On 11/24/2014 2:54 PM, LizR wrote:
Wilczek also says something like "this only seems like a problem if you assume energy is
a substance".
I would also add
* You need to take a god's-eye view to see the problem, and such views aren't possible
in the MWI.
* The MWI appears to suggest the multiverse is infinitely differentiable, and you can't
add to the infinite mass/energy already available.
ISTM there are two ways of looking at it. In one you say before the event there were
several possibilities x,y,z,... with probabilites a,b,c,... and one of them, x, happened.
The energy before x was the same as after x, so energy is conserved. In the other you say
x happened with probability a in the multiverse, y happened with probability b in the
multiverse, z happened with probability c in the multiverse,... And in each of x,y,z
energy was conserved and since a+b+c+...=1 energy is conserved in the multiverse.
Non-conservation only appears when you use these two pictures inconsistently.
From an instrumentalist viewpoint (which I think can be useful) "energy" is just the
conjugate variable of "time". We want our theories to apply at all times so we seek
formulations of energy and time that do this as simply as possible. Having a conserved
quantity called "energy" is a consequence of having theories that apply uniformly in time.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
