|
|
|
|
Alexander1304
Skeptic Friend
75 Posts |
 Posted - 10/24/2012 : 10:34:18
|
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), isolation of ion...
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".
I've read personally, that S.Weinberg,once supported MWI, 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" ?...
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2012 : 11:27:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Alexander1304
So,what is Your opinion on the above claims/article that MWI is "proven" ?...
|
My opinion is that there doesn't seem to be a consensus among experts in the field that there are enough evidence to support "many worlds" as the only valid interpretation.
What I intend to do about it is to open a bottle of stout, and watch another episode of Heroes. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
Alexander1304
Skeptic Friend
75 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2012 : 11:36:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by Alexander1304
So,what is Your opinion on the above claims/article that MWI is "proven" ?...
|
My opinion is that there doesn't seem to be a consensus among experts in the field that there are enough evidence to support "many worlds" as the only valid interpretation.
What I intend to do about it is to open a bottle of stout, and watch another episode of Heroes.
|
Fair enough, thanks |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2012 : 11:47:00 [Permalink]
|
Ok, I’ll bite. First of all, this post is approaching spam (you posted something nearly identical here). It’s advisable to reference a similar post elsewhere so you don’t give the impression of spamming or plagiarism.Originally posted by Alexander1304
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, |
This doesn’t prove MWI, but an interpretation of the experiment compatible with MWI is on Wikipedia. | Zelingher interferometer, |
Will you please describe this one? I am not familiar with it, and a quick google search didn’t help.| vacuum etc, double- slit experiment, that electron seen to be both in 2 places (M.Kaku), isolation of ion... |
All classic QM experiments, none of which “prove” MWI.| There are also reports that this interpretation was "mathematically" proven... |
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of a mathematical proof. You can only prove something as far as the axioms will let you. In other words, if one of your axioms is false, every proof based on it has to be reevaluated. One cannot mathematically prove a scientific theory.| So,I'm confused. Some people claim that these "wordls", if they exist, are by definition beyond human observatiion, |
That sounds right to me.| other say that that these "worlds" were observed, |
I eagerly await any experiment that allows viewing of a parallel universe. That would elevate MWI from Interpretation to Theory.| still others claim that all data indicates these "worlds" can be explained without resorting to "many-worlds". |
Actually, Occam seems to favor MWI, since it uses fewer assumptions in the beginning….| I've read personally, that S.Weinberg,once supported MWI, changed his position, and now regard every interpretation unsatisfactory, and somwhere I've read that S.Hawking also rejected MWI now... |
Where did you read this? Although, their opinions wouldn’t be the deciding factor in MWI’s veracity, it may lend weight to a discussion.| So,what is Your opinion on the above claims/article that MWI is "proven" ?... |
See above. You cannot “prove” a scientific theory, and MWI still isn’t even a theory. |
|
|
|
Alexander1304
Skeptic Friend
75 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2012 : 11:53:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
Ok, I’ll bite. First of all, this post is approaching spam (you posted something nearly identical here). It’s advisable to reference a similar post elsewhere so you don’t give the impression of spamming or plagiarism.Originally posted by Alexander1304
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, |
This doesn’t prove MWI, but an interpretation of the experiment compatible with MWI is on Wikipedia. | Zelingher interferometer, |
Will you please describe this one? I am not familiar with it, and a quick google search didn’t help.| vacuum etc, double- slit experiment, that electron seen to be both in 2 places (M.Kaku), isolation of ion... |
All classic QM experiments, none of which “prove” MWI.| There are also reports that this interpretation was "mathematically" proven... |
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of a mathematical proof. You can only prove something as far as the axioms will let you. In other words, if one of your axioms is false, every proof based on it has to be reevaluated. One cannot mathematically prove a scientific theory.| So,I'm confused. Some people claim that these "wordls", if they exist, are by definition beyond human observatiion, |
That sounds right to me.| other say that that these "worlds" were observed, |
I eagerly await any experiment that allows viewing of a parallel universe. That would elevate MWI from Interpretation to Theory.| still others claim that all data indicates these "worlds" can be explained without resorting to "many-worlds". |
Actually, Occam seems to favor MWI, since it uses fewer assumptions in the beginning….| I've read personally, that S.Weinberg,once supported MWI, changed his position, and now regard every interpretation unsatisfactory, and somwhere I've read that S.Hawking also rejected MWI now... |
Where did you read this? Although, their opinions wouldn’t be the deciding factor in MWI’s veracity, it may lend weight to a discussion.| So,what is Your opinion on the above claims/article that MWI is "proven" ?... |
See above. You cannot “prove” a scientific theory, and MWI still isn’t even a theory.
