Is there life after death according to MWI theory?

[Hurkyl]

So yeah, deBB add least of all, it just takes into account all that exist and don't speculate too much.
Seculation is good, but until experiments, it's worth nothing and is nothing.

It's not always about speculating about reality. I don't really care one whit about the question about what is 'really' real, and view that whole line of discussion is mainly an excuse for people to trumpet their personal biases. However, there is also pedagogy to be considered -- how to organize and understand the information contained in the theory. In that respect, MWI is the most important interpretation, since its aim is to understand unitary evolution, a mechanic present in most (all?) approaches to quantum mechanics.

 

[peter0302]

I don't really care one whit about the question about what is 'really' real, and view that whole line of discussion is mainly an excuse for people to trumpet their personal biases.

Agreed!

Peter, I'm a little rush so I can't go into details, but the first noncollapse interpretation proposed was put forth before the Solvay conference: PILOT WAVE THEORY.

I never said MWI was the first. Lord knows, being first rarely means being best.

I say no more, it accounts for wave/particle duality better than ANYONE, nothing is rejected. No problem with probability

Better than ANYONE, eh? Incidentally, where did this sudden influx of Bohm Zealots come from?

Anyway, pilot wave theory is still a hidden variable theory. It still requires more assumptions than MWI, namely that there is a real particle whose position is well defined which is being guided by the potential wave which is a real force.

It does, like MWI, get rid of the collapse postulate. But it replaces the collapse postulate with the "hidden" particle, and so the appearance of collapse is a consequence of the fact that there _is_ a hidden particle which is influenced by different branches of the wave depending on when/where it's located.

However, MWI still needs fewer assumptions, and this is the reason: get rid of the guiding potential and the hidden particle, and you've got MWI - which, alone, can account for all experimental results. This is true essence of the oft-misunderstood Occam's razor (despite the risk of nicking my face with it). This, plus the fact that you have no problems with nonlocality, retrocausality, or mandatory agnosticism, which all plague one or more of the various other interpretations. And, it's the only interpretation which, to my knowledge, has a snowball's chance of ever being disproven (depending on what ever comes of quantum gravity theory) and has led to useful new research (i.e. decoherence, which is becoming central to quantum computing). And it's the first time in history science has provided a candidate for the answer to the age-old question "why are we here?" (MWI's answer: every one and every thing is every where).

All in all I'd say Everett has made quite a contribution to physics and philosophy and the way his work has been bastardized, misinterpreted, and ridiculed by some is quite a shame.

Rather than you saying to me "show me the evidence of the extra worlds," I should be saying to you "show me evidence of this pilot wave and this hidden particle, and moreover explain to me where the energy comes from to make this mystical wave." Similarly, to Copenhagenists I would say "give me a logically self-consistent and objective physical definition of wavefunction collapse and show me the evidence for it." Since we all agree that unitary evolution and decoherence is occurring, the burden of proof is on those of you who believe something more is going on. Otherwise, MWI wins by default.

Oh, darn that's me arguing like a lawyer again.

 

[QMecca]

Asking where the energy for the wave comes from is rather retarded for someone defending a hypothesis who claim it makes infinite universes out of nothing all the time...

 

[peter0302]

You really have a mastery for labels don't you? Retarded, crazy, *****, and so forth. Shame you can't actually say anything substantive about the topic, because this statement:

claim it makes infinite universes out of nothing all the time...

Demonstrates you don't know what you're talking about.

But if you're interested in expanding your horizons beyond your personal notions of what is and is not "retarded" I suggest you read this:

http://www.hedweb.com/manworld.htm

 

[QMecca]

I was responding your own arrogance in the same manner.

"Where does the energy for the wave come from".

Think about it for a second...

 

[peter0302]

Read the FAQ, and you'll see why your point is wrong.

I'll give you a hint:

Slice a piece of paper in half. You now have two pieces of paper. Did you need more wood to make that extra piece?

 

[QMecca]

still requires infinite energy.
from your anology, everytime you split you should lose energy and become nothing eventually, pretty quick actually. lol
I know the anology doesn't fit what your believing in, I'm just saying:

debb says there's only one universe, the universe = particles.
finite, deterministic, objective.

simpler than infinite unobserved universes...



