Jump to content

Probability in MWI


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Which has nothing to do with the topic. Focus, please.

The problem with the Many World Interpretation is the same problem physicists have with ghosts.  There is no physical evidence to support the claim.  It's like wandering through your house, from the living room to the kitchen, and trying to make the argument that because you changed rooms, you changed houses.  Or because an onlooker looks at your house and doesn't know where you are in your house, that you must be in the multi-house verse.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Of course there isn’t. It’s an interpretation.

I don't wish to deprive you of your fascination with MWI.  My goal is to offer an interpretation that leads to experiments that lead to manipulating the position/momentum quantum states of gravitons, which results in gravity field effects. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, POVphysics said:

The physics community always proclaims that QM is weird!  Which means that you don't understand what's happening. 

No. They are simply saying it is weird. Don't confuse "weird" with "don't understand". They are not the same thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, zapatos said:

No. They are simply saying it is weird. Don't confuse "weird" with "don't understand". They are not the same thing.

I'm not so sure that's true.  There are some people who believe that QM is so weird, that there exists an infinite number of universe every time someone decides what they're going to have for dinner.  I mean, if you have to ask for an infinite number of universes to make your interpretation sound reasonable, but there are no supporting facts or evidence, then where are  you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, POVphysics said:

I don't wish to deprive you of your fascination with MWI.  My goal is to offer an interpretation that leads to experiments that lead to manipulating the position/momentum quantum states of gravitons, which results in gravity field effects. 

You might want to save that for many of the other universes, where Swantsont expressed some fascination.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:
5 hours ago, POVphysics said:

I don't wish to deprive you of your fascination with MWI.  My goal is to offer an interpretation that leads to experiments that lead to manipulating the position/momentum quantum states of gravitons, which results in gravity field effects. 

You might want to save that for many of the other universes, where Swantsont expressed some fascination.

MWI is nonsense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, POVphysics said:

My goal is to offer an interpretation that leads to experiments that lead to manipulating the position/momentum quantum states of gravitons, which results in gravity field effects. 

Have you ever tried to write down a quantum field theory for self-interacting spin-2 gravitons, with the appropriate classical limits? It’s a doable exercise. Unfortunately the end result is a QFT that is non-renormalisable, so it does not yield any physically meaningful predictions.

Clearly, this approach leads exactly nowhere.

1 hour ago, POVphysics said:

MWI is nonsense.

You don’t need to use it, you can just stick to the Copenhagen interpretation, or use any of the numerous other interpretations. Remember, you are always dealing with the same model, these aren’t distinct theories.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:
7 hours ago, POVphysics said:

My goal is to offer an interpretation that leads to experiments that lead to manipulating the position/momentum quantum states of gravitons, which results in gravity field effects. 

Have you ever tried to write down a quantum field theory for self-interacting spin-2 gravitons, with the appropriate classical limits? It’s a doable exercise. Unfortunately the end result is a QFT that is non-renormalisable, so it does not yield any physically meaningful predictions.

Clearly, this approach leads exactly nowhere.

In a Wave functions = expanding gravitons interpretation, the gravitons are supposed to begin at a point, expand spherically at the speed of light, and eventually overlap.  Two expanding gravitons would overlap in such a way as to combine their quantum states for momentum and position.  When you have 10^100 gravitons that are several light seconds or larger diameters, then you really just get the spacetime continuum and the Einstein equations.  Renormalization might be a requirement for a quantum field theory calculation, but it's not a priority for nature to create gravity fields. 

I'm pretty sure we would have to conduct new experiments on quantum entanglement fields before we could get data that could be described with mathematics.  But it's more important to figure out if a quantum entanglement field can serve as a gravitational potential energy field.  If we can demonstrate that, then we can work towards tractor beams and chemical free propulsion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, POVphysics said:

Incidentally, if wave functions = expanding gravitons, then wave functions DO NOT COLLAPSE.  They expand, at the speed of light, beyond the quantum system; essentially they escape quantum systems by expanding, not collapsing.

!

Moderator Note

This kind of speculation doesn't belong in the mainstream sections. Please support these kinds of statements in a new thread in our Speculations section.

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 11/28/2020 at 7:10 PM, POVphysics said:

The problem with the Many World Interpretation is the same problem physicists have with ghosts.  There is no physical evidence to support the claim.  It's like wandering through your house, from the living room to the kitchen, and trying to make the argument that because you changed rooms, you changed houses.  Or because an onlooker looks at your house and doesn't know where you are in your house, that you must be in the multi-house verse.


I’m definitely a skeptic about MWI, but there’s no real proof against it. 
 

The ghost analogy for MWI is a pretty accurate analogy, but all that means is there’s no proof MWI is real. Not that there’s proof against it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Orange6 said:


I’m definitely a skeptic about MWI, but there’s no real proof against it. 
 

The ghost analogy for MWI is a pretty accurate analogy, but all that means is there’s no proof MWI is real. Not that there’s proof against it.

That’s because it’s an interpretation, not a theory.

It’s akin to saying there’s no proof against a mnemonic, like “Every Good Boy Deserves Favor” or ROY G BIV

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swansont said:

It’s akin to saying there’s no proof against a mnemonic, like “Every Good Boy Deserves Favor” or ROY G BIV

We were taught

Every Garrulous Boy Deserves Flogging

Good boys deserved food.

Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, studiot said:

We were taught

Every Garrulous Boy Deserves Flogging

The Moody Blues interpretation and the British Navy interpretation are equally valid.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, swansont said:

The Moody Blues interpretation and the British Navy interpretation are equally valid.

 

So they deserve both flogging and favour and food ?

They must be very deserving indeed.

:eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.