# Re: aiming to complete Everett's derivation of the Born Rule

`On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 10:28 AM John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:`
```
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2022 at 7:12 PM Alan Grayson <agrayson2...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > *Maybe because you're mentally retarded? You posted Sean's
>> "explanation" for where the energy comes from to create the world's which
>> infatuate you! If a world has 1% probability of existing according to
>> Born's rule, it has 1% of the original total energy!*
>>
>
> I've explained this to you before but that time I used words that an
> intelligent adult should understand, but you didn't, so this time I'll
> imagine I'm speaking to a child with a learning disability, maybe that will
> work. We've known for a long time there's no way to detect the absolute
> energy level of anything, we can only detect the energy difference between
> two things, but there is no way an observer in one universe can compare his
> energy level with an observer in another universe, so the fact that one
> universe may have 10 times more energy than another has no observable
> consequences to anybody in either universe.
>

This is what Sean Carroll actually says in his book "Something Deeply
Hidden":

"Well", replied Alice. "Just think about ordinary textbook quantum
mechanics. Given a quantum state, we can calculate the total energy it
describes. As long as the wave function evolves strictly according to the
Schrodinger equation, that energy is conserved, right?" ....
"Not all worlds are created equal. Think about the wave function. When it
describes multiple branched worlds, we can calculate the total amount of
energy by adding up the amount of energy in each world, times the weight
(the amplitude squared) for that world. When one world divides in two, the
energy in each world is basically the same as it previously was in the
single world (as far as anyone living inside is concerned), but their
contributions to the total energy of the wave function of the universe have
divided in half, since their amplitudes have decreased. Each world got a
bit thinner, although its inhabitants can't tell the difference." (page 173)

In other words, Sean is saying that energy conservation works for the
multiverse, and he implies that it also works in each individual branch.
This is nonsense --  you can't have both. If energy is conserved over the
multiverse, then it cannot be conserved in each branch separately, as my
previous example of a neutron decay indicates. Energy conservation is
routinely observed and checked in individual branches. No one has ever
checked energy conservation in the multiverse.

The idea that this energy is conserved in the multiverse derives from the
observation that the Schrodinger equation is time translation invariant.
Consequently, there is a definite tension between the application of the
Schrodinger equation to obtain a multiverse, Noether's theorem, and the
routine observation that energy is conserved separately in each branch. The
trouble with Sean's glib response to the question is that in each branch of
the multiverse, we can measure the energy both before and after the
supposed split. These energies are found to be equal in the branch, so
energy cannot be conserved over the multiverse, as Alice in Sean's
discussion claims.

Despite Carroll's protestations (and the similar protestations of others),
energy cannot be conserved in the multiverse -- each split must duplicate
the energy of the whole as many times as there are branches.

Bruce

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLS0umDD0xAr00bywm0HE_6Ukk-y74ACz7%3D86Q_ZygEWpg%40mail.gmail.com.
```