3 ms·

I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Many Worlds is the simplest known hypothesis that explains the available evidence.

chrischen 13y ago
It is the simplest known unfalsifiable theory. We can also ponder about the true existence of reality. Do we really exist, or are well all non real and in someone or somebody's head. Neither of which will ever be provable, but we obviously default to "yes we do exist" because it's simpler.
- chrislipa 13y ago
  Many Worlds is falsifiable. It's making testable claims about how amplitude flows between configurations and recombines constructively and destructively. If we ever find an experiment in which amplitude is flowing by some rule other than Schrödinger's equation, we'll have falsified Many Worlds, and we can throw out the theory. Not all consequences of the theory are testable, but that's true of a lot of theories.
VladRussian2 13y ago
the simplest is statistical aggregate interpretation. An interpretation of QM experiments depends on your interpretation of QM :) When one sees the world through Copenhagen interpretation (i.e. superposition of states, simultaneously dead/alive cat) one sees miracles like entanglement, and starts wondering about many worlds, etc... On the other side one can look at Hitachi's electron double-slit experiment : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ-0PBRuthc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ-0PBRuthc It doesn't refute superposition, it just allows to interpret/explain things without it. Of course with superposition gone, quantum computers are gone, and no miracles like entanglement, and many worlds while still may exist lose a potent argument in their favor :) (note: the experiment clearly shows 2 separate things: 1. the main point of QM that, for example, position of a particle is described by wave-function/quantized 2. superposition of many positions is visible as a characteristic of the whole set of particles Bringing in additional superposition at the level of one particle doesn't add anything for explanation, it only brings "miracles" that Copenhagen interpretation is filled with )
- chrislipa 13y ago
  While, you're right, it is minimalistic, Einstein's Statistical Ensemble Interpretation is an incomplete theory. It doesn't tell you which possible future you'll end up in. And if you try to patch the theory by saying there's some deeper element of reality that we just haven't found yet that's deciding the outcome of experiments, then the violation of the Bell Inequalities renders that whole line of thinking moot. If, instead, you try to patch it the other way and say that everything in the ensemble is real, then you've just reinvented Many Worlds by a different name. I'm unclear why you're bringing up Hitach's experiment and what you think it shows. Maybe you could elaborate? My understanding is that the raison d'être of the experiment is to show that multiple particles are not necessary for quantum interference to occur, and that a single particle is perfectly capable of destructively interfering with itself. This is pretty direct evidence for superposition, because you're getting measurable effects from the superposition. And if anything, it's evidence against the Ensemble Interpretation. Also, quantum computers are real and here today. Any successful theory of physics must explain how 15 was factored using Shor's Algorithm. (http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0112176 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0112176)
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - VladRussian2 13y ago
    >Einstein's Statistical Ensemble Interpretation is an incomplete theory. It doesn't tell you which possible future you'll end up in. not sure that we're talking about the same. My understanding here is that one calculates probabilities the same way. It is the interpretation different. In Copenhagen the particle is supposed to carry all probabilities which magically "collapse" on the measurement, while in statistical a given particle is in "collapsed" state to start with (there is a distribution of the states over the ensemble), and the probabilistic model describes the evolution of these states and distribution of final states - there is no collapse on measurement, we just measure specific state. >I'm unclear why you're bringing up Hitach's experiment and what you think it shows. Maybe you could elaborate? My understanding is that the raison d'être of the experiment is to show that multiple particles are not necessary for quantum interference to occur, and that a single particle is perfectly capable of destructively interfering with itself. in Hitachi experiment it is shown explicitly clear that quantum interference is emerging only for multiple particles. It is basically a visualization of underlying probability distribution, like it happens in any statistical experiment when enough samples are taken. During the Hitachi experiment nothing happened that looks like or requires an explanation by a single particle supposedly interferencing with itself. If you don't see this in Hitachi experiment, lets run the following experiment. Imagine 2 doors in a wall, and imagine another, parallel, wall at several meters distance from the doors. Imagine that frogs jump out, one at a time, from either door pretty randomly. The frogs jump in general direction of the wall opposite the doors. The precise direction of each frog is varying a bit. It takes a frog several jumps to reach the wall. The probability density of the places where the frog's legs touch the ground is square of cos(pi*x/A) (correctly scaled to be a probability density) where x is the distance from the door the frog jumped out, and A is the avg. frog jump length. A frog only exist (i.e. can interact with anything else) when it touches the ground, and doesn't exist when it is flying during the jump. Whenever a frog lands near the wall, say not farther than a body distance from the wall, it touches the wall and leaves a wet spot. It is easy to see that after a big enough bunch of frogs, there would be an "interference pattern" of dry and really wet areas on the wall - i.e. some places have low probability of a frog landing near it while some have high, and that probability distribution looks like an "interference pattern". No superposition, no destructive interference of a frog with itself is necessary to observe the effect. This is what Hitachi experiment shows. >This is pretty direct evidence for superposition, yes, an interference of a particle with itself would be such evidence. I'm yet to learn about an experiment which can only be explained by such interference. > Any successful theory of physics must explain how 15 was factored using Shor's Algorithm. agree. While 15 seems too small a number to exclusively lock a superposition explanation, i don't have another ready. I'd like to have quantum computers and other quantum miracles too :) I just want them to be a bona fide miracles, not figments of our interpretation :)

chrischen 13y ago

It is the simplest known unfalsifiable theory. We can also ponder about the true existence of reality. Do we really exist, or are well all non real and in someone or somebody's head. Neither of which will ever be provable, but we obviously default to "yes we do exist" because it's simpler.

chrislipa 13y ago
Many Worlds is falsifiable. It's making testable claims about how amplitude flows between configurations and recombines constructively and destructively. If we ever find an experiment in which amplitude is flowing by some rule other than Schrödinger's equation, we'll have falsified Many Worlds, and we can throw out the theory. Not all consequences of the theory are testable, but that's true of a lot of theories.