|
This is the quote from one not too scientific website, where person cites one research physicist:
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).”
But it can be just the matter of interpretation, other interpretation may be available
This is quote from S.Weinberg I've found by myself: "There is now in my opinion no entirely satisfactory interpretation of quantum mechanics. The Copenhagen interpretation assumes a mysterious division between the microscopic world governed by quantum mechanics and a macroscopic world of apparatus and observers that obeys classical physics. During measurement the state vector of the microscopic system collapses in a probabilistic way to one of a number of classical states, in a way that is unexplained, and cannot be described by the time-dependent Schrodinger equation. The many-worlds interpretation assumes that the state vector of the whole of any isolated system does not collapse, but evolves deterministically according to the time-dependent Schrodinger equation. In such a deterministic theory it is hard to see how probabilities can arise. Also, the branching of the world into vast numbers of histories is disturbing, to say the least. The decoherent histories approach gives up on the idea that it is possible to completely characterize the state of an isolated system at any time by a vector in Hilbert space, or by anything else, and instead provides only a set of rules for calculating the probabilities of certain kinds of history. This avoids inconsistencies, but without any objective characterization of the state of a system, one wonders where the rules come from. Faced with these perplexities, one is led to consider the possibility that quantum mechanics needs correction."
As for Hawking, I've read about his abandonment of MWI on different forums, here is one:
"Before we continue, it is worth noting that there are proponents of both "strong" and "weak" MWI. "Weak" MWI adherents, like Stephen Hawking, tend to be positivists - they don't think the theory describes reality, it just predicts the results of experiments. Thus, the other worlds are not to be understood as "really real," they are just a mathematical construct to help do experiments." |
| Edited by - Alexander1304 on 10/24/2012 11:59:15 |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2012 : 17:08:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Alexander1304
This is the quote from one not too scientific website, where person cites one research physicist: |
So you're referencing an un-creditable website that claims to reference an expert testimony? Hmm."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).” |
This sounds to me that we can SEE the waveform continuing to exist until it fully collapses by observation. This is one of the fundamental observations of QM, not experimental confirmation of the MWI.| But it can be just the matter of interpretation, other interpretation may be available |
Exactly.| This is quote from S.Weinberg I've found by myself: "There is now in my opinion no entirely satisfactory interpretation of quantum mechanics. The Copenhagen interpretation assumes a mysterious division between the microscopic world governed by quantum mechanics and a macroscopic world of apparatus and observers that obeys classical physics. During measurement the state vector of the microscopic system collapses in a probabilistic way to one of a number of classical states, in a way that is unexplained, and cannot be described by the time-dependent Schrodinger equation. The many-worlds interpretation assumes that the state vector of the whole of any isolated system does not collapse, but evolves deterministically according to the time-dependent Schrodinger equation. In such a deterministic theory it is hard to see how probabilities can arise. Also, the branching of the world into vast numbers of histories is disturbing, to say the least. The decoherent histories approach gives up on the idea that it is possible to completely characterize the state of an isolated system at any time by a vector in Hilbert space, or by anything else, and instead provides only a set of rules for calculating the probabilities of certain kinds of history. This avoids inconsistencies, but without any objective characterization of the state of a system, one wonders where the rules come from. Faced with these perplexities, one is led to consider the possibility that quantum mechanics needs correction." |
It is generally considered appropriate to cite your sources, rather than just spitting out "quotes."As for Hawking, I've read about his abandonment of MWI on different forums, here is one:
"Before we continue, it is worth noting that there are proponents of both "strong" and "weak" MWI. "Weak" MWI adherents, like Stephen Hawking, tend to be positivists - they don't think the theory describes reality, it just predicts the results of experiments. Thus, the other worlds are not to be understood as "really real," they are just a mathematical construct to help do experiments." |
As above.
