On 10/8/2019 1:43 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 2:40:33 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2019 11:21 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 12:35:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2019 12:10 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:13 AM Lawrence Crowell
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-5, John
Clark wrote:
As far as I know dispite lots of talk about it I'm
STILL the only one on the list that has actually
read Carroll's new book, but he gave an excellent
Google talk about it on Friday so maybe his critics
will at least watch that; after all even an
abbreviated Cliff Notes knowledge of a book is
better than no knowledge at all.
Sean Carroll's Google talk about his new book
"Something Deeply Hidden"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6FR08VylO4&t=1314s>
John K Clark
I have read Carroll and Sebens' paper on this, which is
more rigorous and less qualitative. I honestly do not
have a yay or nay opinion on this. It is something to
store away in the mental toolbox. Quantum
interpretations are to my thinking unprovable
theoretically and not falsifiable empirically.
I watched a little of Sean's talk at Google. It is a very
slick marketing exercise -- reminded me of a con man, or a
snake oil salesman. Too slick by half.
What do you think he's selling? I think Carroll is a good
speaker, a good popularizer, and a nice guy. I feel fortunate
to have him representing physics to the public. He is not
evangelizing for some particular interpretation and he
recognizes that there are alternative interpretations of QM
even though he favors MWI.
Also, he's the only scientist who debated William Lane Craig
and won by every measure.
Brent
Sean Carroll reminds me more of Alvin Plantinga
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga>
who can take math and pull out God.
Carroll makes*the big mistake* of a number of physics
"popularizers" today. He takes the mathematical language of a
physical theory (or one version* of that theory, as there are
multiple formulations of quantum theory) and pulls a physical
ontology out of his math.
That's why it's called an "interpretation". Every physical theory
has an ontology that goes with it's mathematics, otherwise you
don't know how to apply the mathematics. That MWI entails other,
unobservable "worlds" is neither a bug or a feature, it's just one
answer to the measurement problem. If you have a better answer,
feel free to state it.
The math is not the territory.
* 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.
The Schrödinger equation provides a way to calculate the wave
function of a system and how it changes dynamically in time.
However, the Schrödinger equation does not directly say
/*what*/*, exactly, the wave function is*. Interpretations of
quantum mechanics
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics> address
questions such as what the relation is between the wave function,
the underlying reality, and the results of experimental measurements.
Did you write that, or are you quoting without attribution? Anyway
it's common knowledge on this list.
Brent
That's from Wikipedia again (same quote from the Schrödinger equation
article posted several times before). That " it's common knowledge on
this list" doesn't appear that way at all, where an undisputed
catechism is assumed on what is real (QM-wise).
I just don't see how Many Worlds ontology tells us "how to apply the
mathematics": We don't observe a bunch of worlds, so how can it be
applied?
It tells us what we see and record is what in recorded by entanglement
with the environment and ourselves and so solves the Schrodinger cat
conundrum. Whether you then adopt an axiom that says the the other
branches predicted by the Schrodinger equation exist or vanish or "we
just don't talk about them anymore" is a matter of choice.
Path-integral methods are already used extensively in computational
quantum mechanics CQM) and applied in materials science and other
application areas. So we know they are useful.
Don't all path-integral methods assume measurement in some form as a
primitive?
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/4370115f-86c9-3b38-1f89-45a896294250%40verizon.net.
