On Sat, Jan 11, 2025 at 11:03 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
*>> And if Many Worlds is correct then every time a horizontally polarized >> photon is rotated by 90° the universe splits, in one of them the photon is >> polarized up and in the other it is polarized down.* > > > *> I don't think you've grasped the experiment at all. The photon is > rotated in small increments up to as much as **90°,* > *As far as this discussion is concerned, rotating the polarizer in small increments is irrelevant, and I don't think you've grasped how polarizers work. Only when a polarizer is set to exactly 0° or 90° is there an all or nothing situation, even if the polarizer is just set at 1° there is not a 100% chance the photon will make it through the filter, the exact probability can be found by using Malus's Law; P = cos²(θ); 1° × (π/180°) = 0.01745 radians, so P = cos²(0.01745) = 0.9998. According to Many Worlds there are worlds where the photon does not make it through, although they have a very small quantum amplitude, in my mind's eye I picture this as a2-D map of branching lines, but the lines have a very small 3-D thickness, and some have a little bit more thickness and some have a little bit less.* *> there isn't any "in the other". * > *There are if Many Worlds is correct, I'm not certain that it is but I am certain it is the best explanation for quantum weirdness that anybody has come up with, at least so far. * > *> Why do you not include the diagrams? * > *Because there is such a thing as exponential growth, or to be more specific, because quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes makes a post virtually unreadable, and that is especially true if large unwieldy pictures or graphs are iterated. * > *>> You might also be interested in the following video, Lev Vaidman >> starts his talk by bluntly saying Many Words is by far the best quantum >> interpretation: **Lev Vaidman | The Many Worlds Interpretation as the >> (Best) Explanation of the Results of Experiments >> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPyQhu_C3GE>* > > > *>And Scott Aaronson says it isn't. * > *I read Scott Aaronson's blog and like him a lot, but as far as quantum interpretations are concerned Aaronson is an agnostic, and Aaronson is not the one that came up with the fascinating idea of a quantum bomb detector, a way to detect something without interacting with it in any way, that idea came from **Vaidman and his co-author Elitzu*r*, and they both used the Many Worlds idea in their thinking. * *Unlike many ideas in modern physics, their quantum bomb detector is not super complicated, and Quantum Mechanics was invented in the mid-1920s, so why did it take until 1993 before anybody thought of the bomb detector? I think it's because before 1993 the vast majority of physicists thought Hugh Everett's Many Worlds idea was not worth thinking about, or may not have even heard of it. To make progress a theoretical physicist needs to have some sort of mental model of what's going on even if that model is only approximately correct; I don't think any believer in Copenhagen (a.k.a. shut up and calculate) could've ever come up with that idea. * > *> Trump carried the popular vote last time too.)* *Actually Trump got a plurality of the popular vote but not a majority, he got 49.8%; in 2016 he didn't even get a plurality but thanks to our idiotic Electoral College he won anyway.* * John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* tis -- 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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2MwTCytrhFOy77dOAzkbNKEDNynUwFcThVEsBB-Je%2BXg%40mail.gmail.com.
