On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 6:56:59 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:12 AM Philip Thrift <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:51:29 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> This really is a well enough explained question. >>>> >>>> LC >>>> >>>> Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the >>>>> total energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with the >>>>> probability of that branch. This works the way it always works in quantum >>>>> mechanics. There is nothing new going on here, nothing controversial, and >>>>> nothing interesting. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html?showComment=1569889923590#c1373154727748966620 >>>>> >>>> >>> The trouble I see with the explanation Sabine gives, which is probably >>> the most common response to this question, is that it dilutes the energy in >>> each branch according to the Born weight. Given that there a zillions of >>> branchings per second throughout the visible universe, the energy rapidly >>> is weighted away to zero in all branches. This does not make much sense. >>> Besides, that is not what one does in ordinary quantum mechanics -- I have >>> no idea what Sabine is referring to here. >>> >>> The only solution for MWI, it seems to me, is that the energy is simply >>> conserved in each branch, and not conserved over branching interactions. >>> How would you ever test this, anyway? Block universe ideas do not actually >>> help here. And appeals to energy non conservation in non-stationary >>> universes are beside the point -- Quantum mechanics is not GR. >>> >>> Bruce >>> >> >> >> Sabine Hossenfelder's book "Lost in Math" has this title in the recently >> published Italian version: >> >> "Deluded by Math" >> >> Maybe "Confused by Math" is another possibility. >> >> Many times she does exactly what she accuses (in her book) others doing. >> > > Yes, sometimes she gets very sloppy in her thinking and goes with the > conventional arguments rather than thinking things through. But, at least > she does challenge the status quo on many occasions. The contrary voice is > often needed. > > Bruce >
She is a prophet of a find in two regards: *The End Of Theoretical Physics As We Know It* https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-end-of-theoretical-physics-as-we-know-it-20180827/ (the transition from conventional mathematics to programmatic/computing structures) and the delusion/confusion of today's theoretical physicists with math, leading a both quantum and cosmological multiple universes. But her nonsensical probability argument where as worlds branch (then branch again, and again) the descendant worlds get 1/2 the matter and energy of their parent, which means we should have 0 right now. (Now she could argue that one starts with 0 matter and energy from the beginning, so it's 0 all the way down.) @philipthrift -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/86bddc3f-4494-4079-b974-95cc6738ddaf%40googlegroups.com.
