Alexander1304 Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Hello all, On one forum I found this link: http://oyhus.no/QM_explaining_many-worlds.html claiming to demonstrate correctness of Many Wordls interpretation of QM. On the one hand - seems like well presented arguments. On the other: it claimes to be discovered in 1990,and it seems to to appear in any peer-reviewed scientific editions.I think: if it REALY is the case - I even didn't come across any apologist of Many Worlds using THIS argument. Any thoughts? Quantum physicists here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 The many worlds interpretation was first proposed by Everett in 1957. It is an attempt to get rind of the philosophically unpleasant issues of the Copenhagen interpretation, such as EPR paradox and Schrödinger's cat. The idea is to remove randomness and action at a distance from quantum mechanics. Although stated as an interpretation, the many worlds interpretation rejects the collapse of wavefunctions. This is in principle testable, but well outside of our technology today. As far as I know, today there is no experimental evidence that supports the many worlds interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander1304 Posted September 8, 2012 Author Share Posted September 8, 2012 (edited) Well,he claims to have this evidence with his computer simulatioin.The question is - who else would accept his conclusion?It seems that his work didn't go farther from his website,I've never read even ardent advocate of "Many Worlds" citing him Edited September 8, 2012 by Alexander1304 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted September 8, 2012 Share Posted September 8, 2012 Well,he claims to have this evidence with his computer simulatioin.The question is - who else would accept his conclusion? Maybe one could argue that this supports the interpretation, but really you need evidence from nature to settle the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diffeomorphism Posted September 9, 2012 Share Posted September 9, 2012 I second ajb Also, I feel that people try to couple qm and cm as if "because particles behave this way... then the macroscopic world must do that as well". I don't entirely agree with that disposition. QM and CM are two separate worlds where not everything is to be taken at face-value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_heretic Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 I am interested to know how you came across the website, Alexander1304 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now