I wasn't talking about the "hard" interpretation, I was just trying to make the point that this theory is logical and makes sense when you interpret it in certain ways.
Do You Think Parallel Worlds Exist?
Sort:
Jan 7, 2022
0
#43
Link4000 wrote:
Again proven true by the double slit experiment.
"Sum over Histories" explains the double-slit experiment perfectly... and it also explains the diffuse reflection from diffraction gratings, which MWI does not.
Then how does the same concept apply when talking about waves?
Jan 7, 2022
0
#45
Link4000 wrote:
I wasn't talking about the "hard" interpretation, I was just trying to make the point that this theory is logical and makes sense when you interpret it in certain ways.
If you are claiming that parallel worlds exist, then you are automatically talking about the hard interpretation... unless this is some obscure usage of the word "exist" of which I was not previously aware.
I'm not saying that they truly exist. That is just my opinion. But they theoretical idea that they COULD is what I was referencing.
It all just depends on how you interpret the data.
Jan 7, 2022
0
#48
Link4000 wrote:
Then how does the same concept apply when talking about waves?
The Sum over Histories approach automatically reduces to the same mathematics as wave descriptors.
Are you familiar with Feynman's work? It's certainly worth reading. His "QED" is probably the most lucid and understandable book on Quantum Electrodynamics that I've ever read.
Jan 7, 2022
0
#49
Link4000 wrote:
I'm not saying that they truly exist. That is just my opinion. But they theoretical idea that they COULD is what I was referencing.
As I pointed out above, the falsifiability issue means that you are then treating MWI as a religion or a philosophy, NOT as science.
There's nothing wrong with that as such, but it shouldn't be LABELLED as science. That's misleading. Scientific theories can be tested and perhaps falsified.
Question is...does it "matter" if they exist? And I don't think science can answer that one.
blueemu wrote:
Link4000 wrote:
I'm not saying that they truly exist. That is just my opinion. But they theoretical idea that they COULD is what I was referencing.
As I pointed out above, the falsifiability issue means that you are then treating MWI as a religion or a philosophy, NOT as science.
There's nothing wrong with that as such, but it shouldn't be LABELLED as science. That's misleading. Scientific theories can be tested and perhaps falsified.
You do have a point. Something this interpretive should be considered more of a philosophy. Religion seems a little weird to describe this.
Vegosiux wrote:
Question is...does it "matter" if they exist? And I don't think science can answer that one.
For some people, I suppose it would. But for most people, it doesn't matter. Life goes on no matter what.
Jan 7, 2022
0
#53
Here's a quick-and-dirty Wikipedia article on Feynman's "Sum over Histories" approach. You might be struck by the similarities (in some limited respects) to MWI.
Path integral formulation - Wikipedia
At the end of the day, it really is just an opinion. But thank you for the great debate @blueemu!
Of course, topics such as these interest me very much.
I would also like to apologize if I offended you.
Jan 7, 2022
0
#57
This is the book I was talking about.
Feynman is, of course, a Nobel Prize winner (1965) in Physics, for his work on Quantum Electrodynamics.
Jan 7, 2022
0
#58
Link4000 wrote:
I would also like to apologize if I offended you.
No problem. I'm not particularly tactful, myself.
Interesting, I will have to order that book when I get the chance.
Jan 7, 2022
0
#60
blueemu wrote:
Far more interesting (IMO) is Feynman's "Sum over histories" approach, which shares some aspects with MWI but at the cost of discarding the notion of "trajectories" rather than violating conservation laws.
Quoting my own remark, here. 
It seems that in order to rationalize the gap between small-scale quantum phenomena and the large-scale classical world in which we live our daily lives, SOME concession must be made.
MWI sacrifices the conservation laws.
SoH (Sum over Histories) sacrifices the idea that objects have specific locations and follow specific paths (trajectories) through space-time.
CI (the Copenhagen Interpretation) sacrifices logic... or so it seems to me.
Other interpretations sacrifice locality, or even causality.
Of the interpretations that I've looked into, Feynman's Sum over Histories is both the most appealing and the best supported... IMO.
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.
That is just not true. Stephen Hawking was actually an avid supporter of MWI.
Hawking was a supporter of the "soft" interpretation of MWI... he supported it as a mathematical tool for making calculation easier. That's all. He was definitely NOT a supporter of the "hard" interpretation of MWI, which attributes physical reality to the "splits". Surely you are familiar with Hawking's remark "When someone mentions Schrodinger's Cat, I reach for my gun!".
The only physicists of note who support the "hard" interpretation (aside from Everett himself) are Deutsch and DeWitt, as far as I know.
Far more interesting (IMO) is Feynman's "Sum over histories" approach, which shares some aspects with MWI but at the cost of discarding the notion of "trajectories" rather than violating conservation laws.