| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Equality 7-2521 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
 Posted: July 30 2013 at 08:07 |
|
The MWI neither adds or detracts anything from our understanding of physics. It's simply a model we can use to interpret the mathematics. It makes no new predictions. It's not worth talking about.
EDIT: Fixed some incorrect things and was generally cranky before having my morning tea.
Edited by Equality 7-2521 - July 30 2013 at 08:26
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
 |
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
|
Posted: July 30 2013 at 08:59 |
Hey don't shoot at me, I just answered to Finnforest that the sci-fi stories in which different alternate realities exist has a base in a respected scientific hypothesis as to what should we make of what we observe in quantum experiments. It's not any less regarded than any other of the typical interpretations, the Copenhagen, Bohm, transactional or any others. All of them share the same mathematics results, not one of them make testable predictions, otherwise we would have already proved which one is correct, or at least discarded some of them and made a shortlist. BTW in the Wiki list of interpretations it is listed second only to the Copenhagen, perhaps this means something. Say whatever you want but don't say that MWI does not belong to respected physics.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: July 30 2013 at 09:06 |
|
I'm not attacking you. I don't like the interpretation. I feel it's incredibly imprecise and only obfuscates the contradictions it claims it relieves.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
|
Posted: July 30 2013 at 09:07 |
|
May I ask which one do you favour?
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: July 30 2013 at 09:16 |
|
The Copenhagen. Call me boring or whatever. I doubt any of these interpretations will be one we find to be very accurate in 100 years.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
|
Posted: July 30 2013 at 09:19 |
|
So you are one of those who believe that the Moon isn't there when nobody is looking at it?
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: July 30 2013 at 09:31 |
|
I don't really want to talk about decoherence. And I don't mix philosophy and science which is essentially what the question ultimately comes down to. The Copenhagen interpretation works and I find it to give the most complete description. As I also said, I think these approaches will be refined into something different and more comprehensive.
It's a silly thing to try to call me on. When Kepler proposed his planetary laws, people were still envisioning angels pushing the planets around the heavens. It's absurd, but it didn't stop Kepler's laws from being the best theory at the time despite the fact that he lacked a description for the moving force.
With that said, to be square with the question: Yeah. The moon's there.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Epignosis
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32553
|
Posted: July 30 2013 at 12:04 |
This is tech-related, so I thought I'd share:
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 30 2013 at 12:21 |
|
I was just about to quip that no SF writer predicted the Spinning Beach Ball of Death, then I remembered Dan O'Bannon's alien in Dark Star
|
|
What?
|
|
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
|
Posted: July 30 2013 at 12:23 |
|
Sorry for my ignorance, you will have to guide on that one, I didn't get it.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 30 2013 at 12:40 |
|
What, the Perry Bible Fellowship cartoon or the Dark Star reference?
|
|
What?
|
|
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
|
Posted: July 30 2013 at 12:44 |
 Dean wrote:
There is nothing to say that the other (hypothetical) universe is real. Once a state of spin has been determined there is nothing to say the opposite state persists in an alternate universe. That is the problem with metatheories - it is not that "nobody came up with a suitable test" but that it is unprovable and unfalsifiable. The statement "at moment of the measurement the universe splits in 2 alternate universes" and the statement "at moment of the measurement the universe continues as a single universe" are equal - just as "at moment of the measurement the universe splits in 2 alternate universes, one of which is made of rice krispies" is also equal. So that's still a supposition based upon a hypothesis which is nothing more than a conjecture. It does not predict Alternate Realities.
|
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The Copenhagen interpretation works and I find it to give the most complete description.
|
Trying to understand what a mathematically sound theory "may mean" is not pseudo-science, it is legitimate science. Whether we are not yet in a position to come with a testable experiment does not make any difference. Newton's theory of gravity was working perfectly, if everybody had been content with the fact that it worked and did not worry as to "why does it work" probably we would not have General Relativity. Einstein knew that Newtonian gravity worked but was not happy with the fact that it did not explain how the hell could the Earth know that the Sun is out there, nor with the apparent implication that in Newtonian gravity the presence of a body instantaneously influenced other bodies in space, no matter how far they were. It was pondering about this questions which led him to develop General Relativity, not because Newtonian gravity didn't work.
