On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 2:03:59 AM UTC-5, smitra wrote: > > On 04-10-2019 08:20, Philip Thrift wrote: > > 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]> > >> 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 > > >> [1] > > > > 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.) > > > > The descendant worlds get the same energy if they have well defined > energy in which case computing the weighted average to get to the > expectation value is unnecessary. In general the expectation value will > need to be computed by this weighted average. To see that this is not > crazy, suppose that QM is not the ultimate answer that 't Hooft is > correct. But it then turns out that 't Hooft's deterministic models lead > to a multiverse via the back door due to Poincare recurrence. And > because with finite information in our brains, we cannot locate > ourselves in a particular time period. Then when we do an experiment, a > splitting can occur in the sense that we now get more precisely located > across in the different sectors separated by astronomical large amounts > of time. So, no problem here with the sum of the energy of (effective) > branches increasing. > > Saibal >
It seems to me that one world is enough if one permits oneself to accept probabilities. One can start wherever: The already ... mentioned psi-function.... is now the *means for predicting probability of measurement results*. In it is embodied the momentarily attained sum of theoretically based future expectation, somewhat as laid down in a catalog. ” — Erwin Schrödinger The Schrödinger equation is not the only way to study quantum mechanical systems and make predictions. The other formulations of quantum mechanics include matrix mechanics <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_mechanics>, introduced by Werner Heisenberg <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg>, and the path integral formulation <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation>, developed chiefly by Richard Feynman <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman>. Paul Dirac <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac> incorporated matrix mechanics and the Schrödinger equation into a single formulation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation Now as Feynman wrote in his paper on the meaning of probabilities in QM, these things are of a different sort. http://www.johnboccio.com/research/quantum/notes/Feynman-Prob.pdf Maybe a new word for these: *quababilities*. Now the underlying *quabability space* (*quabability theory *formulation in terms of sample space, etc.) is not settled matter, but all QM can be done in one world if prob/quab-abilities are permitted. @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/4111871b-f219-414f-9cce-a3a246dbdf30%40googlegroups.com.
