Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

I Many Worlds Interpretation and Coffee

  1. Feb 14, 2016 #1
    Hey there.

    Based on the many worlds interpretation, is:
    Everyone simultaneously having coffee with everyone else?

    Has everyone already had coffee with everyone else?
    Are these possibilities occurring 'somewhere' continuously?
    Do these possibilities only occur one at a time, or does the theory imply that absolutely 'all' possibilities are constantly continuously occurring? Is freewill factored into the equations? There are scenarios that as an individual I would chose not to experience, regardless of throwing infinite set logic at the statement by implying 'eventually' it would be experienced; That 'eventually' would entail a different entry point and would thus be a different set of circumstances.

    Thank you for your time in reading,

    Phillip H.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 15, 2016 #2
    Dear Phillip

    It does depend what the fundamental Schrodinger equation predicts, whether it predicts everyone has coffee with everyone else (but I would say, if it does predict this, it may limit the humans involved, i.e. not babies etc.) or one person has coffee with 50% of the "coffee-drinking" population, or any other possibility. Lets just say it is not easy to solve the equation to find out what the prediction would be.

    "or does the theory imply that absolutely 'all' possibilities are constantly continuously occurring?" - No.*
    *by theory, I presume you mean Quantum Mechanics and not the Many-Worlds Interpretation, as the latter is not a theory.

    Is freewill factored into the equations? - I would say no.
     
  4. Feb 15, 2016 #3
    I am trying to narrow in my understanding of the general consensus on the grand scheme of things scale. Would not any limitation (Babies not having coffee, to reference your example) thus limit the notion of an infinite space for the possibilities to occur in even after including a multiverse? Infinite repetition of that space, allowing for the possibility of everything occurring-occurred-reoccurring, remains plausible, however, I am concerned the notion of freewill is not factored in to the extent that I feel it should be.
    To bring together a unified theory of everything while clinging to anthropism by excluding the philosophical implications of everything is energy, seems like madness. Branching the topic off slightly to explain, specialization in physics, particularly in reaching tiers that are taken seriously by the community could in itself jeopardize the polymath-esqe concept that I think will be necessary to achieve a solve.

    Apologies for referring to MWI as theory. ^_^

    To wrap that up, primary concern is that geniuses are attempting to figure this out through the framework of 'all possibilities that can occur, are occurring'. Something that I think will be a logical fallacy in hindsight.

    Kind regards,
    Phillip H.
    <3
     
  5. Feb 15, 2016 #4
    Every possible outcome, as predicted by QM, is realised in the Many-World's interpretation.

    At various points in time (e.g. t=2), some outcomes may have 0% probability of occurring, whilst later on (t=3) (or even earlier on, eg. t=1) have some probability of happening.
     
  6. Feb 15, 2016 #5

    A. Neumaier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    And also every possible outcome not predicted by QM. Everything goes in some world, and we are left wondering why most things don't go in our world.
     
  7. Feb 15, 2016 #6
    Could the term possible be defined please. Depending on usage, that includes all outcomes.
    Particularly, Mr. Neumaier. "Everything goes in some world" is the concept I am suggesting to be a logical fallacy.
    Is an artificially created asexual flying spaghetti monster from another universe visiting this one and circling this planet exactly 1239719231.1231 times with a party hat on while riding an oversized telepathic Tardigrade that communicates in Hsilgne and finds the letter M to be blasphemy, 'possible'? Do not get me wrong, I can happily logically support the concept of a flying spaghetti monster from another universe, I can also happily logically support the concept of it neither appearing or being created in this cycle.
    A point to consider would be the string of variables before it agreeably becomes an impossible.

    At the least, that concept as a bit of nonsense thought experiment to articulate that not all possibilities are likely to have occurred the same amount of times, even if absolutely all have occurred at least once.
    When into different actual occurrences of various events in the grand scheme of things, there is plenty of room to argue against the "Everything goes in some world" logic.
    Flipping that around, Everything 'has gone in' in some world, at some point - Is at least logically feasible, although I can happily support arguing against that notion as well though.

    Kind regards,
    Phillip H.
    <3
     
  8. Feb 15, 2016 #7

    A. Neumaier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    Everything goes - that means everything that you can formulate in terms of particles and fields.
    Thus it is you who should define in physical terms what it means to be a spaghetti monster, etc.. Otherwise your statement is physically meaningless, and, of course, such things have no place in physics, hence not in MWI.

