Why the "Many-Worlds" Theory doesn't make sense...

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by stateofmind, Feb 12, 2015.

  1. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Because every word of it is true. You show me some guy peddling the many-worlds multiverse, and I'll show you the sleight-of-hand.

    You're either drinking tea or coffee. That's it. Capiche? There is no magic.

    Yes you have, I'm forever giving you references to demonstrate my extensive physics knowledge. I suppose you did say you never followed them up. Like I show you the evidence, and you close your eyes.

    There isn't any! None! And by the way, it's quantum field theory, not quantum point-particle theory. The electron isn't some little point-particle that has a field. It is field.

    But understanding is science. Only the many-worlds multiverse isn't understanding, it's a fairy-tale carg0-cult pseudoscience that gets in the way of real science because people like you lap it up and then dismiss bona-fide scientific evidence.

    Well it isn't. Get used to it.

    I haven't got a PhD in quantum physics. But I don't need one to call out this specious sixty-year-old Emperor's-New-Clothes bullshit garbage. How on Earth you can be defending it absolutely beats me. But there again, you aren't a scientist, are you?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Kristoffer Giant Hyrax Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,364
    Got a PhD in BS, though.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Usually, the references you give show that your claims are incorrect. For example, you claimed that gravity was not due to spacetime curvature and you produced a citation that said that gravity was caused by spacetime curvature. At best, your approach to references is textual analysis, since you cannot follow the mathematics of the physics involved. This textual analysis is usually not very good, since you ignore the full content and the context of your citations. This reveals your physics ignorance as well as your ignorance of good scholarship and honesty in general.
    Following up your references almost always shows that your claims are incorrect. They always show that your claims regarding your peculiar interpretation are incorrect. If this wasn't the case, you would not have to run from serious questions.
    You are doing poor textual analysis here, since there is a place for using the term "point particle" in quantum field theory.
    Again, you have never offered scientific evidence on this matter or any other, Farsight. Please do not lie to us on this again. You refuse to offer any specific claims that one could compare with physical observations.
    Well, we know that you can offer insults, but can you criticize the many worlds interpretation based on the details of the interpretation? I have asked you to justify your claims about the interpretation, but you are continuing to dodge my questions, just like you have always dodged my questions when they touch on specific points that we would expect someone to be honest about.

    You will probably just call me a "troll" for continuing to ask you to justify your claims. If that's the case, I am a troll.

    However, I will not just try to defend my points by saying, "Oh shut up." http://physicsworld.com/cws/article...tter-seen-in-the-milky-ways-core#comment26654
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    Not me pal. I'm the one calling it. You show me some guy peddling the many-worlds multiverse, and I'll show you BS.
     
  8. Farsight

    Messages:
    3,492
    No I didn't. I produced a citation say gravity was caused by a concentration of energy that conditions the srurrounding space rendering it inhomogeneous. See Einstein's 1920 Leyden Address: "According to this theory the metrical qualities of the continuum of space-time differ in the environment of different points of space-time, and are partly conditioned by the matter existing outside of the territory under consideration. This space-time variability of the reciprocal relations of the standards of space and time, or, perhaps, the recognition of the fact that "empty space" in its physical relation is neither homogeneous nor isotropic, compelling us to describe its state by ten functions (the gravitation potentials gmn), has, I think, finally disposed of the view that space is physically empty." You will not find Einstein saying gravity is due to spacetime curvature, because that confuses cause and effect. The spacetime curvature is merely your plot of the inhomogeneity of space, made using say optical clocks at different elevations. Your plot is curved, and we say spacetime is curved. But clocks don't run slower when they're lower because your plot of clock rates is curved.

    Oh geddoutofit. I'm the one referring to Einstein and Minkowski and Maxwell etc, you're the one dismissing what they say and trying to put up a mathematical smokescreen in order to claim they meant something else. So that's enough from you, as usual. Oh, apart from one thing:

    I can criticize it because it's an unscientific fairy-tale that's been bumbling along for the thick end of sixty years, and there's no supporting evidence whatsoever. Compare and contract with general relativity, wherein the supporting evidence starting coming in after three years. And there was a war on. As we might have expected, you defend woo whilst dismissing bona-fide physics. So it's back on ignore for you.
     
  9. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    OK, show us where the BS is in any paper by Simon Saunders on the Everrett interpretation (or any other many worlds interpretation).

    You can find his papers here: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~lina0174/Saunders.html
     
  10. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Please, why lie? And why try to change the subject? Oh, right, because you have nothing but lies and dodging.
    Right. And I cited an article written by Einstein the next year where he says, "space is homogeneous". So your textual analysis fails again.
    No, I don't dismiss what Einstein and Minkowski wrote, I want you to read the rest of their work besides a few sentences.

    That is again more insults and avoiding the details that you claim are "fairy-tale". So far, you have dodged all questions for details.

    PS. I have little doubt that Farsight will avoid actually taking on the specific position of Saunders or anyone else who actually presents any interpretation of quantum theory. He is fine with insulting from afar and telling people to shut up (and threatening legal action against people who do the same thing to him), but he can't deal with details.
     
