On 04-10-2019 08:20, Philip Thrift wrote:
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>
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
[1]
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.)
The descendant worlds get the same energy if they have well defined
energy in which case computing the weighted average to get to the
expectation value is unnecessary. In general the expectation value will
need to be computed by this weighted average. To see that this is not
crazy, suppose that QM is not the ultimate answer that 't Hooft is
correct. But it then turns out that 't Hooft's deterministic models lead
to a multiverse via the back door due to Poincare recurrence. And
because with finite information in our brains, we cannot locate
ourselves in a particular time period. Then when we do an experiment, a
splitting can occur in the sense that we now get more precisely located
across in the different sectors separated by astronomical large amounts
of time. So, no problem here with the sum of the energy of (effective)
branches increasing.
Saibal
--
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/7f9ca7c9ce9d515a6cfc24e8b8c80768%40zonnet.nl.
