4 ms·

This phenomenon is explained by many-worlds: The two photons have both polarization orientations in the multiverse. We are limited to a single instance of the m

This phenomenon is explained by many-worlds: The two photons have both polarization orientations in the multiverse. We are limited to a single instance of the multiverse, and any interaction whatsoever between the photons and our universe will force them into a single instance of polarization orientation, as this is all we can experience, being interacting beings ourselves. Reality is really an immense interconnected binary tree, and we must always travel along a single path. It has the property that reconciling paths (paths that diverged but met up again with no interaction in our universe) will again be accessible to us. As Galileo was prosecuted for supporting Copernicus' heliocentric theory (more specifically for championing reason over faith), the Church's default stance was that the planets moved around the sky 'as if' they orbited the Sun. We are in a similar position now with many-worlds vs. 'as if' many-worlds, based on experimental evidence such as the Mach-Zehnder interferometer results.

Symmetry 14y ago
Of course the phenomenon is explained by Many Worlds, that's an interpretation of QM that should be consistent with the evidence we have in all cases if it's not to be discarded. Many Worlds is also hardly a persecuted viewpoint, it may not have penetrated into the popular consciousness but I seem to recall evidence that most actual physicists don't use a collapse postulate. I certainly know that my of my physicist friends here in the MIT community everyone holds with some sort of non-collapse interpretation. EDIT: Wait, I just remembered one dual physics/philosophy major who believes in quantum collapse. But even she thinks that the Copenhagen Interpretation, the one you usually see in the media, is ridiculous. I'll say that, personally, I find it much easier to make sense of situations involving long range entanglements when I think about them in terms of Many Worlds than when I think about them in terms of waveform collapse. And the term "teleportation" as applied to these results really does annoy me.
- RockofStrength 14y ago
  Thank you - it is nice to get feedback from someone in the community. I agree that Many Worlds is not literally persecuted, but it is viewed as something of an absurdity by the layman, and seems to be a bit taboo among the elders in the field. The preference of a public panel is often to throw up one's hands at the mystery of it all, which encourages people like Deepak Chopra to muse on the magic of consciousness' power to collapse the wave function.
enko 14y ago
Are you saying that a Mach-Zehnder Interferometer is a multiverse-spanning device? So shining a few lights around some polarising mirrors and putting some shit in the way is breaking inter-universal barriers? And this experiment too? I won't pretend to fully understand quantum entanglement but jumping straight to the balls-out Infinite Multiverse Theory is a bit much. Occam's Razor, please. Heliocentrism is and was obviously right, minus the blinders of religion. I don't think the situation re. many-worlds is even remotely comparable. Then again, if you have some compelling, credible yet accessible literature setting out the case to the contrary, why not share?
- RockofStrength 14y ago
  "Heliocentrism is and was obviously right, minus the blinders of religion." It is easy for us to judge now that we have pictures from space, but the concept would have been very non-intuitive in centuries past. For example, one does not feel the movement of the Earth. "I don't think the situation re. many-worlds is even remotely comparable." I agree that the comparison is not exact, yet it seems to be the best one available to support my stance. Both geocentrism and wave collapse were theories that appealed to commonsense notions but ignored irrefutable evidence. Geocentrists invented the preposterous epicycles, which supposedly allowed the planets to move "as if" they were orbiting the Sun. Single worlders invented wave collapse to allow photons to operate "as if" all possible paths were taken. As far as literature goes, I'd recommend the two books by David Deutsch. He gets extremely ambitious at times, but I would classify the writing as "compelling, credible yet accessible literature".
jorangreef 14y ago
Regarding: "As Galileo was prosecuted for supporting Copernicus' heliocentric theory (more specifically for championing reason over faith)" Nothing could be further from the truth. The first proponents of the scientific method saw the process of describing the known universe as possible only because of their faith in a rational Creator, their definition of the word "faith" meaning "conviction backed by reason" (Hebrews 11). Their hypothesis was that the creation of such a rational Creator would necessarily be ordered, not chaotic as the pagans of the day believed, and that it would be possible to seek to describe the creation in terms of scientific laws and principles. By faith they understood that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. This was the basis for the birth of the scientific method. In the days of Galileo, the Church as you refer to, was nothing more than a political militant state, opposed to the theology of the early Christians of the 1st century, and opposed to the Scriptures which exposed its hegemony. Indeed the Church would have mothers and fathers burnt at the stake for teaching children the ten commandments and the Lord's prayer. People like William Tyndale, and many other brilliant Oxford and Cambridge scholars were hounded and martyred by the Church for translating the Bible into English and circulating and discussing it in the 1500s. While the Church may have opposed heliocentrism, Galileo defended heliocentrism, and understood correctly that it was not contrary to the Scriptures. For people like Galileo and Kepler, faith and reason were the same thing. By definition, it's impossible to have faith that is not based on reason, nor is it possible to hold reason without faith. To do so is historical revisionism. If you have a bone to pick with faith, then the best place to start is with the life and death and resurrection of Christ in history. Did it happen? How soon after the events were the eye witness accounts recorded? At what cost? Independent? Do we read them as they were written? This is a matter of historicity: did it happen? Not of philosophical possibility (naturalism), or statistical possibility (frequentism).
- RockofStrength 14y ago
  "While the Church may have opposed heliocentrism, Galileo defended heliocentrism, and understood correctly that it was not contrary to the Scriptures." Biblical references Psalm 93:1, 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same manner, Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place" etc. Certainly for the Biblical literalist there are places of direct disagreement. "For people like Galileo and Kepler, faith and reason were the same thing." I suppose one could have 'faith in reason' (that's a great oxymoron), and one could also perhaps 'reason in faith'. But at a deeper level, the two concepts are orthogonal and irreconcilable. "By definition, it's impossible to have faith that is not based on reason, nor is it possible to hold reason without faith." faith - Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. reason - The power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways. Here is the "Galileo affair" Wikipedia link for those who wish to read up on the matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
derleth 14y ago
> As Galileo was prosecuted for supporting Copernicus' heliocentric theory (more specifically for championing reason over faith) Aside from the fact this is factually incorrect, it's also a bad argument, as most people who propose paradigm-shifting theories are wrong. Using this argument associates you with a lot of crackpots a lot more strongly than it associates you with Galileo.
- RockofStrength 14y ago
  "Aside from the fact this is factually incorrect..." I shall supply a snippet of the Galileo affair that corroborates my hand-wavy statement: "One of the first suggestions of heresy that Galileo had to deal with came in 1613 from a professor of philosophy (what we would now call a professor of scientific theory), Cosimo Boscaglia, who was neither a theologian nor a priest. In conversation with Galileo's patron, Cosimo II de' Medici, Boscaglia gave the opinion that the telescopic discoveries were valid, but the motion of the Earth was obviously contrary to Scripture." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Bible_argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Bible_argument "...most people who propose paradigm-shifting theories are wrong." Galileo's success worked against him - other paradigm-shifters were not legitimate threats to the status quo.
jacoblyles 14y ago
Lame. Many worlds is an interpretation. It is an untestable explanation of the evidence, there is no way to decide between many worlds and other models (besides, perhaps, convenience). It is not physics, but metaphysics. I know some people are pushing many worlds with religious fervor and it is obnoxious. But as far as I know, despite the horde of internet acolytes that gives MW a weird thought-smell, it is still a mainstream interpretation and nobody is "prosecuted" for it.
- RockofStrength 14y ago
  "Many worlds is an interpretation. It is an untestable explanation of the evidence, there is no way to decide between many worlds and other models (besides, perhaps, convenience)." Many Worlds is the theory that best fits the evidence of quantum experiments, keeping in mind Occam's razor. In fact, it is the only comprehensible one. Wave collapse is comparable to epicycles in that they are both attempts at harmonizing completely contradictory evidence with a preconceived common-sense assumption (single universe and geocentrism, respectively).

