Hello All,

 

Recenlt I've read mostly about "many -worlds". As I understand, it is still not universally accepted interpretation, but there are some reports that certain experiments simply proved it, like Vaidman- Elitzur bomb test, Zelingher interferometer, vacuum etc, double- slit experiment, that electron seen to be both in 2 places (M.Kaku)...

 

There are also reports that this interpretation was "mathematically" proven...

 

So,I'm confused. Some people claim that these "wordls", if they exist, are by definition beyond human observatiion, other say that that these "worlds" were observed, still others claim that all data indicates these "worlds" can be explained without resorting to "many-worlds".

 

What do You think of this article?:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/05/freaky-physics-proves-parallel-universes/?test=faces

 

I've read personally, that S.Weinberg changed his position, and now regard every interpretation unsatisfactory, and somwhere I've read that S.Hawking also rejected MWI now...

So,what is Your opinion on the above claims/article that MWI is proven?...

The article is from FOX. Are you really going to trust their science journalism?

Here is the original article:

 

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/mar/18/quantum-effect-spotted-in-a-visible-object

The article is typical pop-sci journalism, but more than that, it never makes the case about how a macroscopic object in a superposition proves MWI.

There are also reports that this interpretation was "mathematically" proven...

 

It depends what you mean by that. A physical theory should be mathematically consistent, it's a basic requirement. However it needs to hold up to experiment and be provable / falsifiable. It's the latter where MWI doesn't really hold. In this case, a massive assumption is required to explain the results.

 

other say that that these "worlds" were observed

 

Do you have a link or citation for this ?

Edited October 24, 201213 yr by Royston

It depends what you mean by that. A physical theory should be mathematically consistent, it's a basic requirement. However it needs to hold up to experiment and be provable / falsifiable. It's the latter where MWI doesn't really hold. In this case, a massive assumption is required to explain the results.

 

 

 

Do you have a link or citation for this ?

 

 

http://www.cosmic-mindreach.com/Entanglement.html

 

"It has never struck me before that people do not realise that there is MASSIVE observational evidence that the Many Worlds

really do exist.

 

In fact ALL the data associated with correlation indicates that the Many Worlds DO exist.

It is only really that there is an alternative explanation (Bohm's Quantum Potential) that such belief is not stronger.

We can SEE single particles in a Mach Zender interferometer or a Elitzur Vaidman Bomb Tester go BOTH WAYS around the

apparatus. We can SEE the Many Worlds in this way (and Many others).”

 

Or the book:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Schr%C3%B6dingers-Rabbits-Worlds-Quantum-Hardcover/dp/B0088505GS/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1351102348&sr=8-2&keywords=Schroedinger%27s+Rabbits

 

It mentiones Zhelinger's interferometer

 

Hello All,

 

Recenlt I've read mostly about "many -worlds". As I understand, it is still not universally accepted interpretation, but there are some reports that certain experiments simply proved it, like Vaidman- Elitzur bomb test, Zelingher interferometer, vacuum etc, double- slit experiment, that electron seen to be both in 2 places (M.Kaku)...

 

There are also reports that this interpretation was "mathematically" proven...

 

So,I'm confused. Some people claim that these "wordls", if they exist, are by definition beyond human observatiion, other say that that these "worlds" were observed, still others claim that all data indicates these "worlds" can be explained without resorting to "many-worlds".

 

What do You think of this article?:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/05/freaky-physics-proves-parallel-universes/?test=faces

 

I've read personally, that S.Weinberg changed his position, and now regard every interpretation unsatisfactory, and somwhere I've read that S.Hawking also rejected MWI now...

So,what is Your opinion on the above claims/article that MWI is proven?...

 

You would check Neumaier's FAQ entry about MWI. I completely agree with his conclusion:

 

The presence of such arguments that flatly contradict other statements shows that MWI is a smokescreen without a consistent mathematics behind.

 

You would check Neumaier's FAQ entry about MWI. I completely agree with his conclusion:

 

 

 

Thanks a lot, Juangra. I also had a short correspondence with Caclav Brukner from the same Universcity, he toldd me that all data can be intepreted without relying on Many-Worlds assumption

Thanks a lot, Juangra. I also had a short correspondence with Caclav Brukner from the same Universcity, he toldd me that all data can be intepreted without relying on Many-Worlds assumption

 

Of course we do not need it!

Edited October 25, 201213 yr by juanrga