10 ms·

Where would energy come from for creating each universe?

by treeman79 3y ago

arethuza 3y ago
Maybe the implementation uses copy-on-write to minimise the amount of work required? ;-)
tgv 3y ago
Among other problems. It's just bollocks on the level of "but you didn't say it couldn't be this, nanananana."
- captainclam 3y ago
  I think because of the abuse of "many worlds" in science fiction media (especially as of late) as a convenient plot device, people develop this idea that it's an unserious proposal wrt the foundations of physics. As far as I have read, it strikes me as perhaps the most parsimonious interpretation of QM out there. Genuinely curious, what do you mean by "but you didn't say it couldn't be this, nanananana...?" The Everett interpretation isn't some fantastical notion spun up by a scifi writer...it is simply the consequence of removing collapse of the wavefunction as an objective event from the picture. And if it turns out our observations wouldn't be changed by removing this feature, then perhaps it was an extraneous feature in the first place!
  - kgwgk 3y ago
    > it is simply the consequence of removing collapse of the wavefunction as an objective event from the picture. And if it turns out our observations wouldn't be changed by removing this feature, then perhaps it was an extraneous feature in the first place! > What we observe as the collapse of a function is simply an artifact of being a conscious being that can only observe one value of the of the wavefunction at any particular moment. If we simply assume that our observations are as if a wave function happened we can indeed have our Schrödinger cake and eat it too.
  - tgv 3y ago
    Assuming many worlds, and many here means: enormous amounts, far exceeding the number of particles in the universe, is everything but parsimonious. There happens to be a model that fits some data, but that's it. It's a grotesque assumption to avoid a conflict in a man-made theory. It's a funny thought, but no more than that. There's also nothing special about observing. Our consciousness isn't super-natural, so the idea is in desperate need of some other underpinning. And probabilities: if this is one of many, many worlds, the distribution of events as we can observe them is heavily skewed. The next observations should follow a radically different pattern, unless you also assume that each split influences the probabilities of future events.
    - consilient 3y ago
      > Assuming many worlds, and many here means: enormous amounts, far exceeding the number of particles in the universe, is everything but parsimonious. "Many worlds" is a misnomer. MWI is just wavefunction realism + unitary evolution. There's only one world, and really only one dynamical object: the wavefunction. It evolves according to some unitary operator, and that's the whole story. No splitting, no collapse, no objective classical transition, just quantum mechanics taken at face value. > There's also nothing special about observing. Yes, that's the MWI position.
      - kgwgk 3y ago
        Is it possible to observe anything at all in MWI? If yes, what does it mean to "observe something" in MWI? If not, is there any physical content in MWI?
        consilient 3y ago
        Observations in MWI are just ordinary physical interactions. Specifically they're perturbative-regime interactions between the thing being observed and large thermalized systems (e.g. humans). From the perspective of the thermal bath, you get exponential suppression of everything but the eigenstates of the interaction Hamiltonian, which is why our observations "look classical".
MattPalmer1086 3y ago
Why would it necessarily require any energy? Energy is what we have to expend to effect change within a universe. There may be no requirement for energy to split into a branching multiverse.
lavelganzu 3y ago
The question is a misunderstanding. In the pure wave (Everett) interpretation, there are no universes being created when the wave function branches. Rather, different regions of the wave function become separated (decohered) from each other. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/41588/many-worlds-where-does-the-energy-come-from https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/41588/many-world...
captainclam 3y ago
I think this question stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the Everett interpretation...the idea of "many worlds" (a phrase I do not favor specifically because of this very misunderstanding!) evokes this imagery of an entirely new universe BURSTING forth dramatically upon the collapse of the wave function, and as an entirely new universe is "created," the amount of extent energy is literally doubled (or multiplied by many times more). Indeed, where does this energy come from? What the Everett interpretation suggests is that in the same way you are comfortable with the function f(x)=y having (infinitely) many values (you don't HAVE TO choose an x, ie the function doesn't collapse), the wavefunction simply is what it is and doesn't collapse either. What we observe as the collapse of a function is simply an artifact of being a conscious being that can only observe one value of the of the wavefunction at any particular moment. None of these unique values (observables) of the wave function can interact with each other (in the same way the value of x=2 doesn't "interact" with the value of x=8 for f(x)=y), so energy cannot be gathered or duplicated at any particular point of the wave function, so this energy creation/duplication is no issue.
FollowingTheDao 3y ago
"Where would energy come from for creating each universe?" Why does it have to come from somewhere? What if it just is?
ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago
Sean Carroll, following Everett, puts it in the most concise form: (i) systems are described by wave functions, (ii) wave functions obey the Schrödinger equation [1]. "Many-worlds", universes, observations, observers, and so on become just entia multiplicanda [2], superfluities. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgalPdfHxM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgalPdfHxM, one set of rules in quantum mechanics at 36:00; at 1:13:14 where does the energy come from? energy of the set of all universes is conserved. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
Mizza 3y ago
Where do the eggs come from when you cut a cake?

