AG, In MWI, whether you call it “splitting” or “differentiation” doesn’t really change anything essential. The universal wavefunction by definition contains all possible branches in superposition.
What we call “worlds” are just components becoming effectively independent via decoherence. Nothing extra gets created, everything is always in the wavefunction. It’s the same formalism either way; the difference is just in how you choose to describe it. Quentin All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) Le ven. 4 juil. 2025, 12:52, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > On Thursday, July 3, 2025 at 7:38:03 PM UTC-6 Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > On 7/3/2025 2:51 PM, Alan Grayson wrote: > > I definitely understand the mathematics and logic that for light speed to > be frame invariant, length contraction and time dilation must occur. But I > don't see any physical model that allows that to occur, and I don't think > Relativity provides that model. AG > > > You seem to have a hang up about "models". What exactly are you asking > for? A mechanical model of springs and masses like Faraday contrived for > EM waves? Lorentz already derived his contraction by considering atoms as > little particles held in place by EM forces? Isn't that "model" enough for > you? > > Brent > > > I'm not sure exactly what I am seeking, but logic alone leaves much to be > desired in the context of Relativity. Lorentz's model is rarely, if ever, > mentioned today in any discussion of Relativity, presumably because it's > wrong, or doesn't adequately provide an explanation for length contraction, > or possibly because logic is seen as sufficient to explain relativistic > phenomena (when it does not IMO). As for Quentin's explanation of how many > worlds come into being, he says they don't, but are always there, as if > those I am supposed to think come into being at some intersection with its > numerous different turns possible, were always implicit in the Universal > WF, which perfectly knows the future? Quentin thinks this is a reasonable > interpretation of the MWI, when IMO it's just untestable imagination. > What's your opinion of this latest twist on the MWI, which is supposed to > appeal to sober individuals? AG > > -- > 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/43010b97-3527-4fe2-9e0a-7d56d5904400n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/43010b97-3527-4fe2-9e0a-7d56d5904400n%40googlegroups.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 [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMW2kApMLcOd_Wupcv2eqsG-YqE7KMCKZgQuByogmLyu%2BeS4GA%40mail.gmail.com.
