Notices
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Questions on Many Worlds Interpretation

  1. #1 Questions on Many Worlds Interpretation 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    57
    Hi!

    I've seen videos depicting the ‘Many Worlds Interpretation’ of quantum physics which show T-Rex stomping through your living room because the K2 Event didn’t take place in that parallel universe, you know the hype you see on the MWI. While probably, no one ‘really’ thinks this is happening, the interpretation somehow assumes other universes are right here all around.

    1. Concerning MWI, does the interpretation explain ‘why’ we cannot see these other universes? If the particles (?or atoms?) of these parallel universes are right here all around us… there must be something different with the particles or atoms which ‘hides’ them from us.

    2. Again concerning the MWI, when these parallel universes split off (when particles split off on all these different probability waves) does the interpretation indicate what these parallel universes are suppose to be made of? Are our atoms/particles spreading themselves among all of the different universes?

    I hope these questions make sense?

    Thanks any help you can give me,
    Rusty


    Rusty Williamson
    Author
    3D Animator

    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Questions on Many Worlds Interpretation 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by rrw4rusty
    Hi!

    I've seen videos depicting the ‘Many Worlds Interpretation’ of quantum physics which show T-Rex stomping through your living room because the K2 Event didn’t take place in that parallel universe, you know the hype you see on the MWI. While probably, no one ‘really’ thinks this is happening, the interpretation somehow assumes other universes are right here all around.

    1. Concerning MWI, does the interpretation explain ‘why’ we cannot see these other universes? If the particles (?or atoms?) of these parallel universes are right here all around us… there must be something different with the particles or atoms which ‘hides’ them from us.

    2. Again concerning the MWI, when these parallel universes split off (when particles split off on all these different probability waves) does the interpretation indicate what these parallel universes are suppose to be made of? Are our atoms/particles spreading themselves among all of the different universes?

    I hope these questions make sense?

    Thanks any help you can give me,
    Rusty
    You are reading too much into the many worlds interpretation.

    It is called an interpretation because it produces exactly the same predictions as does ordinary quantum mechanics with the Copehhagen interpretation.

    It is actually pretty silly.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Questions on Many Worlds Interpretation 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    57
    DrRocket,

    I have to assume that you believe that you are somehow helping -- and I thank you for the effort but, with all due respect DrRocket, regarding my posts, if you can't answer the questions, please don't feel compelled to post your general feelings about the subject matter or guesses on how I'm viewing it.

    Rusty
    Rusty Williamson
    Author
    3D Animator

    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Questions on Many Worlds Interpretation 
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by rrw4rusty
    Hi!

    I've seen videos depicting the ‘Many Worlds Interpretation’ of quantum physics which show T-Rex stomping through your living room because the K2 Event didn’t take place in that parallel universe, you know the hype you see on the MWI. While probably, no one ‘really’ thinks this is happening, the interpretation somehow assumes other universes are right here all around.

    1. Concerning MWI, does the interpretation explain ‘why’ we cannot see these other universes? If the particles (?or atoms?) of these parallel universes are right here all around us… there must be something different with the particles or atoms which ‘hides’ them from us.

    2. Again concerning the MWI, when these parallel universes split off (when particles split off on all these different probability waves) does the interpretation indicate what these parallel universes are suppose to be made of? Are our atoms/particles spreading themselves among all of the different universes?

    I hope these questions make sense?

    Thanks any help you can give me,
    Rusty
    1) Our eyes don't exist in the same quantum state as the dinosaurs. Our consciousness doesn't exist in most quantum states. We only perceive one quantum state because each quantum state of our consciousness only perceives that quantum state.

    2) It's all the same particles, so an atom could be in the dinosaur in one quantum state and simultaneously in you in another quantum state.

    What DrRocket is saying is that you can't look at it the way you are and that there is no prove that the interpretation is correct, that it's in fact impossible to prove, because the correctness of the interpretation makes absolutely no difference to anything.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Questions on Many Worlds Interpretation 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by rrw4rusty
    DrRocket,

    I have to assume that you believe that you are somehow helping -- and I thank you for the effort but, with all due respect DrRocket, regarding my posts, if you can't answer the questions, please don't feel compelled to post your general feelings about the subject matter or guesses on how I'm viewing it.

    Rusty
    I did answer your posts. You may need to think about the question a bit more deeply.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Questions on Many Worlds Interpretation 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    57
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    I did answer your posts. You may need to think about the question a bit more deeply.
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    You need to educate yourself a bit more so as to be able to understand your own questions. Then perhaps the answers will make sense to you.
    Ignore Kaku. You are barking up the wrong tree.
    You’re right about needing to educate myself – but… that’s always true

    Regarding ignore string theory… ignore Kaku... and probably Greene, Whitman, Hawking and others as well… (mostly too late, I’ve read books by most of these people). They just want to publicize their books… don’t listen to what they say…. Because, presumably they don’t know anything about anything…

    But…

    You, on the other hand… do.