Also: if you truly believe in MWI, why bother even talking / discussing these matters, everyone you interact with are gone in 00000000000000,1nano seconds.

 

[Maaneli]

As I understand it, the pilot wave is mathematically the same as the wavefunction, evolving according to ordinary unitary evolution -- and therefore splits into worlds.

Hurkyl,

Yes, the pilot wave is mathematically the same as the wavefunction. But you can't say it splits into "worlds" because that is an MWI concept, and deBB theory is a different theory than MWI. You can however say the pilot wave in deBB branches (after a measurement interaction) from an initial superposition state, and the point particle continues into only one of those branched eigenstates and gets piloted by it for all subsequent times, according to the Schroedinger and guiding equations. The other empty wavefunctions propagated away and still evolve according to the Schroedinger equation. In the experiment (measurement), we only see the point particle, and the wavefunction is never directly observed as you probably know. This is another argument that deBB proponents would make for why deBB theory has a clearer ontology than MWI - it more directly explains what we fundamentally see in experiments: particles. Personally, I have never been able to understand what a "world" in MWI is exactly. Could you explain it?

By the way, decoherence theory already also implies that the most fundamental observable basis for the wavefunctions in a measurement interaction is in fact the position basis, which is what the pilot wave also says. In other words, all measurement interactions (the pointers in a measuring device) can ultimately reduced to position measurements. That is another big difference between MWI and deBB theory.

By the way, there is yet another big difference between MWI and deBB theory. The evolution of quantum probabilities. As I have also referenced elsewhere in this forum, while MWI cannot predict anything beyond the Born rule (quantum equilibrium in the pilot wave language) probability time evolution of the psi field, the deBB theory predicts the possibility of nonequilibrium dynamics. For example please, read here Valentini's abstract from a recent conference on Everett's MWI:


Pilot-wave theory: Everett in denial? - Antony Valentini

We reply to claims (by Tipler, Deutsch, Zeh, Brown and Wallace) that the pilot-wave theory of de Broglie and Bohm is really a many-worlds theory with a superfluous configuration appended to one of the worlds. Assuming that pilot-wave theory does contain an ontological pilot wave (a complex-valued field in configuration space), we show that such claims arise essentially from not interpreting pilot-wave theory on its own terms. Pilot-wave dynamics is intrinsically nonclassical, with its own (`subquantum') theory of measurement, and it is in general a `nonequilibrium' theory that violates the quantum Born rule. From the point of view of pilot-wave theory itself, an apparent multiplicity of worlds at the microscopic level (envisaged by some many-worlds theorists) stems from the generally mistaken assumption of `eigenvalue realism' (the assumption that eigenvalues have an ontological status), which in turn ultimately derives from the generally mistaken assumption that `quantum measurements' are true and proper measurements. At the macroscopic level, it might be argued that in the presence of quantum experiments the universal (and ontological) pilot wave can develop non-overlapping and localised branches that evolve just like parallel classical (decoherent) worlds, each containing atoms, people, planets, etc. If this occurred, each localised branch would constitute a piece of real `ontological Ψ-stuff' that is executing a classical evolution for a world, and so, it might be argued, our world may as well be regarded as just one of these among many others. This argument fails on two counts: (a) subquantum measurements (allowed in nonequilibrium pilot-wave theory) could track the actual de Broglie-Bohm trajectory without affecting the branching structure of the pilot wave, so that in principle one could distinguish the branch containing the configuration from the empty ones, where the latter would be regarded merely as concentrations of a complex-valued configuration-space field, and (b) such localised configuration-space branches are in any case unrealistic (especially in a world containing chaos). In realistic models of decoherence, the pilot wave is delocalised, and the identification of a set of parallel (approximately) classical worlds does not arise in terms of localised pieces of actual `Ψ-stuff' executing approximately classical motions; instead, such identification amounts to a reification of mathematical trajectories associated with the velocity field of the approximately Hamiltonian flow of the (approximately non-negative) Wigner function --- a move that is fair enough from a many-worlds perspective, but which is unnecessary and unjustified from a pilot-wave perspective because according to pilot-wave theory there is nothing actually moving along any of these trajectories except one (just as in classical mechanics or in the theory of test particles in external fields or a background spacetime geometry). In addition to being unmotivated, such reification begs the question of why the mathematical trajectories should not also be reified outside the classical limit for general wave functions, resulting in a theory of `many de Broglie-Bohm worlds'. Finally, because pilot-wave theory can accommodate violations of the Born rule and many-worlds theory (apparently) cannot, any attempt to argue that the former theory is really the latter theory (`in denial') must in any case fail. At best, such arguments can only show that, if approximately classical experimenters are confined to the quantum equilibrium state, they will encounter a phenomenological appearance of many worlds (just as they will encounter a phenomenological appearance of locality, uncertainty, and of quantum physics generally). From the perspective of pilot-wave theory itself, many worlds are an illusion.
http://users.ox.ac.uk/~everett/abstracts.htm#valentini

