On Monday, November 27, 2017 at 12:55:24 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 6:36 PM, <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > >> > >> Feynman, who wasn't an MWI enthusiast >> [...] >> > > *"Political scientist" L David Raub reports a poll of 72 of the "leading > cosmologists and other quantum field theorists" about the "Many-Worlds > Interpretation" [...] Amongst the "Yes, I think MWI is true" crowd listed > are Stephen Hawking and Nobel Laureates Murray Gell-Mann and Richard > Feynman. Gell-Mann and Hawking recorded reservations with the name > "many-worlds", but not with the theory's content. Nobel Laureate Steven > Weinberg is also mentioned as a many-worlder" * > > https://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm#believes >
Your source is fact-challenged. Weinberg thinks MULTIVERSE may have merit, but NOT the MWI, which he characterized as "repellent". AG > > But to be fair, Feynman wasn't exactly an enthusiast, I think he > believed Many Worlds was the the least bad quantum interpretation but he > wasn't really a fan of philosophy and had sympathy for the "shut up and > calculate" quantum interpretation. > > >> >> > >> no human observer is necessary to perform a quantum experiment. >> > > Hey you don't have to convince me that an observer is not needed for > something to exist in one definite state, but then I'm not a fan of > Copenhagen. > You keep making the same error. The only way to understand double slit experiment is via superposition of states, which means no definite state before measurement! Does NOT apply to macro objects where interference does not manifest. I won't say it again! AG > > > > >> > >> If the detector is designed for a which-way measurement, the interference >> is destroyed. >> > > If the which way information is retained the interference pattern is > destroyed, if the information > is destroyed then you have interference, and that is what Many Worlds > predicts. > ??? No interference in which-way experiment. AG > > > >> >> >>> The very heart the Copenhagen interpretation is that things do not have >>> definite properties >>> before >>> they are measured, >>> >> >> > >> Wrong. >> > > * "According to the Copenhagen interpretation, physical systems > generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured"* > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation > You're cherry picking. The statement refers (or should refer) to quantum experiments which manifest interference effects and where the system being measured is in a superposition of states. AG > > >> > >> Your claim only applies in a special situation of quantum experiments >> which manifest interference effects. >> > > I agree, interference effects > only manifest in special circumstances, when a world splits become > different and then the two evolve in such a way that the two become > identical again and so merge back together, and that is only likely to > happen if the difference between the two worlds is very small; that's why > we don't see weird quantum stuff in our macro world, like in the Earth Moon > system > But since the many worlds are disjoint, we don't SEE anything. Moreover, they can't become identical if they differ in what's measured! You have embraced a nonsense theory; not even "physics". AG > . > > John K Clark > > > > > >> > -- 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