Symmetry 14y ago

Of course the phenomenon is explained by Many Worlds, that's an interpretation of QM that should be consistent with the evidence we have in all cases if it's not to be discarded. Many Worlds is also hardly a persecuted viewpoint, it may not have penetrated into the popular consciousness but I seem to recall evidence that most actual physicists don't use a collapse postulate. I certainly know that my of my physicist friends here in the MIT community everyone holds with some sort of non-collapse interpretation. EDIT: Wait, I just remembered one dual physics/philosophy major who believes in quantum collapse. But even she thinks that the Copenhagen Interpretation, the one you usually see in the media, is ridiculous. I'll say that, personally, I find it much easier to make sense of situations involving long range entanglements when I think about them in terms of Many Worlds than when I think about them in terms of waveform collapse. And the term "teleportation" as applied to these results really does annoy me.

RockofStrength 14y ago
Thank you - it is nice to get feedback from someone in the community. I agree that Many Worlds is not literally persecuted, but it is viewed as something of an absurdity by the layman, and seems to be a bit taboo among the elders in the field. The preference of a public panel is often to throw up one's hands at the mystery of it all, which encourages people like Deepak Chopra to muse on the magic of consciousness' power to collapse the wave function.

enko 14y ago

Are you saying that a Mach-Zehnder Interferometer is a multiverse-spanning device? So shining a few lights around some polarising mirrors and putting some shit in the way is breaking inter-universal barriers? And this experiment too? I won't pretend to fully understand quantum entanglement but jumping straight to the balls-out Infinite Multiverse Theory is a bit much. Occam's Razor, please. Heliocentrism is and was obviously right, minus the blinders of religion. I don't think the situation re. many-worlds is even remotely comparable. Then again, if you have some compelling, credible yet accessible literature setting out the case to the contrary, why not share?

