>Copenhagen interpretation
>(Everett) Many-worlds interpretation
Which one is right?
I want to believe it's the many worlds interpretation...
But logic tells me that's impossible (rendering superstring theory also false).
But, I'm just an engineer, I don't want to make any assumptions.
What does Veeky Forums think?
Other urls found in this thread:
archive.fo
youtube.com
youtu.be
twitter.com
>worries why electron goes left or right
>doesn't worry when universes pop up left and right
if this isn't religion, nothing is
no Everettian has been able to find a consistent derivation of the Born probabilities.
>Many-worlds interpretation
I know calling things reddit is a cliche but this really is the reddit interpretation of quantum mechanics.
I know this is reddit-tier/cult-tier, but is that it?
Many-worlds interpretation is false just because?
> picks the two stupidest interpretations.
>doesn't post THE interpretation that predates them
cool argument bro
I'm not even that guy and Many-Minds Interpretation fucks up your shit.
It's well beyond my grasp, but Sean Carroll is the guy to read/watch to challenge your argument that Copenhagen is the correct interpretation.
archive.fo
Interesting read, thanks.
Why is this quantum mechanics so... fuzzy, compared to any other branch of physics?
>I have often talked about the Many-Worlds or Everett approach to quantum mechanics — here’s an explanatory video, an excerpt from From Eternity to Here, and slides from a talk. But I don’t think I’ve ever explained as persuasively as possible why I think it’s the right approach. So that’s what I’m going to try to do here. Although to be honest right off the bat, I’m actually going to tackle a slightly easier problem: explaining why the many-worlds approach is not completely insane, and indeed quite natural. The harder part is explaining why it actually works, which I’ll get to in another post.
thanks, will read/watch.
Quantum physics is the software to General Relativity's hardware.
interesting, will definitely look into this.
that's one way to put it, I guess...
both are fucking stupid
>copenhagen
hmm we cant determine which property something has before we observe it, guess that means it somehow has all the properties!
>many worlds
two UNIVERSES are created when a sub-microscopic particle decides if it faces up or down, that's reasonable
We think of a billiard ball as a smooth sphere, and the Earth as a mountainous spheroid with many surface features. But if you shrank the Earth down to the size of a billiard ball, it would be a lot smoother than one. All the topographical features become insignificant and we would describe it without any fuzzy terms, as a smooth sphere.
>two UNIVERSES are created when a sub-microscopic particle decides if it faces up or down, that's reasonable
It would be more reasonable it was INFINITE universes in parallel exist, and in TWO of those, everything is EXACTLY the same, except that in one particle is up, and in the other is down.
This is not how the many worlds works though.
i'll expand the analogy
you have a lot of operating systems on the market. you have the windows, you have the unix based systems which are gnu/linux or macosx or whatever. you choose your setup based on how it's convenient to you
however on the hardware side nothing beats the microprocessors. it's over.
yet you need both of these to run your computer
>superstring theory also
deviations from round =/= smooth
>God interpretation is false just because?
and yet we use the word smooth to describe billiard balls all the time, when proportionally to their radius they have far greater surface deviations than does Earth.
>Which one is right?
MWI. Copenhagen is just a cautious interpretation, because the implications of all of us having a semi-solipsistic existence within a five-dimensional (three spatial along with time and its branchings) is a little too much for even scientists and scholars to handle.
Pic related. From his point of view, the cat is always alive...actually, he was never unfortunate enough to be experimented on in the first place, so he's never even in the box.
this.
Who would accept that our space-time continuum (just a 4D line) has infinite "parallel" lines in the 5th dimension....
>>(Everett) Many-worlds interpretation
Pilot wave theory literally makes more sense
youtube.com
>Theory is too extreme, it must be wrong.
If it was up to people like you, we would still be avoiding to navigate close to the edge of the planet.
very interesting
I don't get it, the only "wave" electrons make while moving is an electric field, and it makes sense to say that that field interacts with the electron, resulting in the interference pattern (double slit exp), but...
What about photons?
Double slit also works with photons, and you get the same interference pattern.
What kind of "wave"/field could a photon be making that interacts with itself and we cant detect?
photons also whave dual nature as evidenced by the photoelectric effect but I also can't tell what aspect of their particle self their wave could interact with, may be it is different with photons idk
Copenhagen interpretation is not an interpretation but an attitude ("shut up and calculate").
Wave–particle duality is just a weird
Copenhagen. Many-Worlds is macro-deterministic horseshit that breaks causality. If many-world was in fact the right interpretation, then every universe should be exactly the same because there is no real chance on the macroscale.
firstly, if there were infinite universes and and if it were possible to visit, you would literally have infinite people teleporting through every second. there would be infinites people poops cause as long there is a chance of it happening, an infinite amount of people will get the idea to shit through to a nother universe
second if there were other multiverses then its impossible to travel between them because no matter small the chance there is a certain chance you would meet someone who did it cause infinity
That leaves only that there are a limited number of universes or no universes at all apart from hours, or an infinite number of universes undetectable basically meaning they dont exist
It's not about multiple universes.
According to the MWI, every physically possible possibility exist superimposed.
But is not until one possibility is observed* that the time frame gets fixed.
*Observed meaning that it became our reality, but might as well have been any other possibility.
We don't know if its possible to move to other timeline, but perhaps we are doing it all the time...
there doesnt need to be an infinity number of universes for many worlds to work. as long as the number is finite teleportations would not happen very often depending on how difficult it is
This.
Saying there's "infinite possibilities" is as stupid as saying that, sitting where you are now (or driving a car, as another example), you can choose to move in infinite spatial directions.
Your temporal existence is limited by finite possibilities. Try as you might, you can't jump straight up and keep flying.
>Liz vs Kurisu
Who is our queen of time?
A super-deterministic theory is the most rational theory. Under super-determinism, the Many Worlds Interpretation would imply that the Laws of Physics diverge over time.
Liz, since she's not a shitty flat bitch addicted to Dr. Pepper.
[spoiler]Moeka best Steins;Gate[/spoiler]
>Kurisu
>flat
>what is quantum teleportation
You just proved my point
Thought SUAC meant avoiding interpretations altogether.
Copenhagen is right.
Many worlds and pilot wave both need tons of invisible, hidden, unobservable bullshit. Copenhagen describes what we see.
its an electromagnetic field though.
Don't know about photons.
Are you freshmen students?
The biggest problem with MWI is the name, which has created so many misconceptions about it even among physicists. It's on par with the God Particle with how sensationalist and misleading it is.
Everett himself called it the relative state interpretation.
>biggest problem with MWI is the name
its biggest problem is it's retarded
Not an argument.
>ITT phys*cists fail at probability
Explain
Do you consider the pilot-wave theory?
Not at first, but now Im
He makes a good point, tho