Many Worlds Interpretation and Coffee

In summary: I think this is a fruitless endeavor. There is no overarching theory that everyone agrees on. There are a multitude of interpretations and many of them are incompatible with one another.Kind regards,Phillip H.
  • #36
PeterDonis said:
The MWI does not say there are "an infinite amount of universes". It says there is just one universe, but its quantum wave function does not have any interpretation as a single classical "world".
Oh fascinating!
Thank you again for your reply! ^_^

<3 Phillip
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Demystifier said:
Or to quote R. M. Wald, "If you really believe in quantum mechanics, then you can't take it seriously."
How do you interpret that?
 
  • #38
phillovix said:
Wonderful, thank you for your response, given me a lot to think about.
Given what I've read, I am favoring a collapse style interpretation. I think there is an infinite repetition of a finite amount of possibilities.

Collapse interpretation has a problem with nested Schrödinger's cat experiments. It basically says that cat state collapses when it is observed, but only if the "observer+cat" system itself is not in another, bigger box. If it is, then "observer+cat" system is still in a superposition until it is in turn observed by an outer observer (unless the "observer2 + [observer+cat]" system itself is not in another, bigger box...).

This, or course, is not logically inconsistent. It just sounds ridiculous: cat knows when its state should collapse based on the number of nested boxes it sits in?
 
  • #39
If the only problem with "logically consistent" collapse is that it "sounds ridiculous" to some people - a purely subjective judgment - then, there's really no problem with collapse.
 
  • #40
secur said:
If the only problem with "logically consistent" collapse is that it "sounds ridiculous" to some people - a purely subjective judgment - then, there's really no problem with collapse.

All QM interpretations are ridiculous in one way or another. Looks like people pick ones they like based on which kind of "ridiculous" is more tolerable to them.

I am mathematician by education, so infinities and infinitesimals of various kinds are not a problem for me, hence MWI with its infinite branching and very low probabilities of "almost anything happening" does not sound especially problematic to me (evidently, some people are finding *that part* "ridiculous").
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier and secur
  • #41
Why bother talking about other world's/ universes if it is impossible to detect their existence?

Seems like mental masturbation.

What's the motivation for the discussion?

What can possibly be learned about this universe from these discussions?

Genuinely curious.
 
  • #42
@houlahound, it's a good question although I can't endorse your negative characterization ... The best answer to "what good is MWI?" I've seen is in Hugh Everett's original paper:

"Relative State" Formulation of Quantum Mechanics, by Hugh Everett III, in REVIEWS OF MODERN PHYSICS VOLUME 29. NUMBER 3. JULY 1957 http://www.univer.omsk.su/omsk/Sci/Everett/paper1957.html

His focus on GR is a bit limited, I think MWI is useful when applying QM in many theoretical contexts. Regardless, Everett's justification of MWI is very good IMHO. See what you think of it.

Relevant quote:

1. INTRODUCTION

The task of quantizing general relativity raises serious questions about the meaning of the present formulation and interpretation of quantum mechanics when applied to so fundamental a structure as the space-time geometry itself. This paper seeks to clarify the formulations of quantum mechanics. It presents a reformulation of quantum theory in a form believed suitable for application to general relativity.

The aim is not to deny or contradict the conventional formulation of quantum theory, which has demonstrated its usefulness in an overwhelming variety of problems, but rather to supply a new, more general and complete formulation, from which the conventional interpretation can be deduced.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #43
No prob with squeezing what you can out of a theory, that's all good.

Worrying about events in extra universes IMO is idle.
 
  • Like
Likes secur
  • #44
houlahound said:
No prob with squeezing what you can out of a theory, that's all good.

Worrying about events in extra universes IMO is idle.

Well, when it comes down to it, advanced physics and mathematics are just extremely sophisticated forms of entertainment. Unless you're building semiconductors or working on superconductors, (or maybe a small number of other careers), physics isn't for practical purposes.
 
  • #45
stevendaryl said:
Unless you're building semiconductors or working on superconductors, (or maybe a small number of other careers), physics isn't for practical purposes.

sssshhhhhh!

Everyone ignore this quote.

you never ever say that in public... Have you forgotten the F word man, the F word;

FFFFFFunding.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes vanhees71 and stevendaryl
  • #46
stevendaryl said:
Well, when it comes down to it, advanced physics and mathematics are just extremely sophisticated forms of entertainment. Unless you're building semiconductors or working on superconductors, (or maybe a small number of other careers), physics isn't for practical purposes.

Semiconductors are such a small area of research and industry. I can't for the life of me remember the last time I used something as esoteric as semiconductors. What do they do again?