And see this:

Generalizations of Quantum Mechanics
Philip Pearle and Antony Valentini
Published in: Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Physics, eds. J.-P. Francoise, G. Naber and T. S. Tsun (Elsevier, 2006).
http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/va/Valentini/8


So these are all the reasons why it is not possible to say that pilot wave theory simply reduces to MWI. Hope this helps.

 

[Hurkyl]

So these are all the reasons why it is not possible to say that pilot wave theory simply reduces to MWI. Hope this helps.

That is not what I was saying. I am claiming:

MWI employs particular methods to study the evolution of a state evolving unitarily.
The evolution of a pilot wave, is mathematically equivalent to a state evolving unitarily.
Therefore, the methods employed by MWI may be used to study the evolution of a pilot wave.



However, I admit that do I expect a formal equivalence here, and furthermore one that equates the "unitary evolution of universal wavefunction" part of MWI with the "unitary evolution of pilot-wave" part of BM. In addition to the observation above, this would merely require:
(1) A demonstration that every universal wavefunction permitted by MWI is capable of appearing as a pilot wave in some instance of BM.
(2) The identification of a structure definable in the MWI formalism (but not necessarily physically definable or even observable) to which the particle component of BM can be mapped.
Mathematics is surprisingly robust in regard to its ability to achieve feats like this. But I do not intend to assert in this thread that such an equivalence exists.

 

[Maaneli]

That is not what I was saying. I am claiming:

MWI employs particular methods to study the evolution of a state evolving unitarily.
The evolution of a pilot wave, is mathematically equivalent to a state evolving unitarily.
Therefore, the methods employed by MWI may be used to study the evolution of a pilot wave.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was addressing both you and the other guy on your side.

I disagree with your thesis. The only methods MWI employs on the evolution of a psi field is an interpretation of the psi field as a physically real world with a classical evolution. It also requires a way of justifying that rho = |psi|^2 for the observers in these psi fields, and it cannot do this without additional decision theoretic assumptions (BTW, this is why it is not the simplest interpretation of QM even though it is claimed to be). Valentini explains in that abstract I posted why a thesis like yours cannot work.

 

[Maaneli]

However, I admit that do I expect a formal equivalence here, and furthermore one that equates the "unitary evolution of universal wavefunction" part of MWI with the "unitary evolution of pilot-wave" part of BM. In addition to the observation above, this would merely require:
(1) A demonstration that every universal wavefunction permitted by MWI is capable of appearing as a pilot wave in some instance of BM.
(2) The identification of a structure definable in the MWI formalism (but not necessarily physically definable or even observable) to which the particle component of BM can be mapped.
Mathematics is surprisingly robust in regard to its ability to achieve feats like this. But I do not intend to assert in this thread that such an equivalence exists.

Again, Valentini shows why this connection cannot exist. Please read his abstract.

 

[peter0302]

still requires infinite energy.
from your anology, everytime you split you should lose energy and become nothing eventually, pretty quick actually. lol
I know the anology doesn't fit what your believing in, I'm just saying:

debb says there's only one universe, the universe = particles.
finite, deterministic, objective.

simpler than infinite unobserved universes...



Also: if you truly believe in MWI, why bother even talking / discussing these matters, everyone you interact with are gone in 00000000000000,1nano seconds.

