Do nested quantum events prove MWI

beanangel300
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Do nested quantum events prove the Many Wordls Interpretation of physics

1) First create quantum events that surround other quantum events
like a photon path that circles a fissioning element, if the photon usually takes 100 times as long to reach the detector per each fissioned nucleus then all of the radiation quantum events are actually nested inside each photons measured quantum event (photon universe) There is the opportunity to place them within lightspeed radius of each other or outside of it (lightcone) We will call this a nested quantum generator NQG

Then

2) Group these NQG things together at variable rates to bunch or spread effects
like make a sphere with many NQG on the surface
Then surround the sphere with a rotating annulus that also makes NQG
at the area between the rotating parts when the NQGs are widely spaced their existence areas either bunch to overlap or spread out depending on the rate of rotation

3) Then measure any variation of casimir forces at the light cone of the apparatus as well as beyond the light cone of the apparatus to note any variation at various possibilities of interaction of just one NQG to all of them at the perimeter

4) That variation is then linkable to the amount of specific quantum events that could effect each other with the rotation at various rates showing a variation of universe creation with different groupings of the nested quantum generators (is it possible to saturate or desaturate the casimir effect with NQG)

5)If the casimir forces act differently or if the rate of natural radioactivity actually changes then a new physics is detected

6)Then as the actual number of NQG is varied numerically as well as geometrically this goes with differing predictable casimir force effects or radiation effects The verifiable adjustment of that rate when the apparatus is adjusted shows that quantum occurences modify their surroundings slightly while creating parallel universes.


7)Among the things physics could seek from the apparatus are seeing if all 100 radioactive quantum events are only observable once the photon has been observed while preoccurence the casimir force detector shows an absence of predicted result until the photon absorption moment when the casimir effect is suddenly multiplied a bunch
 

Attachments

  • Untitled.png
    Untitled.png
    39.9 KB · Views: 529
Physics news on Phys.org
Can you clarify some parts of your description, please?

a photon path that circles a fissioning element, if the photon usually takes 100 times as long to reach the detector per each fissioned nucleus
What is that? 100 times as long as what? How does the photon "circle an element"?

then all of the radiation quantum events are actually nested inside each photons measured quantum event (photon universe)
Do you expect that each photon carrys something related to all radioactive decays? In which way? What is a "photon universe"?

What is a "lightspeed radius"? If you place something in space, you need a space-like value to describe their distance.

at the area between the rotating parts when the NQGs are widely spaced their existence areas either bunch to overlap or spread out depending on the rate of rotation
What does overlap/spread out? The position/"existence" of the NQGs?

3) Then measure any variation of casimir forces at the light cone of the apparatus as well as beyond the light cone of the apparatus to note any variation at various possibilities of interaction of just one NQG to all of them at the perimeter
The apparatus is not a point in spacetime, therefore "its lightcone" is not well-defined. Where do you want to measure casimir forces, and between which objects? Why do you expect any variation, and based on what?


That should be a good part to begin with.

Sorry, this looks like some random collection of buzzwords to me at the moment.
 
]a scientist creates a photon path with mirrors or optical fiber on a table, the photon loops the path a certain interval prior to reaching a detector, we will say that it takes an entire second. concurrently, while actually surrounded with the optical path, encircled with an optical fiber, is a piece of radioactive material. a quantum event detector would notice it typically had 100 detectable fissions per second.

The thought here is that because the photon at the fiber has an entire second of travel prior to observation, that all of the MWI quantum universes the radioactive material generates will be contingent on the observation of the photon. Thus MWI universes may be nested. That is a Nested Quantum Generator

Then, with that idea, what happens if we make different NQGs, some with light cone size nesting, some larger than light cone size, where the photon as well as fission quantum events are actually outside speed of light physical distance . If the casimir force varies from measured norm as a result of this then that suggests it is possible that the MWI is being verified

Kudos on the reply, the main idea is when quantum events physically surround each other at space what effect does the nesting of quantum events have on the MWI

"What is that? 100 times as long as what? How does the photon "circle an element"?"
 
Last edited:
To me this still sounds like a random collection of buzzwords.
 
I would like to know the validity of the following criticism of one of Zeilinger's latest papers https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2507.07756 "violation of bell inequality with unentangled photons" The review is by Francis Villatoro, in Spanish, https://francis.naukas.com/2025/07/26/sin-entrelazamiento-no-se-pueden-incumplir-las-desigualdades-de-bell/ I will translate and summarize the criticism as follows: -It is true that a Bell inequality is violated, but not a CHSH inequality. The...
I understand that the world of interpretations of quantum mechanics is very complex, as experimental data hasn't completely falsified the main deterministic interpretations (such as Everett), vs non-deterministc ones, however, I read in online sources that Objective Collapse theories are being increasingly challenged. Does this mean that deterministic interpretations are more likely to be true? I always understood that the "collapse" or "measurement problem" was how we phrased the fact that...
This is not, strictly speaking, a discussion of interpretations per se. We often see discussions based on QM as it was understood during the early days and the famous Einstein-Bohr debates. The problem with this is that things in QM have advanced tremendously since then, and the 'weirdness' that puzzles those attempting to understand QM has changed. I recently came across a synopsis of these advances, allowing those interested in interpretational issues to understand the modern view...
Back
Top