On Saturday, July 5, 2025 at 10:32:23 AM UTC-6 Quentin Anciaux wrote:
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 *If all events are determined in advance by the UWF, this implies that the settings of both experimenters in Bell experiments are also predetermined. Isn't the condition for the validity of Bell experiments is that the settings are random? How is this different from superdeterminism? AG * 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/eab01bb4-66f7-4fb4-8c75-9515696b1cc5n%40googlegroups.com.
