On 10/8/2019 11:21 AM, Philip Thrift wrote:
On Tuesday, October 8, 2019 at 12:35:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 10/8/2019 12:10 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote:
On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 10:13 AM Lawrence Crowell
<goldenfield...@gmail.com <javascript:>> wrote:
On Monday, October 7, 2019 at 4:21:27 PM UTC-5, John Clark
wrote:
As far as I know dispite lots of talk about it I'm STILL
the only one on the list that has actually read Carroll's
new book, but he gave an excellent Google talk about it
on Friday so maybe his critics will at least watch that;
after all even an abbreviated Cliff Notes knowledge of a
book is better than no knowledge at all.
Sean Carroll's Google talk about his new book "Something
Deeply Hidden"
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6FR08VylO4&t=1314s>
John K Clark
I have read Carroll and Sebens' paper on this, which is more
rigorous and less qualitative. I honestly do not have a yay
or nay opinion on this. It is something to store away in the
mental toolbox. Quantum interpretations are to my thinking
unprovable theoretically and not falsifiable empirically.
I watched a little of Sean's talk at Google. It is a very slick
marketing exercise -- reminded me of a con man, or a snake oil
salesman. Too slick by half.
What do you think he's selling? I think Carroll is a good
speaker, a good popularizer, and a nice guy. I feel fortunate to
have him representing physics to the public. He is not
evangelizing for some particular interpretation and he recognizes
that there are alternative interpretations of QM even though he
favors MWI.
Also, he's the only scientist who debated William Lane Craig and
won by every measure.
Brent
Sean Carroll reminds me more of Alvin Plantinga
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga
who can take math and pull out God.
Carroll makes*the big mistake* of a number of physics "popularizers"
today. He takes the mathematical language of a physical theory (or one
version* of that theory, as there are multiple formulations of quantum
theory) and pulls a physical ontology out of his math.
That's why it's called an "interpretation". Every physical theory has
an ontology that goes with it's mathematics, otherwise you don't know
how to apply the mathematics. That MWI entails other, unobservable
"worlds" is neither a bug or a feature, it's just one answer to the
measurement problem. If you have a better answer, feel free to state it.
The math is not the territory.
* 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.
The Schrödinger equation provides a way to calculate the wave function
of a system and how it changes dynamically in time. However, the
Schrödinger equation does not directly say /*what*/*, exactly, the
wave function is*. Interpretations of quantum mechanics
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics> address
questions such as what the relation is between the wave function, the
underlying reality, and the results of experimental measurements.
Did you write that, or are you quoting without attribution? Anyway it's
common knowledge on this list.
Brent
--
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/732fcf01-c8ca-c5c8-c533-efce2829bb84%40verizon.net.
