You've obscured the point by writing four lines of well known physics "explaining" each line I wrote.

You formerly insisted that energy conservation would be manifest in MWI splitting due to measurements, because whatever unit of energy was used it would be rescaled with the probability and so the thinning out of energy by redistribution would be undetectable.

Now you are suddenly aware that conservation of energy isn't even to be expected.

On 5/17/2022 2:36 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 7:23 PM Brent Meeker <> wrote:

    > /Supposedly energy is singled out as apportioned because it's
    nominally conserved./

I suppose that's why some around here are making such a big deal about it.

    >/it's conserved because Hamiltonians are time-translation invariant. /

But the universe is not time-translation invariant, in an expanding universe the laws of physics we have now are different from what they were long ago; a good example of that would be the age of inflation,

You're confusing the equations of evolution based on the Hamiltonian, and the initial conditions.  The expanding universe is a solution to the unchanging laws of physics.

and in the last 5 billion years Dark Energy has dominated the universe but before that it played an insignificant role. And we now know that the universe is not only expanding, it's accelerating. And that's why in General Relativity energy is conserved locally but not globally; globally energy conservation is not even well-defined.

    /> Measurement in a branch isn't evolved by a time-translation
    invariant Hamiltonian. So there's no reason to think energy is
    conserved. /

That's why this entire objection to Many Worlds is not just silly, it's silly squared, or perhaps it's the square root of silly I'm not quite sure. There is no reason Many Worlds needs to conserve energy, and even if there were there's a way for it to do so. Energy might be conserved at the Multiverse level if somebody could think of a way to define the thing, but even if it is I don't see how that obscure fact could lead to anything useful.

They you need to explain why energy conservation was considered a fundamental principle of physics for a century or more and is still taught and applied.  Carroll says energy is conserved at the MW level; which is a consequence of the SE Hamiltonian being time-translation invariant (in flat spacetime).  But he claims it's not conserved in any given world...while you argued that it's non-conservation in any give world would be unobservable.

    /> In fact if it is always conserved that would be contrary to MWI./

Not just in MWI and General Relativity, even in a quantum mechanical system it has been found that things look different if only time is reversed, it's only if you reverse not just time but also swap the electrical charges and then look at the system in a mirror do the laws of physics behave the same way, it's called CTP Symmetry.

I know what it's called and that's just a diversion.


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 view this discussion on the web visit

Reply via email to