How the Many-Worlds Theory of Hugh Everett Split the Universe
1–10 of 122 posts
Re: How the Many-Worlds Theory of Hugh Everett Split the Universe
#2I'm not sure if the Aeon article explains what Everett really meant, at least I still have questions.
Suppose we're eternally branching, as in the example about the up/down spin. If there's no way to visit other branches, how will we ever confirm this?
Second, what is the benefit of the branching interpretation? It seems to simply be a way to think about probabilities?
Re: How the Many-Worlds Theory of Hugh Everett Split the Universe
#3Fun fact, Hugh Everett is “E” Mark Oliver Everett’s father, lead singer of The Eels.
Re: How the Many-Worlds Theory of Hugh Everett Split the Universe
#4Peter Woit in his blog "Not Even Wrong" [0] sometimes deals with the Many Worlds interpretation. He doesn't seem to be a fan.
He had a recent post [1] about Everett that's interesting.
[0] https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ [1] http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=11202 [2] https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10522
Re: How the Many-Worlds Theory of Hugh Everett Split the Universe
#5I'm not sure if the Aeon article explains what Everett really meant, at least I still have questions. Suppose we're eternally branching, as in the example about the up/down spin. If there's no way to visit other branches, how will we ever confirm this? Second, what is the benefit of the branching interpretation? It seems to simply be a way to think about probabilities?
I'd recommend reading some of the explanations given by Sean Carroll on the subject. https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/
....and I didn't realize that Sean Carroll actually wrote this article! Still, he does some good explanations on his podcast.
Re: How the Many-Worlds Theory of Hugh Everett Split the Universe
#6I'm not sure if the Aeon article explains what Everett really meant, at least I still have questions. Suppose we're eternally branching, as in the example about the up/down spin. If there's no way to visit other branches, how will we ever confirm this? Second, what is the benefit of the branching interpretation? It seems to simply be a way to think about probabilities?
The benefit is that instead of two rules for quantum behavior 1) the Schrodinger equation 2) the born rule , that contradict each other, you just have 1) the Schrodinger equation, which you already accepted.
There is also a higher level goal that also motivates him
> the quest for quantum gravity is being held back by physicists’ traditional strategy of taking a classical theory (such as Albert Einstein’s general relativity) and ‘quantising’ it. Presumably nature doesn’t work like that; it’s just quantum from the start.
Re: How the Many-Worlds Theory of Hugh Everett Split the Universe
#7Peter Woit in his blog "Not Even Wrong" [0] sometimes deals with the Many Worlds interpretation. He doesn't seem to be a fan. He had a recent post [1] about Everett that's interesting. [0] https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ [1] http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=11202 [2] https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10522
That characterization of Woit does not appear quite accurate. Woit's claim may even be bolder, in that he claims that there is no functional difference between MWI and Copenhagen.
> What strikes me when thinking about these two supposedly very different points of view on quantum mechanics is that I’m having trouble seeing why they are actually any different at all.
Re: How the Many-Worlds Theory of Hugh Everett Split the Universe
#8You can do a really simple thought experiment that provides a persuasive argument in favor of the many worlds theory. Or at least, it shows that wave function collapse is relative to an observer, not universal everywhere.
Start with Schroedingers cat: the cat is in a box, it’s in a state of quantum superposition. It’s 50/50 alive or dead. Now a researcher opens the box: the cat is found to be either alive, or dead, and according to the Copenhagen interpretation we say that the wave function has collapsed.
But, now take the cat and the researcher, and put the whole first experiment inside another box. Now the researcher inside the second (outer) box opens up the box with the cat. From outside the second box, we still must say that the first researcher is in a state of superposition, but when the second box is opened, the first researcher will say, oh, I’ve known the cat was dead for 10 minutes or whatever.
So, before we open the second box, has the wave function collapsed, or not? It depends on which researcher you are. But Every part of the universe is in some sense “in a box” until information passes to it from another part of the universe. I give you: many worlds.
Re: How the Many-Worlds Theory of Hugh Everett Split the Universe
#9Peter Woit in his blog "Not Even Wrong" [0] sometimes deals with the Many Worlds interpretation. He doesn't seem to be a fan. He had a recent post [1] about Everett that's interesting. [0] https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/ [1] http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=11202 [2] https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=10522
That characterization of Woit does not appear quite accurate. Woit's claim may even be bolder, in that he claims that there is no functional difference between MWI and Copenhagen. > What strikes me when thinking about these two supposedly very different points of view on quantum mechanics is that I’m having trouble seeing why they are actually any different at all.
The main difference is one of rhetoric: Copenhagen insists that experiments have single outcomes. MWI insists that experiments have multiple outcomes in point of metaphysical fact.
Another difference is that the MWI has to explain the Born rule (which is problematic), whereas Copenhagen simply takes it as an axiom.
http://blog.rongarret.info/2019/07/the-trouble-with-many-wor...
Re: How the Many-Worlds Theory of Hugh Everett Split the Universe
#10Fun fact, Hugh Everett is “E” Mark Oliver Everett’s father, lead singer of The Eels.
Came here for this :-D.