VladRussian2 13y ago

the simplest is statistical aggregate interpretation. An interpretation of QM experiments depends on your interpretation of QM :) When one sees the world through Copenhagen interpretation (i.e. superposition of states, simultaneously dead/alive cat) one sees miracles like entanglement, and starts wondering about many worlds, etc... On the other side one can look at Hitachi's electron double-slit experiment : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ-0PBRuthc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ-0PBRuthc It doesn't refute superposition, it just allows to interpret/explain things without it. Of course with superposition gone, quantum computers are gone, and no miracles like entanglement, and many worlds while still may exist lose a potent argument in their favor :) (note: the experiment clearly shows 2 separate things: 1. the main point of QM that, for example, position of a particle is described by wave-function/quantized 2. superposition of many positions is visible as a characteristic of the whole set of particles Bringing in additional superposition at the level of one particle doesn't add anything for explanation, it only brings "miracles" that Copenhagen interpretation is filled with )

chrislipa 13y ago
While, you're right, it is minimalistic, Einstein's Statistical Ensemble Interpretation is an incomplete theory. It doesn't tell you which possible future you'll end up in. And if you try to patch the theory by saying there's some deeper element of reality that we just haven't found yet that's deciding the outcome of experiments, then the violation of the Bell Inequalities renders that whole line of thinking moot. If, instead, you try to patch it the other way and say that everything in the ensemble is real, then you've just reinvented Many Worlds by a different name. I'm unclear why you're bringing up Hitach's experiment and what you think it shows. Maybe you could elaborate? My understanding is that the raison d'être of the experiment is to show that multiple particles are not necessary for quantum interference to occur, and that a single particle is perfectly capable of destructively interfering with itself. This is pretty direct evidence for superposition, because you're getting measurable effects from the superposition. And if anything, it's evidence against the Ensemble Interpretation. Also, quantum computers are real and here today. Any successful theory of physics must explain how 15 was factored using Shor's Algorithm. (http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0112176 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0112176)
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- VladRussian2 13y ago
  >Einstein's Statistical Ensemble Interpretation is an incomplete theory. It doesn't tell you which possible future you'll end up in. not sure that we're talking about the same. My understanding here is that one calculates probabilities the same way. It is the interpretation different. In Copenhagen the particle is supposed to carry all probabilities which magically "collapse" on the measurement, while in statistical a given particle is in "collapsed" state to start with (there is a distribution of the states over the ensemble), and the probabilistic model describes the evolution of these states and distribution of final states - there is no collapse on measurement, we just measure specific state. >I'm unclear why you're bringing up Hitach's experiment and what you think it shows. Maybe you could elaborate? My understanding is that the raison d'être of the experiment is to show that multiple particles are not necessary for quantum interference to occur, and that a single particle is perfectly capable of destructively interfering with itself. in Hitachi experiment it is shown explicitly clear that quantum interference is emerging only for multiple particles. It is basically a visualization of underlying probability distribution, like it happens in any statistical experiment when enough samples are taken. During the Hitachi experiment nothing happened that looks like or requires an explanation by a single particle supposedly interferencing with itself. If you don't see this in Hitachi experiment, lets run the following experiment. Imagine 2 doors in a wall, and imagine another, parallel, wall at several meters distance from the doors. Imagine that frogs jump out, one at a time, from either door pretty randomly. The frogs jump in general direction of the wall opposite the doors. The precise direction of each frog is varying a bit. It takes a frog several jumps to reach the wall. The probability density of the places where the frog's legs touch the ground is square of cos(pi*x/A) (correctly scaled to be a probability density) where x is the distance from the door the frog jumped out, and A is the avg. frog jump length. A frog only exist (i.e. can interact with anything else) when it touches the ground, and doesn't exist when it is flying during the jump. Whenever a frog lands near the wall, say not farther than a body distance from the wall, it touches the wall and leaves a wet spot. It is easy to see that after a big enough bunch of frogs, there would be an "interference pattern" of dry and really wet areas on the wall - i.e. some places have low probability of a frog landing near it while some have high, and that probability distribution looks like an "interference pattern". No superposition, no destructive interference of a frog with itself is necessary to observe the effect. This is what Hitachi experiment shows. >This is pretty direct evidence for superposition, yes, an interference of a particle with itself would be such evidence. I'm yet to learn about an experiment which can only be explained by such interference. > Any successful theory of physics must explain how 15 was factored using Shor's Algorithm. agree. While 15 seems too small a number to exclusively lock a superposition explanation, i don't have another ready. I'd like to have quantum computers and other quantum miracles too :) I just want them to be a bona fide miracles, not figments of our interpretation :)