    I’m sure there are probability wave fronts that contain this scenario… lol.

    Perhaps it’s completely true but, even if it is, then you should be smart enough to know how you saying this to others has to sound.

    Just in case, what titles have you published that I can read?

    Rusty
    Rusty Williamson
    Author
    3D Animator

    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Questions on Many Worlds Interpretation 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    [quote="rrw4rusty"]
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    I did answer your posts. You may need to think about the question a bit more deeply.
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket

    Regarding ignore string theory… ignore Kaku... and probably Greene, Whitman, Hawking and others as well… (mostly too late, I’ve read books by most of these people). They just want to publicize their books… don’t listen to what they say…. Because, presumably they don’t know anything about anything…

    Rusty
    Poor logic and improper extrapolation.

    I did not say ignore string theory, but I do caution you against accepting at face value much of what is told to the general public -- conjectures are commonly represented as fact. That is a big problem with popularizations of string theory.

    I did not say ignore Green, Whitman, Hawking and others as well.

    Greene's books are pretty good, particularly if you pay a lot of attention to the footnotes.

    Hawking's books are excellent. In fact Hawking's books are an excellent example of a strong recommendation that I have regarding popularizations. That recommendation is read things by the foremost researchers. That includes Hawking, Weinberg, Feynman, Penrose, Lederman, 'tHooft, etc. Greene is not in that category, but his books are nevertheless excellent.

    Kaku does not qualify for my list. IMO He regularly makes statements for public consumption that he could not get away making in front of a knowledgeable audience. Kaku seems to me to be interested in selling books but not in doing physics. He is not one of the "in crowd" of string theorists.

    Who is Whitman ? Do you mean Ed Witten ? If so, then he most certainly meets all criteria. He probably knows more about string theory than any three other people on the planet. I am aware of only one popular book, one about supersymmetry written as co-author with Gordon Kane, but his articles for the general public are excellent and he is not given to over-hyping the subject. Witten knows the difference between a conjecture and a theorem. if you have read his other book, Superstring Theory (2 vols) by Michael Greene, John Schwartz and Edward Witten then you have no need to read popularizations, this one is the real deal.

    An example of what to view critically and why-- M-theory. M-theory purports to unite several formerly competing string theories. It was proposed by Witten in 1995, and created the "second revolution" in string theory. The problem is that there were about 5 theories that looked promising and no way to decide among them.. Then Witten gave a talk in which he suggested that these theories might really be only different aspects of a single theory, which he proposed to call M-theory. He went further and gave reasons why it is plausible to believe this. He also noted that the proof of the pudding would be the construction of a "dictionary" that showed the relationship of these string theories to one another via M-theory. That dictionary has yet to be produced and M-theory remains a conjecture. Witten knows that. Many other string theorists present M-theory as a fait accompli, and seem not to know that M-theory is not even clearly defined yet.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    57
    DrRocket,

    It looks like lots of good information in your last post and I very much appreciate the effort. Thank you.

    I guess I did pile statements from others (on this as well as other forums) all on you. I apologize. And I 'was' thinking of Witten, thank you. Kaku/Greene/Witten have all appeared together in… well, at least one video on string theory if not more and certainly videos by each plus Hawking sit side by side on the web as well as anywhere else you look for ST info... so, I extrapolated based on this… knowing that you most likely didn’t mean Hawking. Sorry.

    I just bought Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos by Michio Kaku – I’m only 5% into it. You really feel this is a waste of time?

    The purpose of my questions I’ve put in a separate post named… ‘The purpose of my questions…’ Given ‘my purpose’ and the fact that I don’t get into any of the ‘math’, what books (or other sources) would you recommend? I will most likely finish Kaku’s book – it can’t be a total waste can it?

    Thanks again for your help.
    Rusty
    Rusty Williamson
    Author
    3D Animator

    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: Questions on Many Worlds Interpretation 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    US
    Posts
    122
    Quote Originally Posted by DrRocket
    Quote Originally Posted by rrw4rusty
    Hi!

    I've seen videos depicting the ‘Many Worlds Interpretation’ of quantum physics which show T-Rex stomping through your living room because the K2 Event didn’t take place in that parallel universe, you know the hype you see on the MWI. While probably, no one ‘really’ thinks this is happening, the interpretation somehow assumes other universes are right here all around.

    1. Concerning MWI, does the interpretation explain ‘why’ we cannot see these other universes? If the particles (?or atoms?) of these parallel universes are right here all around us… there must be something different with the particles or atoms which ‘hides’ them from us.

    2. Again concerning the MWI, when these parallel universes split off (when particles split off on all these different probability waves) does the interpretation indicate what these parallel universes are suppose to be made of? Are our atoms/particles spreading themselves among all of the different universes?

    I hope these questions make sense?

    Thanks any help you can give me,
    Rusty
    You are reading too much into the many worlds interpretation.