    What is likely depends on which particular world you are in. On the other hand, if you count likelihood by the number of possible worlds in a coarse-grained resolution, there are many more worlds in MWI very different from ours than worlds that are like ours.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2016
  9. Feb 17, 2016 #8
    As per my email, perhaps you can clarify what you mean by the comment "And also every possible outcome not predicted by QM."? If its not predicted by QM, shouldn't it not occur in a universe in the Many-Worlds interpretation?
     
  10. Feb 18, 2016 #9

    A. Neumaier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    It depends on your interpretation of probability. In a scientific context, probabilities that are too small to be significant are not considered predictions. But in MWI, even these happen in infinitely many of the worlds, and the inhabitants of any these worlds find that their observations are not predicted by QM - in the sense that far too often, too improbable things happen.

    Thus to apply MWI to our particular world we must assume in addition to MWI that we are in one of the worlds where the quantum mechanical predictions accurately reflect the probabilities. This means that, for our particular world, we need to postulate what should have been explained!!!
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2016
  11. Feb 18, 2016 #10

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    This I don't understand. If you have probablities for something that are small, it's just hard to measure them, i.e., you have to prepare a huge ensemble and perhaps have to fight a large background, but still it's a prediction of your model that can be tested at least in principle. Also one shouldn't underestimate the wit of our experimental colleagues. Nowaday's signal is tomorrow's background!
     
  12. Feb 18, 2016 #11

    A. Neumaier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    I was very careful in my formulation:
    cannot be tested, even in principle. If you make a more complex experimental setting, what is significant changes, perhaps by a few orders of magnitude.

    But there are many nonzero probabilities that are far too small to be measured with any experiment realizable in our universe.

    An example is the nonzero probabilitiy that a Cesium atom prepared in our lab in a coherent state with minimal position/momentum uncertainty will the next moment be found on the invisible side of the moon. Another example is the positive probability that the random motions of all atoms in a brick go in the same upward direction for a second, so that the brick lifts into the air without an external cause.

    But according to MWI, there are infinitely many worlds in which precisely this happens, once every minute during a prescribed week. People in one of these worlds will go crazy and will throw away all their physcis books....
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2016
  13. Feb 18, 2016 #12

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    Well, people taking MWI literally must go crazy (if they aren't already) ;-)).
     
  14. Feb 18, 2016 #13

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Well, the same can be said for many other interpretations.
    The reality does not exist until you observe it?
    Only macroscopic phenomena are real?
    The future can change the past?
     
  15. Feb 18, 2016 #14

    vanhees71

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    Well, then I'm still on the sane side, because I don't see, where quantum theory implies any of these claims ;-)).
     
  16. Feb 18, 2016 #15

    Demystifier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Quantum theory is like life. To stay sane, don't take it too seriously. :smile:

    Or to quote R. M. Wald, "If you really believe in quantum mechanics, then you can't take it seriously."
     
  17. Feb 18, 2016 #16

    A. Neumaier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    I can heartily recommend the reading of ''The Metaphysician's Nightmare'' by Bertrand Russell!
    MWI realizes his nightmare, in arbitrarily many worlds....
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 7, 2017
  18. Feb 18, 2016 #17
    Oh I see, you're talking about predictions with tiny probabilities. Yes, they would occur. I wouldn't go as far as saying they're not predicted by QM when they are with, though, small probabilities.
     
  19. Feb 20, 2016 #18

    A. Neumaier

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    2016 Award

    The point is that people in infinitely many worlds (among them Russell's Hell) will experience these events far too frequently, hence would think that quantum mechanical predictions are grossly violated!
     
  20. Mar 18, 2016 #19
    There are universes which are probable and universes which are less probable and many universes which are improbable and most that are very improbable. That MW is real is proved by the tunneling diode where in the electrons pass over an impassible barrier. They appear in the other "world" on the other side of the barrier. In special cases it may be necessary for the Shrodinger equation's wave function to collapse in another universe, but this is all to do with probabilities. Many probabilities of possible events are so improbable that you may have to wait billions, or trillions of years for them to happen. Does then everyone have coffee with anyone else? Only if it is very probable to do so.
     
  21. Mar 18, 2016 #20

    Nugatory

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    There's no doubt that tunnelling happens, but it does not prove that MWI is real - all interpretations agree that tunneling happens.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Many Worlds Interpretation and Coffee
Loading...