BoB
 
  • Like
Likes nikkkom and houlahound
  • #47
rbelli1 said:
Semiconductors are such a small area of research and industry. I can't for the life of me remember the last time I used something as esoteric as semiconductors. What do they do again?

BoB

Ha. Ha. Everybody USES semiconductors, but I'm guessing that a very tiny number of people actually research, design and build them. For the rest of us, physics is mostly for entertainment.
 
  • #48
I prefer valves, yeah laugh until EMP Armageddon and yr cheap little semiconductors are all crying.

Oh and yr semiconductor enabled digital music sounds like crap, analog forever.
 
  • #49
stevendaryl said:
For the rest of us, physics is mostly for entertainment.

I have to remember not to feed the trolls.

BoB
 
  • Like
Likes nikkkom
  • #50
Applied physics has many other achievements than just semiconductors. Some topics and technologies include lasers, MRI, nukes, sonar, radar, electronics, nanotechnology, all sorts of materials science ... probably one could list hundreds of items, if one wanted to go to the trouble. The improvements in plastic, metal, glass, weapons, engines, ... in our lifetimes are evident. True, much of this comes under the heading, instead, of chemistry and engineering. But I'd say many key advances could reasonably be considered part of physics.

It's only most topics in theoretical physics which have become virtually meaningless in the last 65 years or so. Equivalent, in spirit and utility, to the study of angels dancing on heads of pins.
 
  • Like
Likes rbelli1
  • #51
Actually theoretical physics also has many worthwhile aspects. It's very simple: the worth of a theory is proportional to the amount of data, experimental and observational, it encompasses. And inversely proportional to the publicity.

How does this relate to OP? MWI as a mathematical tool is justified, almost, by all QM data. (Except for the unresolved issue of Born's rule.) However MWI as reality has no contact with experiment, or observation, at all. We (almost certainly) can never detect those "many worlds". So as a convenient mathematical formulation - somewhat analogous to Hamilton and Lagrange formulations - it's fine. But it's extremely pointless to worry about cups of coffee, twins becoming president, twins murdering or committing suicide, etc, in those many worlds. Very much like angels dancing on pins.

Not surprisingly the worthwhile aspect of MWI - just as a mathematical tool - gets almost no publicity. Everett's original idea is ignored. Instead the useless aspect appears often in pop-sci. That's why many members of the public interested in physics, such as OP, ask about that so often.

Of course very few physicists concern themselves with theory that has no contact with data. Perhaps, 1%. That's not much, and after all, some good may come of string theory, etc - who knows? The only problem concerns the public. There's only a limited "bandwidth" for physics in popular media, and I guess more than half of it is completely wasted. This has many negative ramifications for society. It's a major factor in the decline in STEM disciplines in the US (I don't really know about elsewhere). Physics could be charging ahead, attracting the best and brightest, receiving great respect from non-physicists, if the public image was presented well. Basically, just stick to the data, and almost ignore theory. (Astronomical imagery is a good example of the right kind of publicity.) Instead ...
 
  • #52
nikkkom said:
All QM interpretations are ridiculous in one way or another. Looks like people pick ones they like based on which kind of "ridiculous" is more tolerable to them.

I am mathematician by education, so infinities and infinitesimals of various kinds are not a problem for me, hence MWI with its infinite branching and very low probabilities of "almost anything happening" does not sound especially problematic to me (evidently, some people are finding *that part* "ridiculous").
The Tarsi-Banach Theorem is a mathematical result that I've proved in lectures several times, but would never accept as a result of physics.
 
  • #53
Zafa Pi said:
How do you interpret that?
I interpret it as a special case of another quote:
"Truth and clarity are complementary." - Niels Bohr
 
  • #54
Zafa Pi said:
The Tarsi-Banach Theorem is a mathematical result that I've proved in lectures several times, but would never accept as a result of physics.
Is it just because of the existence of atoms, or because you don't think that the axiom of choice represents a physical choice?
 
