course not. They know better.

But to be fair, they probably have monet or goya paintings on their walls and maybe Spinoza or Heidegger books on their coffee tables. For ambience you know?
erson
Oct 27, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
EnergySolutions
not rated yet Oct 27, 2014
"different outcomes happen with different probabilities, the MWI has to postulate that different worlds have different "weights" – some worlds are more important than others even though they are all supposed to be real."
I think the KEY to understanding --- is treating this PROBABILITY as a DIMENSION ?
johanfprins
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 27, 2014
Oh my God! Zephyr is back with his hallucinations and farting ducks; now calling himself "erson"! LOL
qitana
not rated yet Oct 27, 2014
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (2) Oct 28, 2014
thefurlong claimed 1.
Such as? Before you answer, here is what I could be persuaded is evidence: intercepted signals from shows or events that never existed or happened.
So those lucid dreams brought on by changing diet since I graduated in Food Science did come from "another TV" ? details please ?

thefurlong 2.
Interference patterns from elements that can't exist in our reality,
Nucleonics is 1 of my hobbies Details please ?

thefurlong 3.
.. seeming violations of conservation of energy/momentum that don't have ordinary explanations, and so on...
seeming = operative phrase ;-) Details please ?

thefurlong
Here's what I definitely wouldn't consider evidence: anything that might have more ordinary explanations.
Eg schizophrenia perhaps ?

thefurlong seriously pls link me 2 your best of items 1 t- 3

Please note: From early uni days ... "Details Matter because the truth can often hide in the details", couple that with psychology (& perception) please :-)
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2014
So those lucid dreams brought on by changing diet since I graduated in Food Science did come from "another TV" ? details please ?

Can your mind intercept tv signals from shows here? I don't think so. Show me a tv set that intercepts broadcasts that have been shown not to exist, and I might start changing my mind.
Nucleonics is 1 of my hobbies Details please ?

You don't need further details. Show me spectral lines that are not allowed by the standard model, that don't seem to emanate from any space-time position in the universe.
thefurlong
5 / 5 (2) Oct 29, 2014
seeming = operative phrase ;-) Details please ?

I used that word because I assume that energy conservation (as defined in GR) cannot be violated. Hence, if it appears to be violated, then I would assume it is going to/coming from elsewhere.
For example, take the divergence of the non-gravitational stress energy tensor. If it is not 0, then energy/momentum is leaking somewhere.
Or, if you don't want to deal with the macroscopic, then show me a case where energy/momentum measured in the laboratory isn't conserved.
russell_russell
not rated yet Nov 01, 2014
Or, if you don't want to deal with the macroscopic, then show me a case where energy/momentum measured in the laboratory isn't conserved. - tf


The Quantum Zeno Effect is non-unitary in the laboratory.
Does that count?
http://arxiv.org/...45v1.pdf

Da Schneib
not rated yet Nov 05, 2014
No, the Quantum Zeno Effect only affects decay time. The conservation laws are respected in all such interactions.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.