On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 6:56:59 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 9:12 AM Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 5:51:29 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 8:24 AM Lawrence Crowell < >>> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> This really is a well enough explained question. >>>> >>>> LC >>>> >>>> Energy conservation is not violated because to correctly sum up the >>>>> total energy, you have to weigh the energy in each branch with the >>>>> probability of that branch. This works the way it always works in quantum >>>>> mechanics. There is nothing new going on here, nothing controversial, and >>>>> nothing interesting. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html?showComment=1569889923590#c1373154727748966620 >>>>> >>>> >>> The trouble I see with the explanation Sabine gives, which is probably >>> the most common response to this question, is that it dilutes the energy in >>> each branch according to the Born weight. Given that there a zillions of >>> branchings per second throughout the visible universe, the energy rapidly >>> is weighted away to zero in all branches. This does not make much sense. >>> Besides, that is not what one does in ordinary quantum mechanics -- I have >>> no idea what Sabine is referring to here. >>> >>> The only solution for MWI, it seems to me, is that the energy is simply >>> conserved in each branch, and not conserved over branching interactions. >>> How would you ever test this, anyway? Block universe ideas do not actually >>> help here. And appeals to energy non conservation in non-stationary >>> universes are beside the point -- Quantum mechanics is not GR. >>> >>> Bruce >>> >> >> >> Sabine Hossenfelder's book "Lost in Math" has this title in the recently >> published Italian version: >> >> "Deluded by Math" >> >> Maybe "Confused by Math" is another possibility. >> >> Many times she does exactly what she accuses (in her book) others doing. >> > > Yes, sometimes she gets very sloppy in her thinking and goes with the > conventional arguments rather than thinking things through. But, at least > she does challenge the status quo on many occasions. The contrary voice is > often needed. > > Bruce >
She is a prophet of a find in two regards: *The End Of Theoretical Physics As We Know It* https://www.quantamagazine.org/the-end-of-theoretical-physics-as-we-know-it-20180827/ (the transition from conventional mathematics to programmatic/computing structures) and the delusion/confusion of today's theoretical physicists with math, leading a both quantum and cosmological multiple universes. But her nonsensical probability argument where as worlds branch (then branch again, and again) the descendant worlds get 1/2 the matter and energy of their parent, which means we should have 0 right now. (Now she could argue that one starts with 0 matter and energy from the beginning, so it's 0 all the way down.) @philipthrift -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/86bddc3f-4494-4079-b974-95cc6738ddaf%40googlegroups.com.
