Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker
crank wrote:I hope this is a quick one. I've read/heard many many descriptions of the Everett interpretation of QM, virtually every one was that every time a quantum system 'decides' which of two paths is taken, the universe branches into separate universes one for each possible path taken, etc etc. I just watched a talk [see below, t=1h12m39s] where a speaker gave a different slant, the second time I've heard this but can't remember where first, that all the different branches of the universal wave function exist simultaneously in these parallel universes.
Is this a difference with no difference? Is it in how you look at time? Or is it a very different way to see it? The common description seems to create universes as you progress through time, the second posits they all exist from the beginning [whatever that means]. The second version somehow seems far more intuitive/believable, somewhat more comprehensible, at least for me, though I couldn't articulate why. Thanks to anyone who takes the time to try to enlighten me.
...
crank wrote:The Everett interpretation is gaining support amongst physicists. There is at least 1 video with Max Tegmark discussing his informal polling he's been doing, I'm pretty sure it's one of these two. ...]
surreptitious57 wrote:
The Quantum Cards thought experiment. At 10 00 am you balance a card on its edge bet S100 on it falling face up and you
close your eyes. Ten seconds later the card has fallen down both to the left and the right in quantum superposition so the wavefunction describes the card being in two places at once. Another ten seconds later you have opened your eyes and
looked at the card so the wavefunction describes your being happy and sad at once. Although there is still only one wave function and one quantum reality ( within which particles making up both the card and you are in two places at once )
Everett realized that this is in practice as if our Universe has split into two parallel universes with a definitive outcome
in each of them
Page 188 / Our Mathematical Universe My Quest For The Ultimate Nature Of Reality / Max Tegmark
crank wrote:And you have Max Tegmark using the 'popping into existence' description here, but I don't think that is correct, the right way to think of it is all the possible branched universes exist. There's already going to be some vast number 'behind' you, it's more accessible to my mind to have them all existing, the branching idea is too confusing if you really think about it. Just try to imagine how many branchings occur in a second universe-wide.
I also kind of laugh when you hear people pondering the 'copies' of themselves, even Tegmark's musings seem to be ridiculously lacking in imagination. It's an incredibly small subset of the yous that will be all that similar to you, and you won't exist in but a tiny tiny tiny insignificant fraction of the universes. And yet, there will be an astounding array of yous that you could never figure out what the difference was.
crank wrote:OK, I think I've seen enough, the video below has Mex Tegmark saying, @5:13 "According to Everett, the beauty is there is nothing that triggers it, because there really is no split, there's only one universe where all these things are happening..."
Tegmark mentions 'quantum suicide' as a way to prove Everett is right, we just need to find someone to do the experiment. That is something you really should watch, v v interesting.
DavidMcC wrote:crank wrote:And you have Max Tegmark using the 'popping into existence' description here, but I don't think that is correct, the right way to think of it is all the possible branched universes exist. There's already going to be some vast number 'behind' you, it's more accessible to my mind to have them all existing, the branching idea is too confusing if you really think about it. Just try to imagine how many branchings occur in a second universe-wide.
I also kind of laugh when you hear people pondering the 'copies' of themselves, even Tegmark's musings seem to be ridiculously lacking in imagination. It's an incredibly small subset of the yous that will be all that similar to you, and you won't exist in but a tiny tiny tiny insignificant fraction of the universes. And yet, there will be an astounding array of yous that you could never figure out what the difference was.
Crank, I disagree. I think only one of the branches actually happens - the one we are in. All the others are just failed possibilities, that don't really exist. They are the product of a probability distribution for what could have happened, but didn't, as it turned out. Years ago, there was a sci-fi series based on them being real, but I've forgotten what it was called. It was basically a vehicle for speculating on what the world might have been like if something turned out differently from actual history - eg, if the Nazis had won WWII. The heroes of the program had invented a gizmo that enabled them to travel between these alternate versions of history.
DavidMcC wrote:crank wrote:OK, I think I've seen enough, the video below has Mex Tegmark saying, @5:13 "According to Everett, the beauty is there is nothing that triggers it, because there really is no split, there's only one universe where all these things are happening..."
Tegmark mentions 'quantum suicide' as a way to prove Everett is right, we just need to find someone to do the experiment. That is something you really should watch, v v interesting.
That could be Tegmark putting words into Everrett's mouth to save his credibility.
crank wrote:DavidMcC wrote:crank wrote:OK, I think I've seen enough, the video below has Mex Tegmark saying, @5:13 "According to Everett, the beauty is there is nothing that triggers it, because there really is no split, there's only one universe where all these things are happening..."
Tegmark mentions 'quantum suicide' as a way to prove Everett is right, we just need to find someone to do the experiment. That is something you really should watch, v v interesting.
That could be Tegmark putting words into Everrett's mouth to save his credibility.
What the fuck are you talking about? How is Tegmark's credibility even an issue? He's not some schlub trying to do science vblogs, Tegmark is a highly respected physicist FFS, you might not like his ideas, but he's not going to be lying about Everett's work, there are a few other physicists around the world would shred him if he misrepresented such an important issue. What are you thinking?
DavidMcC wrote:crank wrote:DavidMcC wrote:crank wrote:OK, I think I've seen enough, the video below has Mex Tegmark saying, @5:13 "According to Everett, the beauty is there is nothing that triggers it, because there really is no split, there's only one universe where all these things are happening..."
Tegmark mentions 'quantum suicide' as a way to prove Everett is right, we just need to find someone to do the experiment. That is something you really should watch, v v interesting.
That could be Tegmark putting words into Everrett's mouth to save his credibility.
What the fuck are you talking about? How is Tegmark's credibility even an issue? He's not some schlub trying to do science vblogs, Tegmark is a highly respected physicist FFS, you might not like his ideas, but he's not going to be lying about Everett's work, there are a few other physicists around the world would shred him if he misrepresented such an important issue. What are you thinking?
A. It was Everrett's credibility that my post was about. He was laughed out of court over MWI with real universes.
B. Tegmark damaged his own credibilty by claiming that there was a universe for every math, as opposed to a math for every universe.
crank wrote:... My question was about the basic concept behind Everett.
crank wrote:DavidMcC wrote:crank wrote:DavidMcC wrote:
That could be Tegmark putting words into Everrett's mouth to save his credibility.
What the fuck are you talking about? How is Tegmark's credibility even an issue? He's not some schlub trying to do science vblogs, Tegmark is a highly respected physicist FFS, you might not like his ideas, but he's not going to be lying about Everett's work, there are a few other physicists around the world would shred him if he misrepresented such an important issue. What are you thinking?
A. It was Everrett's credibility that my post was about. He was laughed out of court over MWI with real universes.
B. Tegmark damaged his own credibilty by claiming that there was a universe for every math, as opposed to a math for every universe.
None of that is relevant, his ideas on the maths subject and whether or not a bunch of physicist disagree with him say nothing about Everett's work or whether Tegmark knows its basics. My question was about the basic concept behind Everett.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest