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

```
On 5/16/2022 12:56 PM, John Clark wrote:
```
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 1:54 PM Brent Meeker <meekerbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
```
On 4/25/2022 9:01 AM, John Clark wrote:

>> It doesn't matter what you use, you're going to need an
energy calibration standard because there's just no way to
measure the absolute energy of anything, you can only measure
```
the relative energy.
```
/> Energy is proportional to mass thru the speed of light. /

```
Yep, E= Mc^2. and the speed is measured in meters per second and light moves at 299,792,458 metres per second. But a meter is defined as the distance light travels in the time it takes an atom of caesium-133 to vibrate  9,192,631,770 times (which is the definition of a second), and how fast the cesium atom vibrates depends on Planck's Constant which has units of meters, kilograms and seconds. So when you measure the speed of light the value that you'll put in your lab notebook will be the same after the split as the number you got before the split.
```
/> And mass can be measured relative to a standard unit both
gravitationally and inertially. /

```
It's groundhog's day again, F=ma. If the inertial mass is half and the gravitational mass is half then even though the force pulling an object to the ground is half the object will accelerate the same way it did before because Einstein tells us gravitational mass and inertial mass are always exactly in sync.
```
/> The real problem you're pointing to is that the MWI idea is
that probability weighting of a branch rescales everything, KE, EM
potential/

```
Problem? Why is that a problem? If it just rescaled one thing then that would be a problem, but if it rescales everything then nothing observable changes because for something to be meaningful you need contrast.
```
```
It creates the problem that the change is unobservable and hence meaningless by some standards.  Energy is always the variable asked about because people assume energy is conserved and this implies, to them, that the multiple worlds only get a proportionate fraction of the energy.  But do they get a proportionate action of the momentum?  the angular momentum?  the velocity of light? the number of people?  What is this splitting by probability weight that affects physical variables?  Why does it apportion some values and not others...a skeptic might say it just apportions them however needed such that it's unobservable and that's the definition of apportionment by probability.
```
```
But ironically, Sean Carroll, who is a proponent of MWI, says that energy is*/not/* conserved in each branch of the MWI, only in the total, and non-conservation should be observable in a branch.  Energy is conserved because the Hamiltonian is time-translation invariant in the SE.  But measurements, as seen in a single branch, are not time-translation invariant; they're projections.  So in a single branch it would be contrary to MWI for energy to always be conserved.  It's only conserved in total, or also on average in a given finite sequence.
```
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2101.11052.pdf

```
But the funny thing is, the way Carroll describes it, is that this a non-conservation in a measure of spin state a|up>+b|dwn>, not because a and b are less than one, but because they weight eigenstates of different energy.  So although reducing everything by a factor of 1/2 in undetectable, we can observe the difference in energy between 0.9 spin up and 0.9 spin dwn of just this one particle.
```
```
```
> Does it rescale the angular momentum of spin?

```
Sure, if mass is rescaled then obviously angular momentum would have to be rescaled too.
```
But spin has an absolute unit, it's not mv^2/r .

```
```
/> You might as well postulate it doing so because there's really
no proven theory of probability scaling of physical values.
/

```
Of course there isn'ta way to prove it happened, that's what I've been trying to to tell you! There would be absolutely no way to experimentally detect the fact that the absolute energy level of something has changed, you can only tell if the energy level has changed relative to something else.
```
```
You're telling me it's so, but you're not telling me why and why "energy"...which isn't even an invariant in relativity.  You're just saying that energy comes in arbitrary units so rescaling units can leave everything the same.  But units are arbitrary choices.  For real change in the physics there has to be some change in a dimensionless number, e.g. the fine structure constant.  Or, per Carroll, the relative energy of two spin states.
```
Brent

```
```
```
John K Clark    See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>
```34b

--
```
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/CAJPayv2ROCKPOjEPeijExOLfL7MgT4zyd5WwY3NLT2cUrFtfAw%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2ROCKPOjEPeijExOLfL7MgT4zyd5WwY3NLT2cUrFtfAw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
```
--
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/38ad2c88-846a-ea54-4612-a56cbe8448f3%40gmail.com.
```