- #1

- 254

- 27

## Main Question or Discussion Point

I was reading a lot that "

1. The (mathematical) discovery of Quantum Decoherence had provided a solid foundation for MWI. In MWI there is no collapse, and measurements are not "final", "irreversible" and somehow magical. So there is no fundamental difference between observed and unobserved particles.

2. Different accelerated observers don't agree on the number of "real" particles (check

3. In Tegmark's MUH,

So "

Thank you

*Virtual particles are just math..*." and many physicists for some reason get angry explaining it. But I suspect this point of view is interpretation-biased and is outdated for 3 reasons listed below:1. The (mathematical) discovery of Quantum Decoherence had provided a solid foundation for MWI. In MWI there is no collapse, and measurements are not "final", "irreversible" and somehow magical. So there is no fundamental difference between observed and unobserved particles.

2. Different accelerated observers don't agree on the number of "real" particles (check

*Unruh effect*). It suggests that particles, virtual for one observer, could be real for another.3. In Tegmark's MUH,

*everything*is*just math*. So you can't claim something is not real because it is "*just math*"So "

*Virtual particles are just math..*." sounds as something from 1970x and very Copenhagen. I don't want to start interpretation wars. But IF you accept MWI, or MUH, or both, what is your view on the nature of the virtual particles? If you don't accept MWI or MUH, you still can play "devils advocate" and make an analysis from that point of view.Thank you