4 ms·

I'd love to hear why Penrose really thinks the Everett interpretation is crazy. He gives a very weak reason in the interview. No doubt he accepts the atomic t

by thisrod 17y ago

I'd love to hear why Penrose really thinks the Everett interpretation is crazy. He gives a very weak reason in the interview. No doubt he accepts the atomic theory of matter, despite his inability to see atoms, so his inability to see superpositions should not prevent him from accepting quantum mechanics. It would be interesting to hear him address that.

hegemonicon 17y ago
Probably the same reason everyone else seems to - it runs completely counter to our intuitions about how the world works. As far as I know (and my knowledge of QM can charitably be described as 'nonexistant') if you ignore intuitions and simply resolve the math, the Everett interpretation is what pops out of the equations.
Daniel_Newby 17y ago
But you can measure atoms indirectly. I have not heard of a many-worlds theory that is measurable even in principle.
- thisrod 17y ago
  In principle, you could demonstrate superposition states of cats the same way you'd demonstrate them for atoms or photons: return the live and dead cats to the same state, and look for interference fringes. There are two difficult parts. First, you have to kill the cat, rescusitate it, and restore every molecule of its body to the original orbital, without leaving even one photon of evidence. Once you've done that, it's a simple matter of getting the cat to sit still while you measure its position within a tiny fraction of the diameter of an atomic nucleus. I found a fascinating history of the atomic theory at http://www.aare.edu.au/02pap/har02049.htm http://www.aare.edu.au/02pap/har02049.htm, in the section titled "The History of the Particle Theory". Atoms were once as fantastic as superposition states are today, then they gradually became real. The same page points out that the plausibility of atoms is largely a fluke. People imagine that solid gold has the color of a gold atom, and gas pressure comes from squeezing the atoms together. Quantum theory doesn't lend itself to such simple but wrong explanations.

by thisrod 17y ago

hegemonicon 17y ago

Probably the same reason everyone else seems to - it runs completely counter to our intuitions about how the world works. As far as I know (and my knowledge of QM can charitably be described as 'nonexistant') if you ignore intuitions and simply resolve the math, the Everett interpretation is what pops out of the equations.

Daniel_Newby 17y ago

But you can measure atoms indirectly. I have not heard of a many-worlds theory that is measurable even in principle.

thisrod 17y ago
In principle, you could demonstrate superposition states of cats the same way you'd demonstrate them for atoms or photons: return the live and dead cats to the same state, and look for interference fringes. There are two difficult parts. First, you have to kill the cat, rescusitate it, and restore every molecule of its body to the original orbital, without leaving even one photon of evidence. Once you've done that, it's a simple matter of getting the cat to sit still while you measure its position within a tiny fraction of the diameter of an atomic nucleus. I found a fascinating history of the atomic theory at http://www.aare.edu.au/02pap/har02049.htm http://www.aare.edu.au/02pap/har02049.htm, in the section titled "The History of the Particle Theory". Atoms were once as fantastic as superposition states are today, then they gradually became real. The same page points out that the plausibility of atoms is largely a fluke. People imagine that solid gold has the color of a gold atom, and gas pressure comes from squeezing the atoms together. Quantum theory doesn't lend itself to such simple but wrong explanations.