*sigh* you still don't get it. I don't *believe* in anything. Being an atheist, I'd be quite the hypocrite if I believed in something that couldn't be proven now wouldn't I!?

I'm making objective observations about MWI vs. the other interpretations. It is superior based on many objective criteria. All your arguments against it are based on your personal notions of what "makes sense" to you. That's the definition of subjective.

See, people like myself and (if I dare to compare myself to him Hurkyl are capable of talking about these topics without emotional involvement or bias. We don't "champion" things we can't prove; we're seeking merely to raise awareness and clear misconceptions, the chief of those being this quantum suicide nonsense which was the point of the discussion.

As far as your other statement:

from your anology, everytime you split you should lose energy and become nothing eventually, pretty quick actually. lol

Well, it's called entropy. It happens across many worlds just as across spacetime. Quantum thermodynamics is very important in MWI.

One final point though: don't think of the multiverse as being "n" atoms "thick". It's not like the energy from the Big Bang is divided across all the branches. If that were the case, then yes we'd be down to nothing very quickly. The thickness is just the probability of each branch. It is unclear at this time what that probability represents physicially, if anything. But regardless, the branches don't have physical depth, only probabilities which, when added with all the other branches, equal 1.

Just look at it this way. I'm not asking you to believe the other branches physically exist. What I'm saying is that if you follow the unitary evolution of the wave function, there are branches that behave independently and, after decoherence, NEVER become reunited. What happens to them? If you want to believe they go away, then you've got a new assumption you need to add to your theory. If you want to believe they stay there, then you may have some difficult issues coping with that. But I will say that if you want to talk subjective, I rather like the idea that everything truly is possible.

 

[Coldcall]

The only way i can accept MWI is with the following tweaks:

1) Observer/definer is splitting worlds through interactions with qm states. Or that splitting occurs through "choices" made by an observer.

2) The other worlds remain hypothetical. (for reasons of energy conservation i can not accept the idea that there are infinite real worlds. If they are real that means they are distinctly real and that means multiply the matter and energy in our universe by infinity - that's is totally irrational) Yes i know its only a logical argument but its one derived from how we know nature behaves re- energy efficiency in our universe). By the way one cannot argue that energy efficiency is still maintained on a universe by universe basis, because leading MWI proponents like Tegmark admit there is actually still connection between branches...or for instance they don't separate completely - whatever that means. I would also argue that they are one quantum system even with a multitude of universes hence they should be governed by the same law - that of energy conservation.

Look at it from the point of view of writing a software program. The MWI version would have an incredible amount of duplication and needless replication. If you would not use MWI as a way to build virtual universes on a computer then its unlikely nature would be less efficient than the human intellect.

Oh and that still leaves Occams razor...Im trying i promise

 

[peter0302]

Interesting point about the "software program." MWI is probably not consistent with a software simulation. :) CI lends itself quite nicely to one though doesn't it!

Yeah, the problem of the branches potentially interacting is related to gravity. If GR is right, then the branches should still feel each others' gravitation. Therefore MWI requires spacetime and gravity to be quantized, which is why MWI is the only interpretation capable of being disproven at this point.

If they are real that means they are distinctly real and that means multiply the matter and energy in our universe by infinity - that's is totally irrational)

Yes it is, but you also could divide everything each time you split, which is perfectly rational, and here's why.

If you divided every non-dimensionless constant proportionally (speed of light, electrom charge, masses of fundamental particles, gravitational constant, etc.) we'd never know the difference. As long as you never hit zero - which you never can, through division - you can divide an infinite number of times and still have a fully working universe without the need to bring in more energy.

 

[muppet]

The result of an infinite sequence of divisions... sounds irrational to me
Sorry. I'll get my coat.

 

[peter0302]

ROFL.

I think it sounds pretty transcendental, actually.

 

[Coldcall]

peter0302,

"Interesting point about the "software program." MWI is probably not consistent with a software simulation. :) CI lends itself quite nicely to one though doesn't it!"

Yes it does . In fact if we accepted that qm is observer essential then it could be like playing one of those 1st person shooter games. That's no reason to say that qm is one big software engine but it is kind of similar to how qm works from the perspective of the observer. Maybe "entanglement" represents the huge RAM reserves that are necessary for the sake of instant consistency?