Many Waves, Many Worlds

This vid is so oversimplified that you may consider much of it as wrong, but kinda right, in a ratio of 60% and 40% respectively. Which parts are more wrong or more right will depend on which universe you are viewing it from.

Everett saw that under those assumptions, the wave function of an observer would, in effect, bifurcate at each interaction of the observer with a superposed object. The universal wave function would contain branches for every alternative making up the objects superposition. Each branch has its own copy of the observer, a copy that perceived one of those alternatives as the outcome. According to a fundamental mathematical property of the Schrödinger equation, once formed, the branches do not influence one another. Thus, each branch embarks on a different future, independently of the others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Everett_III

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hugh-everett-biography

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/manyworlds/byrne.html

__

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• premed2
• Hugh
• Everett
• many
• worlds
• hypothesis
• universal
• wave
• function

[LogicRising]

By the way, It's a little troubling if the many worlds theory is true. Here's why:

In at least ONE reality, you were unable to read this message because just as I went to click the "Post comment button", the atoms of my body aligned in such a way that I fell through my chair, down through the floor and into my basement, and continued falling to the center of the earth. Ready? it's about to happen: **goes to click "Post"**

[premed2]

That could never happen to me, I don't have a basement, and for those of me that do, frankly, I don't care.

[LogicRising]

Is it so illogical to think that the fundamental workings of the universe are unordered and uncaused? For example, if we found out that quantum events are discrete and uncaused, we'd be done! We would have proven that everything in the universe is built up from that bedrock; that fundamental principle of the universe that has no cause, nor reason. Should such a bedrock be expected to exist at some level of principle detail or metaphysical abstraction? I think so.

[premed2]

Yes, I agree, but since our previous investigations into the natural world have given way to causal explanations, and through natural selection we have been shaped to seek out causal connections, accepting acausality feels much like falling through one's chair, down through the floor and into the basement, and continuing to fall to the center of the Earth, surviving and discovering that the Earth's core is composed of hot coco.

[rozeboosje]

That would be very interesting indeed. Yes, that is definitly one of those wide open areas... :-)

[DefaultPosition]

I like it when people talk about things they have a natural passion for and enjoyment of.

[premed2]

to "run" the universe? While I do not believe this is true, I suspect that I can put together a convincing case that this is the eventual direction in which science is heading.

[premed2]

What interests me, (perhaps where I end up going with all this), is "where" is the "information" for a wave function or the entropy of a black hole stored. Certainly Bohr's complementarity may provide two (or more?) different answers, but is all the info in the universe, such as fundamental constants, and physical laws contained within the "structure" of the universe, or will there come a time when it can be proven that the universe cannot possibly contain all the info that is required (more)

[rozeboosje]

"well, you asked for a LOCATION, and all I have is a WAVEFUNCTION so the moment you ask for it I'll give you something that is consistent with the status of the wavefunction, even if it seems bizarre to you thinking, as you do, in terms of location and momentum".

Well said about the uncertainty principle. There aren't many who understand that it is a fundamental aspect of reality, not just something we introduce because we try to measure things.

[rozeboosje]

I think it's simpler than that. Our "classical" notions of "position" and "momentum" evolved into us and were very useful in our everyday experience, but they are not really a fundamental part of nature. The thing is, every time you ask nature a question (i.e. do a measurement) nature gives you an answer. In our normal experience, the answers "make sense". At the QM level, we get probabilistic answers that seem bizarre to us, but nature just goes (more)