Do you think this theory/website REALLY prove Many World Interpretation of QM?

[AlexZ]

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 hand: it claimes to be discovered in 1990,and it seems not 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.
But if it IS true - then it should close long dispute about what interpretation is correct,and should be published everywhere

Any thoughts?

 

[phinds]

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 hand: it claimes to be discovered in 1990,and it seems not 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.
But if it IS true - then it should close long dispute about what interpretation is correct,and should be published everywhere

Any thoughts?

I think it claims to be discovered in 1990,and it seems not to appear in any peer-reviewed scientific editions and that pretty much says it all.

 

[AlexZ]

I think it claims to be discovered in 1990,and it seems not to appear in any peer-reviewed scientific editions and that pretty much says it all.

Thanks for the response,phinds.It is exactly what I mentioned, that only thing I lacked is to conclude what you concluded,and it seems to be logical conclusion.I also e-mailed this links to some physicists,and so far got response only from one of them - Victor Stenger.
To my question,whether he thinks it proves th MWI,I don't even think he bothered to open the link,but stated: "You cannot prove interpretation".Maybe it also good point.Let's wait for another responses...

 

[phinds]

Thanks for the response,phinds.It is exactly what I mentioned, that only thing I lacked is to conclude what you concluded,and it seems to be logical conclusion.I also e-mailed this links to some physicists,and so far got response only from one of them - Victor Stenger.
To my question,whether he thinks it proves th MWI,I don't even think he bothered to open the link,but stated: "You cannot prove interpretation".Maybe it also good point.Let's wait for another responses...

Sorry, I guess my sarcasm was too subtle. I just copied exactly what you said because I DO think that says it all.

Carl Sagan said extreme claims require extreme proof. Do you think they even come close?

 

[AlexZ]

Sorry, I guess my sarcasm was too subtle. I just copied exactly what you said because I DO think that says it all.

Carl Sagan said extreme claims require extreme proof. Do you think they even come close?

That's the point,I'm not physicist.This guy demonstrates he somehow played with electrons,and on their positions ("up", "down") decided for validity of MWI.The point is that I have no idea how to regard it,proof or not.But even if I don't know,the fact that it didn't appear anywhere says a lot.I think MWI advocates would catch this immediately,but so far I haven'e read anything like that from any MWI advocate

 

[AlexZ]

Folks,what really intrigues me here is his experiment with electrons("up","down").It is precisely here : http://motls.blogspot.ca/2012/08/simple-proof-qm-implies-many-worlds.html Luboš Motl makes electron example,arguing that it cannot move and thus concluding that MWI is false, but this guy seems to demonstrate exactly opposite.That is what I find intriguing,Can it be explained?On the other hand,the fact that since then it was not published anywhere also stands...

 

[Jazzdude]

The only thing this guy proves is his own ignorance. His comments about how physicists don't know how to simulate physical setups to get the answer gives that away already, even before you analyze his arguments.

And what he then tries to demonstrate has never been in much doubt and does not provide any additional insight at all. He shows the almost trivial fact that you can entangle observer and outcome in a way that creates relative outcome states to the observer that don't interfere. That's the basic idea of MWI. And it's easy to see the existence of processes like that, no need for computer simulations.

If he wanted to do anything to support the MWI view then he would have to demonstrate how the actual statistics emerge. In his simulation there is no notion of statistics at all, and specifically none that would depend on the amplitudes associated with the outcomes.

You can safely ignore this work. He has not understood the problem he is trying to solve.

Cheers,
Jazz

 

[AlexZ]

Thanks,Jazzdude

"You can safely ignore this work."

As I told,I had a gut feeling about that based on the simple fact that his work was NOT published in any peer-reviewed journals,even by ardent supporters of Many Worlds.And it is since 1990

But the bottom line I think is the fact that since then it was NOT published in any scientific periodical,and was NOT reviewed by any scientists.
There is actually interesting more or less recent book about Everett,writeen by proponents and critics,here is the review:

http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/24515-many-worlds-everett-quantum-theory-and-reality/

Interesting point at the end of the review: maybe quantum mechanics itself will be replaced sometime in the future?

 

[AlexZ]

Thanks,Jazzdude

"You can safely ignore this work."

As I told,I had a gut feeling about that based on the simple fact that his work was NOT published in any peer-reviewed journals,even by ardent supporters of Many Worlds.And it is since 1990

But the bottom line I think is the fact that since then it was NOT published in any scientific periodical,and was NOT reviewed by any scientists.
There is actually interesting more or less recent book about Everett,writeen by proponents and critics,here is the review:

http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/24515-many-worlds-everett-quantum-theory-and-reality/

Interesting point at the end of the review: maybe quantum mechanics itself will be replaced sometime in the future?

 

[Doc Al]

As our rules clearly state, discussion of theories posted on personal web pages and in unpublished manuscripts is not permitted. Nor is linking to such sites.