The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - Ask a Spaceman!
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 гру 2022
- Full podcast episodes: www.askaspaceman.com
Support: / pmsutter
Follow: / paulmattsutter and / paulmattsutter
What is the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics? How does decoherence play a critical role? What are the strengths and weaknesses of this idea? I discuss these questions and more in today’s Ask a Spaceman!
Follow all the show updates at www.askaspaceman.com, and help support the show at / pmsutter !
Keep those questions about space, science, astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology coming to #AskASpaceman for COMPLETE KNOWLEDGE OF TIME AND SPACE! Music by Jason Grady and Nick Bain. - Наука та технологія
Everyone watching this should watch Sabine Hossenfelder's video: The Trouble With Many Worlds. She discusses how the many worlds theory does not actually solve the measurement problem. As there is a logically equivalent process to the measurement in the Many Worlds theory that is just hidden better in the explanation.
I will discuss issues with the MWI next week!
The quantum world is kinda like being in a glitched area of a videogame. All the rules breakdown and random, strange things happen.
Every outcome is happening at the same time. The more preferable outcomes happen more often. :)
Nothing like watching a mind blowing video on quantum mechanics after doing accounting work for the last three hours......mind is a blob of ooze lol
I think there's a jigsaw piece or two we're just not getting - Something Deeply Missing.😁
How dare you
End on a cliffhanger
How many possible locations (no matter how low the probability) are there at any moment (any Planck interval of time) for a particle under the Schroedinger equation? Every possible Planck location in the universe? So would there be either an infinity (if the universe is infinite) or a huge, "feeling like infinity" of universes generated by every particle at every moment; and a number of universes obtained by raising this number to an even higher exponent?
So this branching occurs how often, billions of times per second, maybe more? Possibly infinite times? Can't wait for the "weaknesses" vid. This truly is mind blowing!
I dislike the nomenclature. The core of MWI is just that the macroscopic world is in a superposition of states. With the Copenhagen interpretation, people don't act as if there are different universes until a measurement is made that eliminates all but 1. Nobody thinks measurement is a genocidal act. The real core contention isn't that there are many worlds, it's that the experience of being in a superposition of states is that you experience a specific state rather than a linear combination of states.
Thinking about it this way highlights the key weakness in the interpretation. MWI still has a measurement problem, it's just a different measurement problem. Instead of asking how wave function collapse happens, we need to ask why human experience follows the Born rule at all. If the entire universe is in a superposition of states, why does our experienced frequency of outcomes follow the squared amplitude of the wave function?
What if the wave function is more than a mathematical convention? What if it is simply a wave? What if the wave simply collapses instantaneously? Or close to it? What if spacetime doesn't work the same in QM as in the macro world? We can't transfer information faster than light, so to that extent an FTL wave function collapse might not violate special relativity or GR? I.E. a wave must propagate through space at light speed, but can transfer its energy to another wave (particle) instantly, without "space" entering into it? Or something like that? Or maybe "time" doesn't come into it in the QM world?
Does the wave function collapse? I say it's still there, and now we're part of it.
Have we ever observed a low-probability event of a particle? I mean, quantum mechanics requires that low probability events happen, but have we ever observed an electron where it really shouldn't be? - not a doubt of quantum mechanics, just curious.
Quantum tunneling of a quantum particle (like an electron) passing through a barrier is an example of a particle being observed in a low probability position (state). This is observed regularly.
As was eluded in the video, I think we are hung up on the word “measurement”. It is better to think in terms of quantum interactions. The quantum world does not need a conscious observer for a determined interaction to take place. The universe has existed and the uncountable quantum interactions that take place in every moment of time (Planck time) do not need human observers (or any other intelligent life forms) in order to happen. They just do. Perhaps probabilistically, but they do. If the entire universe is one enormous wave function, good luck trying to solve the Schroedinger equation. Yet, it can be solved, and is is for many given quantum mechanical interactions.
Is there any aspect of quantum mechanics that differentiates the obvious ramifications of the ways available to measure at these tiny scales with evidence that the measurement problem is more fundamental? eg. is there evidence QM is 'weirder' than having measurement resolution analogous to the diffraction limit in microscopes?
I had a thought experiment💭 "What if black holes are like Grand Recycling Machines ♻️ of the Cosmo's♻️" System's with-in Nature can have a balancing act type ability to convert and transfer energy. Like a ecosystem that keeps cycling energy so natural systems can function.. *I was just thinking how a ecosystem of a forest flourishes due to it's symbiotic relationship with Fungi and mold/lichen, bugs, soil, mycelium, a water source, etc. With the help of the fungi the Forest no longer suffocates itself. The Fungi gets to help breakdown and convert the carbon thats locked away in the forest floor, fallen Tree's, plant matter that's all throughout the soil. On top of that it works together symbiotically with the living plants roots to help them breakdown & absorb nutrients. That plant cant function to that level on its own without the combination relationship of these 2 aspects of nature which keep this ecosystem functioning. This is true in many different ways, in many different types of systems, all throughout nature. A part of me can't help but look at parts of space like that and wonder? Like if certain things in nature work here, then maybe there is a new way we have yet to discover and see how they behave. Aspects that could keep systems functioning throughout nature and space. Some things we are limited to what perspective we can perceive and what we can utilize for further measurements but we can still use our imaginations. Then fine tune things from there 👍🏼
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~{Hypothetical idea}~
What if our universe is 1 half of a sorta ying yang ☯️ universe. 1 side is what we see, the other side could maybe be a Anti-universe. Maybe there could be a membrane layer in-between the 2 layers. Which allows for quantum particles to pop in and out of existence and decay from that membrane with the other half. The 2nd half could be our universe but maybe be an anti-universe. Where anti-particles go? Where the anti-matter can create this balancing act with-in the system of the cosmos. (It doesn't mean there is multiple versions of ourselves and all that stuff when people talk about a multiverse. No, not that.) It's just a thought about a possible natural way to balance things out, yet also describe the fluctuations we see in quantum mechanics. I just had a random daydream thought and obviously I hope more professional people's minds end up diving into this sorta possible theoretical physics. I think Neil Turok had a similar theory.
