4 ms·
Essentially in MWI each neutron in each universe is a point (actually three because of the quarks), but that point is not in the same place in all universes. N
by cygx 6y ago
Essentially in MWI each neutron in each universe is a point (actually three because of the quarks), but that point is not in the same place in all universes.
Note that MWI as originally formulated by Everett does not work this way. Eg quoting from the Discussion section of his thesis:
> [I]t seems to us to be much easier to understand particle aspects from a wave picture (concentrated wave packets) than it is to understand wave aspects (diffraction, interference, etc.) from a particle picture.
or
> This view [ie Everett's view, as described in the thesis] also corresponds most closely with that held by Schrödinger.
The main point of MWI is not to go back to a more classical picture of point particles, but to remove wave-function collapse and Heisenberg cut from the description.
- jiggawatts 6y agoTrue. Quantum Mechanics is actually incredibly conservative, with theoreticians simply refusing to abandon notions shown to be incompatible with reality for over a century now. Same with Spin. Okay, so particles aren't literally spinning spheres. We get it. Stop pretending they are and then Spin won't be so mysterious any more!
- drdeca 6y agoDo you have a better name for it? It’s just an evocative name?
- jiggawatts 6y agoLiterally every QM textbook ever printed starts the explanation with: "Spin is like a rotation but it isn't really because that's impossible for an electron if it were a tiny spinning sphere." Okay then, if it's impossible, don't print what it isn't. Put down in writing what it is. That is all.
- drdeca 6y agoSpin is, aiui, related to an algebra that satisfies the same relations as the operators for the usual sense of angular momentum. However, unlike the operators for the usual sense of angular momentum, there are additional solutions that appear, which have the half-integer spins. And, in a sense the spin contributes to the angular momentum. I don’t see a problem with saying “it is in some ways kind of like if it were spinning, but it isn’t quite the same. Here is the math to describe it, and how that math is like and how it is unlike something spinning.” . It seems better than just saying “here is the math which describes it”.