Do You Think Parallel Worlds Exist?

Schrödinger's Cat related pic on page 1 of this document (show notes for Steve Gibson's "Security Now" podcast):

https://www.grc.com/sn/SN-847-Notes.pdf

I found that very helpful thanks

XD

That's disappointing - I was hoping for more than that...

Schrödinger's Cat was called Milton, by the way.

Just sayin'.

Okay, I think now is the time to explain my view. Please keep in mind that I am not a scientist, this is just what I have found from research.

The basis for parallel universes come from what is known in Quantum Physics as "superposition", where something exists in two different states. One example of this is Schrödinger's Cat:, an experiment done to test this. You have a radioactive molecule that has 100% not decayed (ie. has not started the half life process), you connect it to a detonator. Put all of this in an enclosed box with a cat inside. (Please not that the cat should not be able to interact with the detonator.) This detonator is wired to release poisonous gas. If the molecule decays, the detonator will activate, releasing the poisonous gas and killing the cat. If the molecule does not decay, nothing happens and the cat remains alive. Because both the detonator and the cat are tied to the atom, they are entangled. However, according to the laws of Quantum Mechanics, the state of the atom does not have to be either in a state of decay or not decayed. Typically, it is in a superposition of both decayed AND not decayed at the same time. (Note that all of this is without measurement.) This state then get entangled with the detector and a cat. So eventually, everything inside the box has a superposition of atom decayed, poison released, cat dead, and aton not decayed, poison not released, cat alive. According to the rules of Quantum Mechanics, the cat is actually both dead and alive at the same time. It is only when someone opens the box to take a measurement does the cat actually becomes either dead or alive. And entanglement has a strange function where once particles interact, they are actually described by a single wave function. And the actual measurement is just the interaction of one quantum system with another. However, what if you get rid of the rules of measurement and measure the wave function according to the Schrödinger Equation? Then that means when you got to observe the box, you yourself become entangled with everything inside the box. So that means that we see the cat alive AND we see the cat dead! Now how is this possible? It's because the person that saw the cat alive and the one that saw it dead inhabit separate worlds. What are your thoughts?

Most angles simply cannot dance but one learnt a very old fashioned dance allowing him to be able to dance on a pin, meanwhile demons can dance and if you asked the question how many demons can dance on a pin it is the number of demons which can fit over all the atoms in a pin.

I've already mentioned my point of view. The Everett interpretation (or "Many Worlds") is a theory for people who can't tell the difference between fantasy and science.

I'll mention a few of the problems with it:

1) Falsifiability. Science works like this: FIRST, you collect a series of observations. SECOND, you come up with a theory that explains your observations, and which makes predictions about the results of any future observations you might make. THIRD, you actually perform those subsequent observations, and record the results. FOURTH, you compare the results of your second series of observations to the predictions that were made from your theory. If the observations agree with the predictions, then your theory is supported and strengthened. If the observations contradict the predictions, then your theory is falsified, and refuted.

NOTE that it's not important whether a scientific theory can be PROVEN. What's important is that there do exist tests whose results might DISPROVE or falsify it. If it can't be falsified, even in principle, then whatever it is, it's NOT science... it's philosophy, or perhaps just a fairy tale.

And how are we supposed to test "Many Worlds"? What predictions does it make that other (more rational) interpretations of QM don't already make? How can it be TESTED, and confirmed or falsified?

It can't. The Everett interpretation isn't science. That's my first objection.

2) Conservation Laws. Our current understanding of physics includes (and perhaps, is based on) a number of key conservation laws. Conservation of Mass / Energy. Conservation of Momentum. Conservation of Angular Momentum. Conservation of Baryon Number. The list goes on.

The Everett interpretation violates ALL of these conservation laws. According to MWI, each time an interaction can have more than one possible outcome, the universe splits. In effect, a new universe is created... and this happens trillions of trillions of trillions of times each second. Under MWI, Conservation of Mass, of Energy, of Baryon Number mean nothing. This theory... if an unfalsifiable hypothesis can really be called a theory... sacrifices the underpinnings of all of the rest of physics (all of the conservation laws) in order to avoid dealing with the discontinuity introduced by wave function collapse.

Not a very profitable trade, in my opinion.

Need more?

Dude, this is Quantum Physics. One of the least understood topics in all of physics, possibly even in science itself. So I don't understand why you are so adamant about not accepting this possibility.  This theory does not break the laws of conservation. Physicists have described that the universe is the entire wave function of reality, and the measurement itself (ie. what we perceive) is a tiny fraction of it. Therefore, it is not really "multiple universes". Do your research. I'd love to see you argue with scientists, would honestly be hilarious.

Just one note, I am not pretending as though I am right and everyone else is wrong. This is a category of science that is very hard to calculate, and a lot of it is hard to calculate.

Do some research next time.

Steven Hawking and Roger Penrose are just as dismissive as I am regarding MWI. Both regard it as just a mathematical trick, not a description of reality.

I also note that you didn't ADDRESS either of the points that I raised... falsifiability and conservation laws. You claimed that the theory does not violate conservation laws, but offered no rationale to support that claim. You ducked the falsifiability problem entirely.

He gave an informed opinion, and you're talking to him as if he's never heard of it. Telling him to "do research next time" is pretty rude.

Quantum mechanics is an extremely well established theory. Calling it the least understood topic in physics is a strange description.

They might, but that doesn't really change anything in this one.

That is just not true. Stephen Hawking was actually an avid supporter of MWI.

Given the state of the current timeline I'm inhabiting I certainly hope so.

Compared to other sciences, it is. And you are right, I was not the kindest there. My apologies. But if you are going to make an assertion, doing no investigation of the topic, while ignoring what credited physicists have stated is rather bold.

The "many worlds" interpretation is just one of many:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics

Also, there is a reason that this i just a theory. Because, yes, something like this is incredibly hard to prove. However, this is not falsified, because the principle of this concept is a strong one based off of wave function and how it interacts with the environment based off of the Schrodinger Equation and the results of when you take an actual measurement. Another example of this is the double slit experiment. Therefore, the principle itself can be proven. But again, when referencing this in terms of MUI is theoretical. So it is not as weak of a theory as you may think at first glance.

Exactly, this theory is just an interpretation, but the principle behind it is indeed logical.

Again proven true by the double slit experiment.