4 ms·
If you want some really wacky stuff, try this: The Multiverse Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - Leonard Susskind and Raphael Bousso http://arxiv.org/abs/1
by JonnieCache 15y ago
If you want some really wacky stuff, try this:
The Multiverse Interpretation of Quantum
Mechanics - Leonard Susskind and Raphael Bousso
http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3796 http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3796
By the way, this ain't your daddy's multiverse. This is a whole new and extended multiverse theory which says that the multiple universes used to explain tuning of constants and the multiple universes used to explain quantum decoherence are THE SAME THING!
Then, for balance read this guy who thinks they're on crack:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/05/bousso-susskind-hypermultiverse.html http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/05/bousso-susskind-hypermulti...
- Jach 15y agoIt's also useful I think to link to Tegmark's sorta-famous Multiverse Hierarchy. http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1283 http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1283
- szany 15y agoMotl thinks everybody is on crack.
- JonnieCache 15y agoThis is true. And he's a birther, and a heavy climate change skeptic. His writing about physics is refreshing though.
- kmm 15y agoIs Motl famous? I've seen his name popup everywhere physics related. Should I know him?
- happy4crazy 15y agoHe was in the Society of Fellows at Harvard, and is an extremely prolific, opinionated blogger. He and Peter Woit over at Not Even Wrong used to feud constantly. Interestingly, Motl is actually really polite and charming in a shy, goofy way in person.
- VladRussian 15y ago"Even in classical physics, dice may have probabilities 1/6 for each number, but once we see "6", we update the probabilities to (0,0,0,0,0,1)." It is obvious that he himself is on crack. I couldn't read past that gibberish.
- kmm 15y agoThat is a correct reasoning. In classical physics, as everything is predetermined, no real probabilities exist. We use probability theory to gauge our uncertainty about the world. If you knew the position of every particle in the dice, there would be no distribution of side, it would always come up the same. But we don't and can't know everything, thus we use probabilities to express that. If you throw the dice, your uncertainty drops because you know the outcome of the experiment.
- Jach 15y agoYes, but is he assuming that all initial conditions are known when it hits 6 while also assuming classical theory? If he is, fine. If he isn't, he updated wrong.
- schrototo 15y agoIsn't this just saying that any number has a chance of 1/6th for being "it" before the dice is rolled, and that once we have rolled the dice and it landed with 6 on top, the number 6 obviously has a probability of 1 of being "it"?
- leoc 15y agoExcept, of course, the string theorists...
- phyllotaxis 15y agoIf you want a totally different competing, (and compelling) hypothesis to soak up, try these- http://www.electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm http://www.electric-cosmos.org/indexOLD.htm http://www.haltonarp.com/articles http://www.haltonarp.com/articles
- ca98am79 15y agoHow about some really, really wacky (and extremely fascinating) stuff: Quantum Immortality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality