F.Tipler's paper about nonlocality and multiverse(mwi)

In summary: Bill. In summary, the conversation discusses the interpretation of quantum mechanics and the use of nonlocality as evidence for the many-worlds interpretation. The speaker argues that this interpretation is based on personal beliefs and does not prove anything objectively. They also mention that the concept of nonlocality is still open to debate, and criticize the use of personal opinions as evidence.
  • #1
Alexis1304
18
0
Hello All,
Here is the paper I'd like to ge opinions of.
As for interpretations of QM I am open-minded agnostic.But: what about F.Tipler's article "Nonlocality as evidence of myltiverse cosmology", where he uses nonlocality and argue for MWI? Here:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1008.2764.pdf

What is non-mwier response to that?Or -does there even NEED to be a response?...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I gave it a quick squiz. Sure non locality is evidence for MWI if you want to have locality - sure - but you are basically deciding - this is how I think the world should work and because of that this is how I want to interpret QM. It proves nothing - nada. Indeed even the sense QM is non-local is open to debate - I believe it has non local aspects but not everyone does.

Indeed that seems to be the whole tone of the paper:

'Have you ever seen the Earth rotate on its axis. I have. I have seen the Sun set. We know today that in spite of our language, it is the Earth that is moving, and not the Sun.'

The Earth is neither moving or at rest - either view is valid depending on your freely chosen coordinate system. Frank should know that - I am surprised he said it - just as I am surprised he believes his view that non locality is 'wrong' or only an 'appearance' is some kind of objective 'truth'. Its the same mistake Einstein made.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:
  • #3
bhobba said:
I gave it a quick squiz. Sure non locality is evidence for MWI if you want to have locality - sure - but you are basically deciding - this is how I think the world should work and because of that this is how I want to interpret QM. It proves nothing - nada. Indeed even the sense QM is non-local is open to debate - I believe it has non local aspects but not everyone does.

Indeed that seems to be the whole tone of the paper:

'Have you ever seen the Earth rotate on its axis. I have. I have seen the Sun set. We know today that in spite of our language, it is the Earth that is moving, and not the Sun.'

The Earth is neither moving or at rest - either view is valid depending on your freely chosen coordinate system. Frank should know that - I am surprised he said it - just as I am surprised he believes his view that non locality is 'wrong' or only an 'appearance' is some kind of objective 'truth'. Its the same mistake Einstein made.

Thanks
Bill

Thanks for the response
 

1. What is F.Tipler's paper about nonlocality and multiverse (MWI)?

F.Tipler's paper, titled "Nonlocality and the Multiverse", explores the concept of the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics and its implications for nonlocality. The paper argues that the MWI, which suggests the existence of multiple parallel universes, can explain the nonlocal correlations observed in quantum entanglement.

2. What evidence supports F.Tipler's arguments about nonlocality and the multiverse?

F.Tipler's arguments are based on the principles of quantum mechanics and the MWI, which have been extensively studied and verified through experiments. Additionally, the paper presents mathematical models and simulations that support the existence of nonlocality and the multiverse.

3. How does F.Tipler's paper contribute to the ongoing debate about nonlocality and the multiverse?

F.Tipler's paper presents a unique perspective on the relationship between nonlocality and the multiverse, suggesting that the MWI can provide a solution to the long-standing debate about the nature of quantum entanglement. The paper also proposes new avenues for further research in this area.

4. What are some potential implications of F.Tipler's arguments for our understanding of the universe?

If F.Tipler's arguments are correct, it would mean that the universe is much larger and more complex than we previously thought. The existence of multiple parallel universes would also have significant implications for our understanding of causality and the nature of reality.

5. What are some criticisms of F.Tipler's paper about nonlocality and the multiverse?

Some critics argue that F.Tipler's paper relies heavily on theoretical models and simulations, rather than empirical evidence. Others question the validity and testability of the MWI, which is still a topic of debate among scientists. Additionally, some argue that F.Tipler's paper does not fully address the potential paradoxes and inconsistencies that arise from the concept of the multiverse.

Similar threads

A Quantum nonlocality and "spooky action at a distance"
    • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
4
Replies
138
Views
5K
I Confused by nonlocal models and relativity
    • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
15
Replies
491
Views
26K
A Realism from Locality? Bell's Theorem & Nonlocality in QM
    • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
7
Replies
226
Views
18K
I A new insight from the Frauchiger and Renner paper affecting MWI
    • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
27
Views
3K
A Does the Frauchiger-Renner Theorem prove only MWI is correct
    • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
7
Views
2K
A Post-Selection: Pre-existing Correlations or Action At A Distance?
    • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
54
Views
3K
I Interestingly Bohr Did Not Believe in Wavefunction Collapse
    • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
69
Views
4K
Could MWI create universes with fundamentally different physical laws?
    • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
A Dieter Zeh's MWI as Schrödinger equation + further assumptions
    • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
27
Views
2K
A Interpreting QM without Schrödinger's equation
    • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
33
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top