    It is called an interpretation because it produces exactly the same predictions as does ordinary quantum mechanics with the Copehhagen interpretation.

    It is actually pretty silly.
    Not really, although there's no way to empirically distinguish which interpretation is true, they have different implications

    Stephen Hawking and Weinburg favor the MWI for many reasons
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by rrw4rusty
    DrRocket,

    It looks like lots of good information in your last post and I very much appreciate the effort. Thank you.

    I guess I did pile statements from others (on this as well as other forums) all on you. I apologize. And I 'was' thinking of Witten, thank you. Kaku/Greene/Witten have all appeared together in… well, at least one video on string theory if not more and certainly videos by each plus Hawking sit side by side on the web as well as anywhere else you look for ST info... so, I extrapolated based on this… knowing that you most likely didn’t mean Hawking. Sorry.

    I just bought Parallel Worlds: A Journey Through Creation, Higher Dimensions, and the Future of the Cosmos by Michio Kaku – I’m only 5% into it. You really feel this is a waste of time?

    The purpose of my questions I’ve put in a separate post named… ‘The purpose of my questions…’ Given ‘my purpose’ and the fact that I don’t get into any of the ‘math’, what books (or other sources) would you recommend? I will most likely finish Kaku’s book – it can’t be a total waste can it?

    Thanks again for your help.
    Rusty
    Do what you wish with Kaku. I don't have much use for him myself. There is probably some good physics in the book, but you will have to separate the wheat from the chaff, and that might be difficult. You may very well get the impression that some raw speculation is known physics and that can be a problem. It is unfortunately common in treatments of string theory. Just remember that string has yet to make a single correct new prediction. It is a promising avenue of research, but it is very far from establihsed physics. It could all come to nothing in terms of physics (but it has spawned some spectacular mathematics).

    Here are some popularizations that I can redommend:

    The Elegant Universe and The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene -- pay particular attention to the footnotes as he has a lot of good information in there. Greene is a string theorist and advocate, so take some of the impression of the maturity of string theory with a grain of salt. But otherwise his books are very good.

    QED by Richard Feynman -- a masterful exposition of quantum electrodynamics by the guy that invented it

    The Character of Physical Law by Richard Feynman

    A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking

    The Road to Reality by Roger Penrose -- this one is a strange mix of a popularization combined with an overview of some very advanced mathematics. It is not easy reading, but it is incredibly deep and offers insight into the perspective of a brilliant maverick thinker.

    In Search of the Ultimate Building Blocks by Gerard 'tHooft -- and excellent overview of particle physics by an absolute master. It was 'tHooft who showed the renormalizability of the electroweak theory. Not many people get a Nobel prize for their PhD dissertation.

    The First Three Minutes by Steven Weinberg -- a look at the early universe through the eyes of the Nobel prize winner who developed the electroweak theory along with Salaam and Glashow.

    Dreams of a Final Theory by Steven Weinberg -- Weinberg on the search for unified field theories

    The God Particle by Leon Lederman -- a discussion of the Higgs particle by an experimental particle physicist. He is also quite amusing and an excellent writer. The title is somewhat unfortunate, but Lederman can be forgiven a bit of showmanship there.

    Black Holes and Time Warps; Einstein's Outrageous Legacy by Kip Thorne. This is a popular exposition of some aspects of general relativity. Thorne, along with Charles Misner and John Archibald Wheeler are the authors of one of the classic texts on general relativity, entitled Gravitation. Gravitation is a very serious physics text at the graduate level, and is highly recommeded itself but requires considerable mathematical sophistication.

    There is another book that I also recommend highly. It is not a popularization but rather is a set of lectures given to a freshman physics class at Cal Tech in the 1960's. Although introductory it is one of the very best physics books, at any level, ever. The Feynman Lectures on Physics by Feynman, Leighton and Sands.

    Virtually anything by Feynman is excellent, He was a master expositor as well as one of the most brilliant physicists of all time. His books run from amusing autobiographical books (Surely You're Joking Mr. Feynman and What Do You Care What Other People Think through popularizations like QED and his freshman text to very serious and difficult graduate treatments of quantum field theories like Quantum Electrodynamics and The Feynman Lectures on Gravitation. Unless you have a rather strong mathematical background I recommend only going up to and through The Feynman Lectures on Physics

    There is abook by Paul Davies that is very interesting. Davies himself is not a first-rank physicist, but this book is a series of interviews with people who are. The title is Superstrings coauthored with J. Brown.

    Is Kaku a waste of time? That is a matter of opinion. I would not waste my own time.

    Kaku, Greene and Witten may have appeared together in some video, but they are not equal. Greene is OK. Witten is spectacularly brilliant. Three Greenes and a hundred Kakus could not make half a Witten. (Note: There is another Green, Michael Green who co-authored with Witten and Schwarz the first serious book on string theory and he is another matter, but still not a Witten).
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •