On Thursday, November 28, 2019 at 12:12:22 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: > > > > On 11/27/2019 11:51 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 5:39:09 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: >> >> On Wednesday, November 27, 2019 at 4:51:55 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 9:29 AM John Clark <johnk...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 5:13 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkel...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> *> I think your* [Brent Meeker] *point about other conservation laws >>>>> is interesting -- especially charge. How would you divide the charge of a >>>>> state among the superposed basis states according to the Born rule and >>>>> get >>>>> charge conservation in every branch?* >>>> >>>> >>>> Our branch of the multiverse is electrically neutral and it seems >>>> likely all of them are, so preserving conservation of charge doesn't seem >>>> like much of a problem. >>>> >>> >>> >>> Consider firing an electron at a screen. There are a very large number >>> of sub-branches created -- one for every position that the electron can >>> land. There was only one negative charge originally -- now there are a very >>> large number. Where did the extra charges come from? >>> >>> Bruce >>> >> >> The electric charge in one branch is the same electric charge in all >> other branches. >> >> LC >> > > > So the number of *coulombs* in a branching Many Worlds grows > exponentially . > > Under the 2019 redefinition of the SI base units > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_redefinition_of_the_SI_base_units>, > which took effect on 20 May 2019,[2] > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coulomb#cite_note-BIPM9-2> the elementary > charge <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_charge> (the charge of > the proton <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton>) is exactly 1.602176634× > 10−19 coulombs. Thus the coulomb is exactly the charge of 1/(1.602176634× > 10−19) protons, which is approximately 6.2415090744×1018 protons (1.036×10 > −5 mol <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mole_(unit)>). The same number of > electrons <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron> has the same magnitude > but opposite sign of charge, that is, a charge of −1 C. > > > This was the issue about mass raised weeks ago when Sean Carroll's book > came out. > > There has never been an answer. > > > If you think in terms of the wf of the multiverse, it's just a ray in > Hilbert space and moves around. It doesn't split. What "splits" is the > subspace we're on. So when we measure a spin as UP or DOWN, our subspace > splits into two orthogonal subspaces on which the ray projects. But they > are only orthogonal on that one dimension (the spin of that particle), so > any other variable encoded in the ray gets projected with the same value as > before, e.g. the energy or the particle. > > Brent >
That is more in line with what is going on. The charge of an electron, along with all other quantum numbers of the electron or any elementary particle, is not duplicated. It only appears in any sort of branch and with the renormalization of probability there is this mistaken idea of duplication. Nothing is duplicated any more than a superposition of basis states implies duplication. That ray in Hilbert space is projected onto a tangent vector in projective Hilbert space along a geodesic. The observer is just forced into observing that evolution with the vector projected once again onto a certain basis element. Now how that happens with the measurement being ultimately nonlocal, with it might be added an ambiguity as to the probability at the measurement, is an open question. In MWI there is no fundamental localization of a wave function, so assigning that projectivization is ambiguous. However, we may "cheat" and say the phenomenological appearance of a localization by the observer acts as this projectivization that appears as a collapse. Nothing is fundamentally duplicated. LC -- 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/4ef6b11f-9283-4541-8cee-0990bd08c78e%40googlegroups.com.