RockofStrength 14y ago
"Heliocentrism is and was obviously right, minus the blinders of religion." It is easy for us to judge now that we have pictures from space, but the concept would have been very non-intuitive in centuries past. For example, one does not feel the movement of the Earth. "I don't think the situation re. many-worlds is even remotely comparable." I agree that the comparison is not exact, yet it seems to be the best one available to support my stance. Both geocentrism and wave collapse were theories that appealed to commonsense notions but ignored irrefutable evidence. Geocentrists invented the preposterous epicycles, which supposedly allowed the planets to move "as if" they were orbiting the Sun. Single worlders invented wave collapse to allow photons to operate "as if" all possible paths were taken. As far as literature goes, I'd recommend the two books by David Deutsch. He gets extremely ambitious at times, but I would classify the writing as "compelling, credible yet accessible literature".

jorangreef 14y ago

Regarding: "As Galileo was prosecuted for supporting Copernicus' heliocentric theory (more specifically for championing reason over faith)" Nothing could be further from the truth. The first proponents of the scientific method saw the process of describing the known universe as possible only because of their faith in a rational Creator, their definition of the word "faith" meaning "conviction backed by reason" (Hebrews 11). Their hypothesis was that the creation of such a rational Creator would necessarily be ordered, not chaotic as the pagans of the day believed, and that it would be possible to seek to describe the creation in terms of scientific laws and principles. By faith they understood that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. This was the basis for the birth of the scientific method. In the days of Galileo, the Church as you refer to, was nothing more than a political militant state, opposed to the theology of the early Christians of the 1st century, and opposed to the Scriptures which exposed its hegemony. Indeed the Church would have mothers and fathers burnt at the stake for teaching children the ten commandments and the Lord's prayer. People like William Tyndale, and many other brilliant Oxford and Cambridge scholars were hounded and martyred by the Church for translating the Bible into English and circulating and discussing it in the 1500s. While the Church may have opposed heliocentrism, Galileo defended heliocentrism, and understood correctly that it was not contrary to the Scriptures. For people like Galileo and Kepler, faith and reason were the same thing. By definition, it's impossible to have faith that is not based on reason, nor is it possible to hold reason without faith. To do so is historical revisionism. If you have a bone to pick with faith, then the best place to start is with the life and death and resurrection of Christ in history. Did it happen? How soon after the events were the eye witness accounts recorded? At what cost? Independent? Do we read them as they were written? This is a matter of historicity: did it happen? Not of philosophical possibility (naturalism), or statistical possibility (frequentism).

RockofStrength 14y ago
"While the Church may have opposed heliocentrism, Galileo defended heliocentrism, and understood correctly that it was not contrary to the Scriptures." Biblical references Psalm 93:1, 96:10, and 1 Chronicles 16:30 include text stating that "the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved." In the same manner, Psalm 104:5 says, "the Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Further, Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that "And the sun rises and sets and returns to its place" etc. Certainly for the Biblical literalist there are places of direct disagreement. "For people like Galileo and Kepler, faith and reason were the same thing." I suppose one could have 'faith in reason' (that's a great oxymoron), and one could also perhaps 'reason in faith'. But at a deeper level, the two concepts are orthogonal and irreconcilable. "By definition, it's impossible to have faith that is not based on reason, nor is it possible to hold reason without faith." faith - Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. reason - The power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways. Here is the "Galileo affair" Wikipedia link for those who wish to read up on the matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair

derleth 14y ago

> As Galileo was prosecuted for supporting Copernicus' heliocentric theory (more specifically for championing reason over faith) Aside from the fact this is factually incorrect, it's also a bad argument, as most people who propose paradigm-shifting theories are wrong. Using this argument associates you with a lot of crackpots a lot more strongly than it associates you with Galileo.

RockofStrength 14y ago
"Aside from the fact this is factually incorrect..." I shall supply a snippet of the Galileo affair that corroborates my hand-wavy statement: "One of the first suggestions of heresy that Galileo had to deal with came in 1613 from a professor of philosophy (what we would now call a professor of scientific theory), Cosimo Boscaglia, who was neither a theologian nor a priest. In conversation with Galileo's patron, Cosimo II de' Medici, Boscaglia gave the opinion that the telescopic discoveries were valid, but the motion of the Earth was obviously contrary to Scripture." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Bible_argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair#Bible_argument "...most people who propose paradigm-shifting theories are wrong." Galileo's success worked against him - other paradigm-shifters were not legitimate threats to the status quo.

jacoblyles 14y ago

Lame. Many worlds is an interpretation. It is an untestable explanation of the evidence, there is no way to decide between many worlds and other models (besides, perhaps, convenience). It is not physics, but metaphysics. I know some people are pushing many worlds with religious fervor and it is obnoxious. But as far as I know, despite the horde of internet acolytes that gives MW a weird thought-smell, it is still a mainstream interpretation and nobody is "prosecuted" for it.

RockofStrength 14y ago
"Many worlds is an interpretation. It is an untestable explanation of the evidence, there is no way to decide between many worlds and other models (besides, perhaps, convenience)." Many Worlds is the theory that best fits the evidence of quantum experiments, keeping in mind Occam's razor. In fact, it is the only comprehensible one. Wave collapse is comparable to epicycles in that they are both attempts at harmonizing completely contradictory evidence with a preconceived common-sense assumption (single universe and geocentrism, respectively).