On Sunday, September 7, 2025 at 6:53:51 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Sep 7, 2025 at 7:10 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: *>> Schrodinger's equation says that regardless of what angle you set your polarizer at, there is always a 50% chance you will observe a previously unmeasured photon make it through that polarizer and a 50% chance you will not. And Many Worlds explains how in the world this strange but true fact can possibly be true by saying the unmeasured photon is NOT in one and only one polarization angle but in every conceivable angle, and there is a polarizer for every conceivable rotational setting, and there are 2 Alan Graysons for every polarizer, one Alan Grayson observes the photon passing through the polarizer and the other Alan Grayson observes the photon being absorbed by the polarizer. This is because the photon, the polarizer and Alan Grayson must all obey the laws of quantum mechanics. * *> I thought you wrote that an unmeasured photon will pass through any polarizer,* *If an unmeasured photon manages to make its way through a polarizer set an a random angle (and there's a 50% chance it will) then it is no longer unmeasured, and then there is a 100% chance it will pass through a second polarizer that is set at the same angle. And if it doesn't make it through the first polarizer then there is no longer a photon that you can perform experiments on. * *And where is S's Equatio**n this scenario? Answer; missing in action. It doesn't exist to support the claim that all possible measurements are in fact measured in some world. AG* *> Kepler's laws make verifiable predictions, unlike MWI. In the polarizer experiment, there's just too many unverifiable worlds being created.* *Most** theories make some predictions that can't be verified, but a theory should be judged on things that CAN be verified not on things that can't be, and Many Worlds is consistent with all known experimental results. And unlike Copenhagen (a.k.a. shut up and calculate) it is able to explain how radically unintuitive results can possibly be true. * *> too many worlds posited in the MWI.* *So your objection is that Many Worlds can't be true because that would mean the universe would be just too big. During the middle ages a few brave individuals postulated that maybe the stars were just as bright as the sun and they only looked small and dim because they were very far away, but medieval philosophers insisted that can't be true because the universe would be just too big. * *And the MWI does NOT postulate Many Worlds, they are a consequence of assuming that measured and unmeasured particles obey the same laws of physics, and of assuming that conscious and unconscious matter does too. * *John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* *3n8* -- 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/983d5888-afb7-444f-a31f-7ea31431b2e5n%40googlegroups.com.