The root of the problem is this: we still have yet to devise an experiment that can confirm one QM interpreation over another. Some of the postulated experiments rely on technology that doesn't presently (and may never) exist. Unfortunately, this turns all of this speculation into just that: speculation.
Until we can empirically determine that one interpretation is correct, or if one interpretation clearly lends to a more "elegant" theory, the MWI will remain in the realms of philosophy and science fiction.
|
|
|
|
Alexander1304
Skeptic Friend
75 Posts |
Posted - 10/24/2012 : 17:21:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
Originally posted by Alexander1304
This is the quote from one not too scientific website, where person cites one research physicist: |
So you're referencing an un-creditable website that claims to reference an expert testimony? Hmm."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).” |
This sounds to me that we can SEE the waveform continuing to exist until it fully collapses by observation. This is one of the fundamental observations of QM, not experimental confirmation of the MWI.| But it can be just the matter of interpretation, other interpretation may be available |
Exactly.| This is quote from S.Weinberg I've found by myself: "There is now in my opinion no entirely satisfactory interpretation of quantum mechanics. The Copenhagen interpretation assumes a mysterious division between the microscopic world governed by quantum mechanics and a macroscopic world of apparatus and observers that obeys classical physics. During measurement the state vector of the microscopic system collapses in a probabilistic way to one of a number of classical states, in a way that is unexplained, and cannot be described by the time-dependent Schrodinger equation. The many-worlds interpretation assumes that the state vector of the whole of any isolated system does not collapse, but evolves deterministically according to the time-dependent Schrodinger equation. In such a deterministic theory it is hard to see how probabilities can arise. Also, the branching of the world into vast numbers of histories is disturbing, to say the least. The decoherent histories approach gives up on the idea that it is possible to completely characterize the state of an isolated system at any time by a vector in Hilbert space, or by anything else, and instead provides only a set of rules for calculating the probabilities of certain kinds of history. This avoids inconsistencies, but without any objective characterization of the state of a system, one wonders where the rules come from. Faced with these perplexities, one is led to consider the possibility that quantum mechanics needs correction." |
It is generally considered appropriate to cite your sources, rather than just spitting out "quotes."As for Hawking, I've read about his abandonment of MWI on different forums, here is one:
"Before we continue, it is worth noting that there are proponents of both "strong" and "weak" MWI. "Weak" MWI adherents, like Stephen Hawking, tend to be positivists - they don't think the theory describes reality, it just predicts the results of experiments. Thus, the other worlds are not to be understood as "really real," they are just a mathematical construct to help do experiments." |
As above.
The root of the problem is this: we still have yet to devise an experiment that can confirm one QM interpreation over another. Some of the postulated experiments rely on technology that doesn't presently (and may never) exist. Unfortunately, this turns all of this speculation into just that: speculation.
Until we can empirically determine that one interpretation is correct, or if one interpretation clearly lends to a more "elegant" theory, the MWI will remain in the realms of philosophy and science fiction.
|
Thanks for the reply, Boron.
I'll reply with the interesting quote by David Deutch, one of the prominent supporters of the MWI : "I'm sure that quantum theory will be proved false one day, because it seems inconceivable that we've stumbled across the final theory of physics. But I would bet my bottom dollar that the new theory will either retain the parallel universe feature of quantum physics, or it will contain something even more weird." |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
'Many -Worlds' is the only valid intepretation and
