4 ms·
How is many-worlds a scientific theory ie how is it testable?
by glymor 18y ago
How is many-worlds a scientific theory ie how is it testable?
- lacker 18y agoIt's more like, right now we have two rather bad explanations for basic quantum mechanics. There is the "particles change when a human measures them" explanation, and there is the "there are many worlds and we can usually only observe one" explanation. They both explain the same set of formulas that have been verified many times by experiment. Depending on what you want to do with the theory, it may be more intuitive to use one formulation than the other. Hopefully at some point in the future it becomes obvious that one of the formulations lacks the explanatory power of the other, and then scientists can cohere on one. Like epicycles as a scientific explanation of how the sun revolves around the earth. Somewhat off topic but interesting reading - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferent_and_epicycle
- Herring 18y agoYou're thinking about it wrong. Start from Bell's theorem - it tells us we have to sacrifice locality or realism. MWI weasels out of it by making worlds be observer dependent, basically splitting the observer up. Bell's theorem is the root. It's not an interpretation & all interpretations come from it.
- gaika 18y agoMany worlds is testable, though I wouldn't recommend it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide Edit: :)
- hugh 18y agoI don't buy quantum immortality as a necessary consequence of many-worlds. There are some rather dodgy steps in the logic -- in particular the one that says that "you" can't find your personal experiences going down a branch where your existence gets terminated. Surely somebody has to be there to subjectively experience having a bullet blast a hole in their skull? Personally I think if you tried that, even if many-worlds is true, you'd almost certainly wind up dead.
- gaika 18y agoThat "you" can be you in other people's mind as described by Hofstadter in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_a_Strange_Loop http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_a_Strange_Loop
- aswanson 18y agoCan't this experiment just be reduced to a succession of observations that are extraordinarily improbable? Why sex it up with the suicide attempts?
- gaika 18y agoThe key is to link up observer with the experiment outcomes so you can only observe unlikely possibilities (and be dead in the rest).
- aswanson 18y agoUnderstood, but you could also set up an apparatus that simply observes a large region for a long period of time without killing anyone, watching for highly improbable events. Since each observer also lives their total lifespan, you get a much higher probability of a given observer observing a succession of improbable occurences.
- gaika 18y agoThat what reporters are for :) If you read the news you will see an endless stream of highly unusual events, but unfortunately that doesn't prove anything.
- aswanson 18y agoTouche. :) But in the same vein, what would a series of failed suicide attempts prove that the mentioned apparatus could not?
- gaika 18y agoAny machine that you build will produce expected results, up to 10^-15 precision with current hardware. Failed suicide attempt is unlikely and provides evidence towards many worlds as a theory and not just interpretation.
- hugh 18y agoI don't think it's testable -- that's why I'd call it an interpretation rather than a theory.
- pfedor 18y agoThen how is it different from counting angels on pinheads?