On Friday, October 4, 2019 at 2:03:59 AM UTC-5, smitra wrote: > > 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 >
It seems to me that one world is enough if one permits oneself to accept probabilities. One can start wherever: The already ... mentioned psi-function.... is now the *means for predicting probability of measurement results*. In it is embodied the momentarily attained sum of theoretically based future expectation, somewhat as laid down in a catalog. ” — Erwin Schrödinger The Schrödinger equation is not the only way to study quantum mechanical systems and make predictions. The other formulations of quantum mechanics include matrix mechanics <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_mechanics>, introduced by Werner Heisenberg <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Heisenberg>, and the path integral formulation <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation>, developed chiefly by Richard Feynman <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman>. Paul Dirac <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dirac> incorporated matrix mechanics and the Schrödinger equation into a single formulation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation Now as Feynman wrote in his paper on the meaning of probabilities in QM, these things are of a different sort. http://www.johnboccio.com/research/quantum/notes/Feynman-Prob.pdf Maybe a new word for these: *quababilities*. Now the underlying *quabability space* (*quabability theory *formulation in terms of sample space, etc.) is not settled matter, but all QM can be done in one world if prob/quab-abilities are permitted. @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/4111871b-f219-414f-9cce-a3a246dbdf30%40googlegroups.com.
