Many Worlds Interpretation Of Quantum Mechanics?

[Inquiry]

Those would be different ‘you’s then, with their own relationships with God.

 

[AlNg]

Those would be different ‘you’s then, with their own relationships with God.

This is the problem with the MWI of QM. You can’t have the same object doing different things in different worlds at the same time.

 

[IWantGod]

MWI basically states that the wavefunction of quantum mechanics exists but that it doesn’t collapse leading to an infinite amount of branching timelines/universes, the laws of physics of course stay the same in all systems. This is considered a materialist interpretation of quantum mechanics and it is one of the more popular interpretations of QM among researchers. It explains how a relativistic universe and a quantum one can exist at the same time. It does solve a lot o

As far as the faith is concerned, there is nothing necessarily contradictory about there being a potentially infinite number of universes. The problem arises with the idea of there being multiple versions of you. This has the potential to conflict with the idea of a soul, and also gives the impression that our choices are deterministic, since any choice is just the necessary outcome of a branching timeline. For example if i choose to do something in this timeline, a branching timeline will occur where an alternative version of me will necessarily have no choice but to choose the opposite, and my choice could also be the necessary outcome of a branching timeline. In which case there would be no free-will, unless of course every other timeline other than the main-one contains only philosophical zombies and you’re not one of them.

Our experiences appear to contradict the idea that we have no freewill, and i would personally go as far as to say that it is self-evident that we have some level of free-will. I don’t know how a scientist would get around that problem, and it has philosophical consequences that don’t mesh well with our faith or our experiences. Perhaps there are many timelines but we don’t exist in them (at least as real persons), and that is to say they are redundant (soulless) space-times. Having said that, if it were proven that there are many worlds and branching timelines, maybe a really smart person could figure out a way round the free-will part, but i am not that person, and as it stands now (it’s not even a working hypothesis) i would sooner reject the idea in principle; that it can’t possibly happen.

 

[EndTimes]

You could argue that the Plankian is the smallest known measure so that we could not measure any smaller than that, but that reality is smaller.
It is just that humans cannot measure anything smaller, not that reality is not smaller.

"It is just… " is unproven conjecture; yes?

 

[AlNg]

" It is just… " is unproven conjecture; yes?

The Planck length is considered to be a limit of sorts because of quanta being minimal units of energy and the heisenberg uncertainty principle, but I don’t think it is a hard barrier.

 

[EndTimes]

The Planck length is considered to be a limit of sorts because of quanta being minimal units of energy and the heisenberg uncertainty principle, but I don’t think it is a hard barrier.

It’s interesting how we can only go back in time to the planck length

and Electron sub-orbits are discrete… planckian…

so . Maybe that’s the way it is… No infinitesimals…

 

[Inquiry]

I’ve seen the plank length used as a hard cap so I think that is how it is currently being used.

 

[AlNg]

I’ve seen the plank length used as a hard cap so I think that is how it is currently being used.

Yes but can there be sharp boundaries in QM taking into account the uncertainty principle?

 

[EndTimes]

Yes but can there be sharp boundaries in QM taking into account the uncertainty principle?

Considering how they’re both presented…

Does the Uncertainty Principle as generally defined - undermine Planckian Discreteness?

In other words… stated clearer… How might that be?

Planck’s constant is an important number in quantum theory, a way to measure the granularity of the world at its smallest scales and it has the value 6.626 x 10 -34 joule seconds.

AND…

The Uncertainty principle definition in quantum mechanics:

1. it is impossible to discern simultaneously and with high accuracy
   both the position and the momentum of a particle (such as an electron).

At a glance - they do come across as Apples and Oranges - aka distinct from one another…

_

 

[AlNg]

There is the Planck length and there is the Planck constant. They are not the same although the Planck constant is used in the definition of the Planck length. The Planck length is not a distance because it is defined in terms of frame independent constants.

Does the Uncertainty Principle as generally defined - undermine Planckian Discreteness?

Whether reality is discrete or continuous is going to depend on what you think about Lorentz invariance. AFAIK, there have been no violations observed of Lorentz invariance. Since it is difficult to reconcile Lorentz invariance with discreteness, most string theorists will go with the continuity description.

 

[EndTimes]

There is the Planck length and there is the Planck constant. They are not the same although the Planck constant is used in the definition of the Planck length. The Planck length is not a distance because it is defined in terms of frame independent constants.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) EndTimes:

Does the Uncertainty Principle as generally defined - undermine Planckian Discreteness?

Planck… applies to Mass, Energy, Distance and Time, as having limited discrete values .

E.G. – Before 1 Planck Time

1. Before a time classified as a Planck time, 10-43 seconds, all of the four fundamental forces are presumed to have been unified into one force. All matter, energy, space and time are presumed to have exploded outward from the original singularity. Nothing is known of this period.

What I think about any current theories does not change whatever actually is…

Ergo, AFAIK - this currently one and only known universe is discrete w/o infinitesimals.

 

[AlNg]

AFAIK - this currently one and only known universe is discrete

Difficult to reconcile with Lorentz invariance.

 

[EndTimes]

most string theorists will go with the continuity description.

And String Theory is still theory - Yes?