Although circumstantial support for GR was provided by Mercury's precession and by Eddington's measurements of light deflection by the Sun during eclipses in 1919, solid proof was only achieved in the 1960's, 45 years after the theory was formulated, with the unequivocal measurements of Einstein rings.
What today is untestable is not necessarily untestable in principle, human ingenuity has proven that many times.
Edited by Gerinski - July 30 2013 at 12:46
|
|
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
|
Posted: July 30 2013 at 12:47 |
Dean wrote:
What, the Perry Bible Fellowship cartoon or the Dark Star reference? |
I'm afraid both  I didn't get the point in the cartoon posted by Rob, neither the Dark Star reference.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: July 30 2013 at 12:54 |
Gerinski wrote:
Trying to understand what a mathematically sound theory "may mean" is not pseudo-science, it is legitimate science. Whether we are not yet in a position to come with a testable experiment does not make any difference. |
I never disputed this.
Newton's theory of gravity was working perfectly, if everybody had been content with the fact that it worked and did not worry as to "why does it work" probably we would not have General Relativity. |
This is not true. The perihelion precession of Mercury was known and in contention with Newton's gravity.
Einstein knew that Newtonian gravity worked but was not happy with the fact that it did not explain how the hell could the Earth know that the Sun is out there, nor with the apparent implication that in Newtonian gravity the presence of a body instantaneously influenced other bodies in space, no matter how far they were. It was pondering about this questions which led him to develop General Relativity, not because Newtonian gravity didn't work. |
I would say this is very misleading and not accurate, but let's leave that alone. More importantly, so what? What does this have to do with anything I said? Scientific theories are constantly being revised and improved. I explicitly stated I expect a great revision to come in QM. No clue what you're getting at.
Although circumstantial support for GR was provided by Mercury's precession and by Eddington's measurements of light deflection by the Sun during eclipses in 1919, solid proof was only achieved in the 1960's, 45 years after the theory was formulated, with the unequivocal measurements of Einstein rings. |
In what sense were they circumstantial? They were support. They were excellent support actually. Again though, I don't know what you're getting at by saying this.
EDIT: Since we're on it for some reason, the Pound-Rebka experiment was probably the most important for establishing GR, both for the data collection and the precision it gave rise to.
Edited by Equality 7-2521 - July 30 2013 at 12:58
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 30 2013 at 13:26 |
Gerinski wrote:
Dean wrote:
There is nothing to say that the other (hypothetical) universe is real. Once a state of spin has been determined there is nothing to say the opposite state persists in an alternate universe. That is the problem with metatheories - it is not that "nobody came up with a suitable test" but that it is unprovable and unfalsifiable. The statement "at moment of the measurement the universe splits in 2 alternate universes" and the statement "at moment of the measurement the universe continues as a single universe" are equal - just as "at moment of the measurement the universe splits in 2 alternate universes, one of which is made of rice krispies" is also equal.
So that's still a supposition based upon a hypothesis which is nothing more than a conjecture. It does not predict Alternate Realities. |
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The Copenhagen interpretation works and I find it to give the most complete description.
|
Trying to understand what a mathematically sound theory "may mean" is not pseudo-science, it is legitimate science. Whether we are not yet in a position to come with a testable experiment does not make any difference.
Newton's theory of gravity was working perfectly, if everybody had been content with the fact that it worked and did not worry as to "why does it work" probably we would not have General Relativity.
Einstein knew that Newtonian gravity worked but was not happy with the fact that it did not explain how the hell could the Earth know that the Sun is out there, nor with the apparent implication that in Newtonian gravity the presence of a body instantaneously influenced other bodies in space, no matter how far they were. It was pondering about this questions which led him to develop General Relativity, not because Newtonian gravity didn't work.
Although circumstantial support for GR was provided by Mercury's precession and by Eddington's measurements of light deflection by the Sun during eclipses in 1919, solid proof was only achieved in the 1960's, 45 years after the theory was formulated, with the unequivocal measurements of Einstein rings.