  • #55
Demystifier said:
I interpret it as a special case of another quote:
"Truth and clarity are complementary." - Niels Bohr
Oh, I get it, the truth and clarity operators don't commute, they work at home.
Don't you think it's about time you changed your moniker to Mystifier?
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
  • #57
Demystifier said:
I interpret it as a special case of another quote:
"Truth and clarity are complementary." - Niels Bohr
Well, then Bohr definitely wrote only about true things. :biggrin:
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
  • #58
Demystifier said:
Is it just because of the existence of atoms, or because you don't think that the axiom of choice represents a physical choice?
Atoms?? I thought your view of reality was continuous. I don't accept the T-B Thm for physics because by now some alchemist would have the would's weight in gold.
The axiom of choice is not a sufficiently well ordered topic for QM , and should be maximally filtered out using the Zorn rule.
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier
  • #60
Zafa Pi said:
OMG, that referenced post of yours is more depressing than Donald Trump.
What if I tell you that I have a theory that solves all these questions at once? :wink:
 
  • #61
vanhees71 said:
Well, then Bohr definitely wrote only about true things. :biggrin:
Except the Bohr model of atom (with the so called "old QM"), which is clear but not true.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #62
Demystifier said:
What if I tell you that I have a theory that solves all these questions at once? :wink:
Oh sure, butter me up with something I won't be able to follow. I'm holding out for comprehension.
OK. let's see it, maybe it will work as a soporific.
 
  • #63
Demystifier said:
Is it just because of the existence of atoms, or because you don't think that the axiom of choice represents a physical choice?
I tend to view physics as finite, in the sense that any experiment only has a finite number of outcomes. The mathematics and theoretical physics extrapolates this to countable and uncountable infinities. A classical example is modelling a body as a continuous mass distribution, even though the physics is a large, finite number of particles.

In QM you can practically only carry out a finite number of measurements, so there is always a mathematical extrapolation to a continuous wave function defined on an uncountable set of points.

The extent to which the underlying reality is infinite is perhaps unknowable, as we will only ever have a finite set of data.

In particular, I can't see that the axiom of choice would be relevant in a physical situation.
 
  • Like
Likes secur
<h2>1. What is the Many Worlds Interpretation?</h2><p>The Many Worlds Interpretation is a theory in quantum mechanics that suggests that every possible outcome of a quantum event actually occurs in different parallel universes. This means that every decision we make creates a new universe with a different outcome.</p><h2>2. How does the Many Worlds Interpretation relate to coffee?</h2><p>The Many Worlds Interpretation does not have a direct relation to coffee. However, it can be used as an analogy to explain the concept. Just like how every decision creates a new universe, every time we make a cup of coffee, we are creating a new experience with different variables such as the type of beans, brewing method, and additives.</p><h2>3. Is the Many Worlds Interpretation scientifically proven?</h2><p>The Many Worlds Interpretation is a theory that is still being debated and researched by scientists. While there is evidence to support it, it has not been definitively proven. However, it is a valid interpretation of quantum mechanics and has gained significant attention in the scientific community.</p><h2>4. How does the Many Worlds Interpretation impact our understanding of reality?</h2><p>The Many Worlds Interpretation challenges our traditional understanding of reality by suggesting that there are countless parallel universes with different versions of ourselves and the world around us. It forces us to question the concept of a single objective reality and consider the possibility of multiple realities existing simultaneously.</p><h2>5. Can the Many Worlds Interpretation be applied to other areas of science?</h2><p>While the Many Worlds Interpretation is primarily used in the field of quantum mechanics, some scientists have proposed applying it to other areas such as biology and psychology. However, more research is needed to determine the validity of these applications.</p>

1. What is the Many Worlds Interpretation?

The Many Worlds Interpretation is a theory in quantum mechanics that suggests that every possible outcome of a quantum event actually occurs in different parallel universes. This means that every decision we make creates a new universe with a different outcome.

2. How does the Many Worlds Interpretation relate to coffee?

The Many Worlds Interpretation does not have a direct relation to coffee. However, it can be used as an analogy to explain the concept. Just like how every decision creates a new universe, every time we make a cup of coffee, we are creating a new experience with different variables such as the type of beans, brewing method, and additives.

3. Is the Many Worlds Interpretation scientifically proven?

The Many Worlds Interpretation is a theory that is still being debated and researched by scientists. While there is evidence to support it, it has not been definitively proven. However, it is a valid interpretation of quantum mechanics and has gained significant attention in the scientific community.

4. How does the Many Worlds Interpretation impact our understanding of reality?

The Many Worlds Interpretation challenges our traditional understanding of reality by suggesting that there are countless parallel universes with different versions of ourselves and the world around us. It forces us to question the concept of a single objective reality and consider the possibility of multiple realities existing simultaneously.

5. Can the Many Worlds Interpretation be applied to other areas of science?

While the Many Worlds Interpretation is primarily used in the field of quantum mechanics, some scientists have proposed applying it to other areas such as biology and psychology. However, more research is needed to determine the validity of these applications.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
1
Views
237
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
2
Views
351
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
11
Views
544
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
2
Views
911
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
5
Replies
174
Views
9K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
3
Views
2K
Back
Top