Nima Arkani-Hamed's opinion on Many Worlds?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the opinions of physicist Nima Arkani-Hamed regarding the Many Worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics. Participants explore the nuances of his views, the distinction between cosmological multiverse theories and quantum interpretations, and the implications of his statements on the subject.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • The original poster (OP) expresses confusion about Arkani-Hamed's stance on MWI, noting that he seems open to multiverse concepts but has made statements suggesting MWI may not be true in "real life."
  • Some participants suggest that the OP should seek better references or directly contact Arkani-Hamed for clarification on his views.
  • One participant cautions against conflating views on cosmology with those on quantum interpretations, implying that they may not be directly related.
  • Another participant argues that it is reasonable to consider MWI as physically true while not applicable to real life, citing examples from physics where theoretical constructs do not align with everyday experiences.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on Arkani-Hamed's views. There are multiple interpretations of his statements, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding whether he supports MWI or not.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the potential for misunderstanding Arkani-Hamed's views due to the complexity of interpretations and the need for precise references to his work.

Suekdccia
Messages
352
Reaction score
30
TL;DR
Nima Arkani-Hamed's opinion on Many Worlds?
I am writing a blog about physics and one of the sections is about the different interpretations of quantum mechanics and some of its supporters.

I was wondering what was the opinion of the physicist Nima Arkani-Hamed towards the Many Worlds interpretation...

I ask this because I found somewhat contradictory situations about his opinion on the subject. On the one hand, he is open to the possibility of the multiverse being true (and he does not make distinctions, so there is no reason why he would reject a many-world like model) and he also made a few talks where he proposed that there is no wavefunction collapse () a key assunption in many worlds...

However, in this reddit post () a user indicated that he thought that physicist Arkani Hamed said in an interview that Many Worlds interpretation was true but "obviously not in real life"...

It seems a bit confusing since I thought he was a strong Many Worlds supporter (and now I am not sure) so I find strange that he said that this interpretation is obviously not correct in the real life. Is he open to the possibility of it being true? Does he support it?
 
  • Wow
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier
Physics news on Phys.org
Sounds like the reddit user needs professional help, to be honest. Also, the claim by the user doesn't necessarily reflect fact (note your use of 'he thought that'). You can think a lot of things - whether they're true or not is another story. I suggest looking for better references to back up claims/support your questions.
 
I don't have much to contribute to an answer to the question. I will just say that it seems to me a mistake to take someone's view about the multiverse (i.e. a view about cosmology) and draw any conclusions about their view on many-world interpretations (i.e. a view about quantum interpretations).
 
The OP could always go straight to the source and ask this particular person what his view on the many-worlds interpretation is. He'd be in a better position to answer.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gentzen
I see nothing strange in the idea that MWI is true physically, but not in real life. Many ideas in physics are naturally thought of as true physically, but not in real life. Here are some examples:
- Behavior of matter, including the behavior of human beings, is not governed by goals in the future.
- Behavior of matter is neither good nor bad, it doesn't have any ethical value.
- Matter governed by deterministic or probabilistic laws of physics does not have free will. (Deterministic behavior is not free, while random behavior cannot have will.)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 155 ·
6
Replies
155
Views
7K
  • · Replies 174 ·
6
Replies
174
Views
14K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
2K