What today is untestable is not necessarily untestable in principle, human ingenuity has proven that many times. |
Hypotheses are not pseudo-science (and I would never claim that they are), being untestable does not automatically imply it is a pseudo-science, it simply means you cannot prove or disprove it. Back in 1916 it was known how to test GR, back then GR was not thought of as untestable, it was never seen as unprovable, they knew it could be used to make predictions that were measurable they just didn't have the means to do it at the time.
There are untestable hypotheses that are currently untestable, and there are untestable hypotheses that are permanently untestable.
Everett's claim that MWI was falsifiable since any test that falsifies conventional quantum theory would also falsify MWI is a slight of hand. MWI is untestable yesterday, today and tomorrow. As Pat said, it is a model to understand the maths. Since it is an illustration rather than a means of making prediction it has no application value (it does not make it worthless) - it does not predict the existence of Many Worlds, it uses Many Worlds to illustrate a point. Fanciful extrapolations of what you could do with those Many Worlds are nothing more than thought experiments - it's like saying "supposing a photon had rest mass" - it's a thought experiment we could play around with but it is not real, photons don't have rest mass (thankfully).
|
|
What?
|
|
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
|
Posted: July 30 2013 at 13:30 |
|
I'm only getting at saying that trying to find out what quantum mechanics "means" is not pseudo-science. Dean despised MWI because it is untestable. You said "I don't mix philosophy and science which is essentially what the question ultimately comes down to" as if trying to understand what quantum theory tells us about the universe is not science but philosophy. I just disputed that. Trying to understand what quantum theory "means" is legitimate science to me, and the fact that an hypothesis is not testable at the moment does not render it useless to me.
|
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
Posted: July 30 2013 at 13:32 |
|
You asked me if the moon is there when I'm not looking at it. To that I responded I don't mix philosophy and science. Trying to figure our what QM means is not science, but it is legitimate.
Finally, didn't catch that Dean said that, but remember Dean that MWI is testable.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 30 2013 at 13:39 |
Gerinski wrote:
Dean wrote:
What, the Perry Bible Fellowship cartoon or the Dark Star reference? |
I'm afraid both I didn't get the point in the cartoon posted by Rob, neither the Dark Star reference. |
The Spinning Beach Ball Of Death is the Apple Mac spinning wait cursor, it often preceeds the "Apllication-x has closed unexpectedly" alert box - which is the explanation of the PBF cartoon - the kid's beach ball has become the Mac wait cursor and the beach has crashed. "The Spinning Beach Ball Of Death" is the colloquial name for the wait cursor - like "Vulcan Nerve Pinch" is the colloquial name for ALT-CTRL-DEL on a PC, it is also known as the Marble of Doom and the Spinning Pinwheel, but that does not work in either joke.
Dark Star was a John Carpenter film from 1974 scripted by Dan O'Bannon, who also played Sgt. Pinback in the film, the plot of the film is that a ship (the Dark Star) is on a mundain and tedious 20 year mission to destroy unstable planets, by way of a diversion Sgt. Pinbeck wanted to discover alien civilisations but in the 20 years they have been in space the only alien they have discovered is a cantankerous blob with feet (but no legs) that resembles a beach ball and does little more than eat, fart and excrete, (and attack Pinbeck for no apparent reason).
|
|
What?
|
|
Gerinski
Prog Reviewer
Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
|
Posted: July 30 2013 at 13:39 |
Dean wrote:
MWI is untestable yesterday, today and tomorrow.
|
You proposed to open some thread about "things which used to be considered impossible (you used the word "magic" but OK I go along with that) and are real today. That would be fun and simply show that we should be wary of using the expression "impossible" (untestable is just a variant).
Again, I'm not saying I'm a proponent of MWI, I'm just saying that reputed physicists support it, so I can only show some objections when some PA members claim to be smarter than them.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: July 30 2013 at 13:42 |
Gerinski wrote:
Dean despised MWI because it is untestable. |
I don't despise MWI - I have no opinion of it. I just said it does not predict that Many Worlds exist.
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Finally, didn't catch that Dean said that, but remember Dean that MWI is testable.
|
How so?
|
|
What?
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Sci Fi TV science or fiction?