Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 01-31-2020, 07:37 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 12,007
My very, very, very limited understanding of quantum physics and Everett's "many world's" theory has been more or less described by some of the posts already. As I understand it, Everett's work expressed in mathematical terms that different outcomes within our "world" could exist simultaneously and that they might be "real" but that we might not be aware of this reality. If I'm getting it right, he wasn't referring to a physical universe outside our own per se; he's saying that these outcomes, these "worlds" exist all around us in this universe.

There are those who believe in other forms of multiverses, as in actual universes outside of our own, but the field of physics generally doesn't go there because those multiverse theories (e.g. "simulation") cannot be observed and evaluated by scientific method. By contrast, Everett's work at least has math behind it, or stated more accurately, Everett made mathematical arguments that haven't (AFAIK) been completely debunked.
  #52  
Old 01-31-2020, 07:43 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 12,007
As a follow up, I don't think there are any ethical concerns in Everett's world (worlds). What goes on in those worlds has no impact on you or anyone else in this world.
  #53  
Old 02-01-2020, 07:49 AM
msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Strangelove View Post
Basically no one thinks that QM actually stops working for macroscopic objects. It's too arbitrary. All the work on unifying QM and GR are searches for some form of quantum gravity--not figuring out a way for QM to somehow stop working at large scales. .
Right, but somehow people interpret quantum mechanics to mean that a ball sitting on the table has a non-zero probability of appearing in the Andromeda galaxy or spontaneously turning into a chicken.
  #54  
Old 02-01-2020, 08:59 AM
KarlGauss's Avatar
KarlGauss is offline
Entangled
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between pole and tropic
Posts: 8,720
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
Right, but somehow people interpret quantum mechanics to mean that a ball sitting on the table has a non-zero probability of appearing in the Andromeda galaxy or spontaneously turning into a chicken.
If a particle can tunnel out of a nucleus, do you doubt it could tunnel further (albeit with lower probability of doing so)?

As an aside, and in a similar (but non quantum) vein, do you also doubt there is a non-zero probability that an ink drop dissolved in water may momentarily re-form?
  #55  
Old 02-01-2020, 10:55 AM
msmith537 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 27,894
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
If a particle can tunnel out of a nucleus, do you doubt it could tunnel further (albeit with lower probability of doing so)?
I doubt that macroscopic objects could spontaneously "tunnel" across the room. That is to say, while it might work for a particle, It is so statistically unlikely for it to happen to EVERY particle in a single object that the universe would burn out a trillion times before it could happen.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlGauss View Post
As an aside, and in a similar (but non quantum) vein, do you also doubt there is a non-zero probability that an ink drop dissolved in water may momentarily re-form?
I would say it would be about the same probability of taking a broken glass, putting it in a box and having it reform by shaking the box. That is to say "zero" because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.



Interesting link on "multiple universes".
https://www.space.com/31465-is-our-u...ultiverse.html

Last edited by msmith537; 02-01-2020 at 10:58 AM.
  #56  
Old 02-01-2020, 12:17 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by msmith537 View Post
I doubt that macroscopic objects could spontaneously "tunnel" across the room. That is to say, while it might work for a particle, It is so statistically unlikely for it to happen to EVERY particle in a single object that the universe would burn out a trillion times before it could happen.
Your "trillion" there is probably woefully short. I think the number would be one of those numbers that puts the number of particles in our universe to shame.
Quote:
I would say it would be about the same probability of taking a broken glass, putting it in a box and having it reform by shaking the box. That is to say "zero" because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Entropy is all about statistics. If you have 2 coins, the probability that they both come up heads is not all that small. If you have 4, it's quite a bit smaller. If you have 1023(the order of Avogadro's Number), then the chances of all of them coming up heads is close enough to zero that it is better described by zero than by "small".
A broken glass has quite a number of Avogadro's Number of particles, and you are asking them to come up with a much more specific outcome than simple heads or tails.
  #57  
Old 02-04-2020, 02:55 PM
Mangetout's Avatar
Mangetout is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 58,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosecoloredboy View Post
If Everett's many worlds theory is true, there is an infinite (or at least very large) number of parallel versions of ourselves that branch off from us each time we make a choice.

If decisions in the brain are affected by quantum mechanics, our choices also affect the choices of our parallel selves. This means that if we drive recklessly rather than cautiously, for example, we are causing unnecessary suffering in other worlds.

Another disturbing implication is that even our thoughts can have negative moral consequences in other worlds. For example, if we hate somebody or even just think negative things about them, it increases the likelihood that a parallel version of ourselves will harm or even murder a parallel version of that person.

On the other hand, if we have positive thoughts about people we are giving our parallel future selves an incentive to help others.

And no, I am not high lol. It's just interesting to consider.
We are part of the universe. If your version of the many-worlds thing is true, there is just a parallel universe in which the other you did not choose to drive carefully; did not refrain from thoughts about murder, etc - we are just as much effect as we are cause.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:00 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017