Notices
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Many worlds theory WRONG?

  1. #1 Many worlds theory WRONG? 
    EAS
    EAS is offline
    Forum Freshman EAS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    12
    According to the many worlds theory (there is an infinite number of parallel universes) , Harry Potter and magic really do exist in one of these many universes in existence. This is logical. If there is an infinite number of universes, at least one of them MUST be the one you're searching for, whatever that may be; assuming the many worlds theory is correct. If it is correct; in one of the many universes it CAN NOT be, thus causing us a headache and creating a paradox. Why? Because that would imply, that only that universe actually exists and it's this one, our universe. Hmmm... this makes you think. Did I just prove that the theory is simply wrong? If it is correct, it ends up being wrong. If it is wrong it's OK. ?!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Many worlds theory WRONG? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by EAS
    According to the many worlds theory (there is an infinite number of parallel universes) , Harry Potter and magic really do exist in one of these many universes in existence. This is logical. If there is an infinite number of universes, at least one of them MUST be the one you're searching for, whatever that may be; assuming the many worlds theory is correct. If it is correct; in one of the many universes it CAN NOT be, thus causing us a headache and creating a paradox. Why? Because that would imply, that only that universe actually exists and it's this one, our universe. Hmmm... this makes you think. Did I just prove that the theory is simply wrong? If it is correct, it ends up being wrong. If it is wrong it's OK. ?!
    Many worlds is not a theory. It is an interpretation of quantum mechanics due to Hugh Everett. It produces EXACTLY the same predictions as does quantum mechanics under the Copenhagen interpretation and therefore is experimentally indistinguishable from it.

    While I personally do not like the many worlds interpretation, no one can say that it is wrong. Silly maybe, but not wrong.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Many worlds theory WRONG? 
    sox
    sox is offline
    Forum Masters Degree sox's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Uk - Scotland
    Posts
    598
    Quote Originally Posted by EAS
    According to the many worlds theory (there is an infinite number of parallel universes) , Harry Potter and magic really do exist in one of these many universes in existence. This is logical. If there is an infinite number of universes, at least one of them MUST be the one you're searching for, whatever that may be; assuming the many worlds theory is correct. If it is correct; in one of the many universes it CAN NOT be, thus causing us a headache and creating a paradox. Why? Because that would imply, that only that universe actually exists and it's this one, our universe. Hmmm... this makes you think. Did I just prove that the theory is simply wrong? If it is correct, it ends up being wrong. If it is wrong it's OK. ?!
    The bit in bold is where you went wrong.

    __________________________________________________ _____________
    "Happy is the man who can recognise in the work of To-day a connected portion of the work of life, and an embodiment of the work of Eternity. The foundations of his confidence are unchangeable, for he has been made a partaker of Infinity." - James Clerk Maxwell
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Many worlds theory WRONG? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    769
    Quote Originally Posted by EAS
    ...Did I just prove that the theory is simply wrong?
    No. You can't prove it's wrong, just as you can't prove the non-existence of fairies. Because it's cargo-cult pseudoscience rather than science, insulated from testability for 50 years but still promoted by wannabee celebrities who use its woo! factor to promote themselves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Many worlds theory WRONG? 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by Farsight
    Quote Originally Posted by EAS
    ...Did I just prove that the theory is simply wrong?
    No. You can't prove it's wrong, just as you can't prove the non-existence of fairies. Because it's cargo-cult pseudoscience rather than science, insulated from testability for 50 years but still promoted by wannabee celebrities who use its woo! factor to promote themselves.
    While I am certainly not a proponent of the "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, it is most certainly NOT "cargo-cult pseudoscience". It is completely equivalent to ordinary quantum mechanics. I simply prefer the usual Copenhagen interpretation, which to me is less weird (weird is relative in QM).

    It was first proposed by Hugh Everett in his Princeton Ph.D. dissertation in physics, under the direction of John Archibald Wheeler. Feynman's talk (your link) has nothing to do with it. Feynman, by the way, also wrote his dissertation under the direction of Wheeler.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Senior Yash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    354
    EAS,
    Universe cannot be many, the name itself was made to satisfy one given condition.
    That, what is system surrounded by ?? So, to justify these concepts, word universe came into being.
    As, nothing can be faster than speed of Light. So, similarly there cannot be more than one Universe.


    Yash
    Satisfaction Should Be Given First Priority
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Junior TheDr.Spo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    208
    With no intent to brag, I just want to add that I came upon this interpretation of Quantum Mechanics with, I believe, a pretty basic knowledge of Quantum Mechanics by mere independent creative thinking. I came to realize later that others, who are greater than I, have formulated this idea to a much greater extent that I could dream of well before I thought of it on my own. However, I assert that this interpretation comes naturally to one pondering Quantum Mechanics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Senior Yash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    354
    Quote Originally Posted by TheDr.Spo
    With no intent to brag, I just want to add that I came upon this interpretation of Quantum Mechanics with, I believe, a pretty basic knowledge of Quantum Mechanics by mere independent creative thinking. I came to realize later that others, who are greater than I, have formulated this idea to a much greater extent that I could dream of well before I thought of it on my own. However, I assert that this interpretation comes naturally to one pondering Quantum Mechanics.
    Why, not try to express those creative thinking. So, that we all gain some more unknown concepts.
    Satisfaction Should Be Given First Priority
    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
  •