Where would energy come from for creating each universe?

arethuza 3y ago

Maybe the implementation uses copy-on-write to minimise the amount of work required? ;-)

tgv 3y ago

Among other problems. It's just bollocks on the level of "but you didn't say it couldn't be this, nanananana."

captainclam 3y ago
I think because of the abuse of "many worlds" in science fiction media (especially as of late) as a convenient plot device, people develop this idea that it's an unserious proposal wrt the foundations of physics. As far as I have read, it strikes me as perhaps the most parsimonious interpretation of QM out there. Genuinely curious, what do you mean by "but you didn't say it couldn't be this, nanananana...?" The Everett interpretation isn't some fantastical notion spun up by a scifi writer...it is simply the consequence of removing collapse of the wavefunction as an objective event from the picture. And if it turns out our observations wouldn't be changed by removing this feature, then perhaps it was an extraneous feature in the first place!
- kgwgk 3y ago
  > it is simply the consequence of removing collapse of the wavefunction as an objective event from the picture. And if it turns out our observations wouldn't be changed by removing this feature, then perhaps it was an extraneous feature in the first place! > What we observe as the collapse of a function is simply an artifact of being a conscious being that can only observe one value of the of the wavefunction at any particular moment. If we simply assume that our observations are as if a wave function happened we can indeed have our Schrödinger cake and eat it too.
- tgv 3y ago
  Assuming many worlds, and many here means: enormous amounts, far exceeding the number of particles in the universe, is everything but parsimonious. There happens to be a model that fits some data, but that's it. It's a grotesque assumption to avoid a conflict in a man-made theory. It's a funny thought, but no more than that. There's also nothing special about observing. Our consciousness isn't super-natural, so the idea is in desperate need of some other underpinning. And probabilities: if this is one of many, many worlds, the distribution of events as we can observe them is heavily skewed. The next observations should follow a radically different pattern, unless you also assume that each split influences the probabilities of future events.
  - consilient 3y ago
    > Assuming many worlds, and many here means: enormous amounts, far exceeding the number of particles in the universe, is everything but parsimonious. "Many worlds" is a misnomer. MWI is just wavefunction realism + unitary evolution. There's only one world, and really only one dynamical object: the wavefunction. It evolves according to some unitary operator, and that's the whole story. No splitting, no collapse, no objective classical transition, just quantum mechanics taken at face value. > There's also nothing special about observing. Yes, that's the MWI position.
    - kgwgk 3y ago
      Is it possible to observe anything at all in MWI? If yes, what does it mean to "observe something" in MWI? If not, is there any physical content in MWI?
      - consilient 3y ago
        Observations in MWI are just ordinary physical interactions. Specifically they're perturbative-regime interactions between the thing being observed and large thermalized systems (e.g. humans). From the perspective of the thermal bath, you get exponential suppression of everything but the eigenstates of the interaction Hamiltonian, which is why our observations "look classical".

MattPalmer1086 3y ago

Why would it necessarily require any energy? Energy is what we have to expend to effect change within a universe. There may be no requirement for energy to split into a branching multiverse.

lavelganzu 3y ago

The question is a misunderstanding. In the pure wave (Everett) interpretation, there are no universes being created when the wave function branches. Rather, different regions of the wave function become separated (decohered) from each other. https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/41588/many-worlds-where-does-the-energy-come-from https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/41588/many-world...

captainclam 3y ago

I think this question stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of the Everett interpretation...the idea of "many worlds" (a phrase I do not favor specifically because of this very misunderstanding!) evokes this imagery of an entirely new universe BURSTING forth dramatically upon the collapse of the wave function, and as an entirely new universe is "created," the amount of extent energy is literally doubled (or multiplied by many times more). Indeed, where does this energy come from? What the Everett interpretation suggests is that in the same way you are comfortable with the function f(x)=y having (infinitely) many values (you don't HAVE TO choose an x, ie the function doesn't collapse), the wavefunction simply is what it is and doesn't collapse either. What we observe as the collapse of a function is simply an artifact of being a conscious being that can only observe one value of the of the wavefunction at any particular moment. None of these unique values (observables) of the wave function can interact with each other (in the same way the value of x=2 doesn't "interact" with the value of x=8 for f(x)=y), so energy cannot be gathered or duplicated at any particular point of the wave function, so this energy creation/duplication is no issue.

FollowingTheDao 3y ago

"Where would energy come from for creating each universe?" Why does it have to come from somewhere? What if it just is?

ly3xqhl8g9 3y ago

Sean Carroll, following Everett, puts it in the most concise form: (i) systems are described by wave functions, (ii) wave functions obey the Schrödinger equation [1]. "Many-worlds", universes, observations, observers, and so on become just entia multiplicanda [2], superfluities. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgalPdfHxM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOgalPdfHxM, one set of rules in quantum mechanics at 36:00; at 1:13:14 where does the energy come from? energy of the set of all universes is conserved. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

Mizza 3y ago

Where do the eggs come from when you cut a cake?