⚖️ 🌐🧲🌡️🔆☢️⚛️♻️🌐☯️
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
🧲🌡️📡🔆☢️🔌🔊🔋♻️☯️⚛️
Out of every aspect of physics, i feel Gravity and all the aspects of Electromagnetism play such a crucial aspect of the cosmos and we possibly have much more to learn about these fields of physics? if you really think about it- It's really facinating how so many properties with-in Nature use: ~{"Differences"}~
That factor seems to be a key factor in keeping dynamic systems functioning. *{High pressure/low pressure, hot/cold temp, different densities, static electric charges/discharges, electromagnetism north/south poles, different velocity/angular momentum, different amounts of energy/mass/frequency/vibrations. The different layers between different regions such as, land, water, air, edge of atmosphere, space, the different regions in space with different particle density, background radiation, creating bubbles/membrane layers, cloud regions, nebula's/ Galaxy's, Galaxy clusters, less dense voids regions of space compared to dense regions of space. All of these things are basic differences but create a way for the dynamic engine with-in Nature to continue flowing and operating to create and convert energy.} Just Like How a battery 🔋 transfers + charges through a membrane layer to a - charged side. Like how regions of high/low pressure and temperature 🌡️differences create winds. In water or a planets core- add some factors and It creates ocean currents and flow. Then internally in our planet it creates plate tectonics, planetary convection, geothermal activity, magnetic field around our planet, to hold a atmosphere.
🧲🌡️📡🔆☢️🔌🔊🔋♻️☯️⚛️
I'm curious if there's more to learn about Gravity ~When it comes to our perspective on observing the Massive scale parts of the Cosmos? Like Entire galaxies/nebula's/filaments & any other diversely complex grand scale objects. They definitely have all sorts of behaviors interacting with-in them. I'm sure those factors need to be improved with how we factor them in to get our calculations of this layer of the Cosmos more accurately accounted for (Maybe it's just "we don't fully understand it yet?")
I don't see how Many-Wolds solves the measurement problem. We still need waves to describe the correct mathematical outcome probabilities _(a single particle can interfere with itself),_ and we still need particles to correctly describe the fact that particles are only ever measured in one place.
Also what in Many-Worlds creates the probabilities. For example, if Outcome A has a 1/3 chance of happening and Outcome B has a 2/3 chance of happening, are three worlds created, one with Outcome A and two with Outcome B?
Even more troubling, what if the chance of an outcome occurring is an irrational number? Then you'd need an infinite number of worlds created in order to get the probabilities right. Also it'd be strange that only the exact number of worlds would be created to get the probabilities to work out, so to be consistent in Many Worlds, an infinite number of worlds would be created for every probabilistic event. Now your supposedly simple theory blows up with infinities everywhere.
Im not sure that the flourishing entanglement as you describe spreads exponentially as u describe.
It's entanglement all the way down...
👍
I wonder if there's such a thing as wave potentiality that carries the blue print of all Unconscious expressions of matter and conscious expressions of matter that creat waveforms.
We ourselves are the product of Unconscious expressions of matter over billions of years, resulting in matter have agency to express itself and create waveforms, We are high entropy bodies within hypespacetime.
Wii we ever be able to communicate across worlds to our others 🤔
So, before any quantum experiment was done, it was just one world, and then someone did an experiment, and there were two worlds?
Sounds like Squinto-Migrain-tillion outcomes... it's Quantum Mechanics after all... I'm looking forwards to Part2
No. Many Worlds pretty much describes every quantum superposition as a set of "worlds," meaning that countless ones are splitting, but also merging, every instant since pretty much the Big Bang.
@@angeldude101 I figured as much (more or less). My question was rhetorical, hinting at how the frequent mentioning of observations and experiments confuses the issue.
@@ospyearn That's fair. Sorry I misinterpreted. :P Ya, that definitely is more of a problem with Copenhagen than Many Worlds.
When the question sounds pluralistic searching for a singular solution, how does sense make sense in a obsatcle party of particles having a smashing time? Alledgedly! {\}
Nope noway not going to accept superpositioning, nope. P.S. great program! 😁
I am less than novice but I am philosophical. What if the thing you’re measuring is conscious and understands, the path by which you are trying to understand it, is by measurement? What if the thing is actually trying to get you to just observe, or simply be present?
Idaho is my favorite state.
You keep using that word [entanglement]. I do not think it means what you think it means.
There is no empirical evidence for this interpretation
There is no empirical evidence for any interpretation.