6 ms·
Given the (according to me) fact that many worlds (more aptly named the Relative State Interpretation) is true and correct, one can confidently predict that no
by wavegeek 6y ago
Given the (according to me) fact that many worlds (more aptly named the Relative State Interpretation) is true and correct, one can confidently predict that no "collapse" will be found. That, and the fact that people have been looking for actual collapse of the wave function for many decades.
- lambdatronics 6y agoThe MWI is a cop-out. The problem of nonlocality just gets handed off to whatever process forks the parallel universes - it has to ensure that every universe has consistent outcomes for both halves of a Bell experiment, for instance. The probabilities in QM should be viewed as subjective, but physicists hate subjectivity, so they talk about hypothetical ensembles. It baffles me that Everett took those ensembles and decided they were real universes.
- rubidium 6y agoHere here! I just met one other person on the internet who sees that the emperor has no clothes. The adherence and attractiveness of MWI to so many CS programmers (and a few physicists) is mind boggling to me.
- akvadrako 6y agoThe MWI van violate Bell inequalities locally by using post-selection; that’s trivial to show. When the universe splits at two distant measurements it isn’t until those outcomes are brought into contact that the matching of worlds needs to happen.
- engineeringwoke 6y agoI know there's math that makes this seem real, but logical arguments make it sound silly. Does the universe split every time the wave function collapses in any form, for all measurements of all atoms in the universe? Isn't that essentially infinite? And how would you prove it if any of this was real?
- nwallin 6y agoMany worlds is experimentally indistinguishable from Copenhagen.