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2015
  11. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    I'm pretty sure that has been around for quite a while. I find it a bit silly to have a favorite interpretation of QM but if I did it would be mr_homms. He never would claim it was an interpretation but it's the one that was pedagogical for me. On the Internet to boot.
     
  12. Fednis48 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    725
    After Farsight cut and ran from the Alternative Theories thread, I was beginning to think he'd decided to lay low on the forum for a while. But today, I noticed he'd been posting in this thread the whole time. So I guess his strategy is to argue until he's painted into a corner, then hit the "reset button" by moving to a different conversation where he can start fresh with the same vague, opening remarks. At least today he gave us this little gem:

    The Dunning-Kruger effect at its finest.
     
  13. QuarkHead Remedial Math Student Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,740
    Quite. But it is worse than that! Note how this poster inserts into a thread on the interpretation of QM his oft-repeated quote from Einstein's Leiden address (note the correct spelling for this ancient university town in Holland)

    As the Leiden address is a discussion about the so-called "aether" in GR, it has no relevance WHATEVER to the subject at hand. To include it is just nuts

    BTW, for what it is worth, given the perspective of this address, and a superficial knowledge of non-Euclidean geometry, it is possible to argue convincingly that this address asserts (or possibly assumes) that the phenomenon of gravitation is the result of spacetime curvature.

    I was tempted to start a new thread on this. But no. If I get time I may put together a PDF for private distribution - no promises, mind!
     
  14. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    Farsight, if you're so knowledgeable why are you so banned from various forums?

    The technology may not be around to test hypothesis ATTM. The ancient Greeks came up with the word "atom", but they would have thought particle accelerators would've been make-believe.
     
  15. PhysBang Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,422
    Let's not make this about Farsight. If Farsight wants to actually talk about the details of the interpretation (he does not), then we can discuss that. Otherwise it's just more spamming of his self-published book and should be treated as such.
    I'm not sure that one can test the interpretation. I believe that many proponents of the interpretation have all but made it unfalsifiable. (Maybe I'll dig up an example if I have one on my hard drive.) However, it may very well be that a successor theory to quantum mechanics, one that describes the physical phenomena better, may make the question moot. Without such a theory, I can't say.
     
  16. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    I can't believe the amount of attention Farsights bullshit attracts. He's probably reveling in his position as the king of cranks. The Oscar for intellectual dishonesty.
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    He may have lost his crown with the turkey I'm dealing with at this time.
    It's a toss up.
     
  18. phyti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    732
    The "many worlds theory" always generates the idea of the meteorologist who is unsuccessful at predicting the weather. They adopt a new strategy of including every known weather phenomena in their prediction. This will guarantee success.


    As to the quantum state thing, I question if the superposition of multiple states, location as an example, isn't one of material physlcs but state of mind, i.e. lack of knowledge. The tossed coin is a simple example. In the air its state is H and T. Once it lands (observation) its state is H or T.


    There is no collapsing wave function, nor twin worlds.
     
  19. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    Tossing coins is a good way to get into classical probability, and it has a direct connection to particle states such as spin.

    N coins in some state has an entropy, the coins in another state has a relative entropy and so on. A state for N coins is described exactly by N bits.

    A coin can be "fair" or not biased; a completely "unfair" coin has two heads (resp. two tails) hence no information is gained by tossing it. Hence, the universe will not divide in two if you toss a coin with two heads (just kidding).
     
  20. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    PhysBang: I wonder why you did not show the entire remark from my Post #36
    Your Post #37 was as follows
    Omitting the first paragraph from my Post #36 obscures the reason why I think my remarks indicate that advocates of Many Worlds do not consider the implications of their view.

    If you are an advocate/believer in Many Worlds, the omission by you seems to be an attempt to obfuscate. I have a friend who often said
     
    dumbest man on earth likes this.
  21. RJBeery Natural Philosopher Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,222
    I believe it's worse than that. We tend to think of measurements in terms of being binary (or at least digital) but MOST situations require the wavefunction to be smoothly analog. The fact that we, as observers, only experience a single reality means that MWI is in constant demand of infinite worlds being continuously spawned.

    Ignoring the fact that these worlds seem to cleanly decohere (and never recohere), I have a philosophical problem with the idea of exacting worlds which represent POINTS on CONTINUOUS functions.

    MWI is garbage.
     
  22. phyti Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    732
    The many MWT appears to suggest literal alternate branches from the current state, rather than alternate worlds. You magically get transported to the one matching your choice. That leads to predestination, it will happen, no matter what. There goes any judicial system that requires people to be responsible for their actions. Or as Flip Wilson said, "the devil made me do lt".

    Compare to a continuing world with possible/potential branches determined by choice. Reality is still the "fork in the road", and you choose one or the other.

    The above would apply to human affairs, but not to natural phenomena. The latter appears to be programmed similar to DNA, with respect to consistency of particle decay and production, and allowing a degree of variation.
     
  23. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    But neither are you!
    My Irony meter has just busted!
     

Share This Page