Jump to content

'Many -Worlds' is the only valid intepretation and proven?


Alexander1304

Recommended Posts

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?...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Royston
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by juanrga
Link to comment
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.