AG, You can’t write the universal wavefunction in full detail because it’s the total quantum state of the entire universe.
In principle, it’s a giant superposition of all possible configurations evolving deterministically. Just because we can’t write it out explicitly doesn’t mean it’s not part of the formalism. Even for a modest number of entangled particles, the wavefunction is too big to display, but it still has a precise mathematical definition. Quentin All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer) Le sam. 5 juil. 2025, 18:09, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > On Friday, July 4, 2025 at 6:52:05 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > AG, > > That’s exactly the point: the universal wavefunction contains all possible > paths you might take—left, right, or none. > > It doesn’t “know” in advance which one you will experience; it simply > encodes every alternative in superposition. > > That’s why it’s called Many Worlds. Nothing is singled out until > decoherence makes the branches effectively independent. There will be as > many AG as physically possible (means possible according to the > wavefunction) > > Quentin > > > Can you write the Universal WF? Much is claimed about it, but I've never > seen it. AG > > > > All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy > Batty/Rutger Hauer) > > Le ven. 4 juil. 2025, 14:09, Alan Grayson <[email protected]> a écrit : > > > > On Friday, July 4, 2025 at 5:48:06 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > 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 > > > So the Universal WF contains information concerning which turn I will make > at an intersection before I make the turn? Is this your claim what the MWI > contains? AG > > > 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/cdefbd3e-1c2f-45af-ab63-ab460e0964b0n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cdefbd3e-1c2f-45af-ab63-ab460e0964b0n%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/CAMW2kAqpTB1SC83NE4oUHwbpk51%2BpQYJ%3DxRnc%3DiYjvBxur0xJg%40mail.gmail.com.
