Greetings from Sihanoukville, Cambodia, or at least the waters immediately off. I’m here as part of Bright Horizons 19, a two-week cruise on the Holland American ship *Vollendam*, in collaboration with *Scientific American*. We started in Hong Kong and have been working our way south, stopping a few times in Vietnam, and after this we’ll briefly visit Thailand before finishing in Singapore. A fascinating, once-in-a-lifetime experience, even if two weeks is an amount of time I can’t honestly afford to be taking off. Been getting a touch of work done here and there, but not as much as I would have liked, in between dashes ashore to sample the local cuisine. Although the local cuisine has been pretty spectacular, I have to admit.

My job here is to give a few talks about physics and cosmology to the folks who signed up for the package — a public audience, but the kind of people whose idea of a good time while sailing the South China Sea is hearing talks about molecular biology or world history. Mostly my talks are variations of themes I’ve spoken on frequently before — the Higgs boson, the arrow of time, dark matter and dark energy. But to spice things up I decided to throw in something new, so I wrote up a talk on The Many Worlds of Quantum Mechanics.

And here it is — the slides, at least. The content is roughly based on my explanation in *From Eternity to Here*, with a few improvements thrown in.

Two basic goals here. One is to introduce QM to people who don’t know much more about it than a vague notion of “uncertainty” or “fluctuations.” And in particular, to focus on the conceptual foundations, rather than any of the other perfectly legitimate angles one could take: the historical development, the calculational basics, the experimental evidence, the role in modern technology, and so on. Hey, it’s my talk, I might as well concentrate on the parts I’m most fascinated by. So there’s a discussion of entanglement and decoherence that is a bit more specific and detailed than one would often get in a talk of this type, even if it is enlivened by silly pictures of cats and dogs.

The second goal was to give a subtle sales pitch for the Many-Worlds interpretation. Really more damage control than full-on hard sell; the very idea of many worlds is so crazy-sounding and counterintuitive that my job is more to let people know that it’s actually quite a natural implication of the formalism, rather than a bit of *ad hoc* nonsense tacked on by theorists who have become unmoored from reality. I’m happy to bring up the outstanding issues with the approach, but I do want people to know it should be taken seriously.

Comments welcome, especially since I’ve never tried this approach in a talk before. Of course by only seeing the slides you miss all the witty asides, but the basic substance should come through.

Sean:I am somewhat sympathetic to the idea of multiverse in the cosmological sense but not at all in the quantum mechanics (Everett) sense. For QM it seems to me that this is total copout because we do not understand QM. My reasoning is this. This idea in QM is so vague and arbitrary that perhaps it cannot even be called science. Suppose a professor asks his graduate student to do a QM experiment next morning. If the student comes to work early then the universe splits. If the student feels lazy that morning and does not do the experiment then the universe does not split!!! After the experiment is done with say a billion electrons or photons the final result is completely predictable. Any other graduate student will get the same answer. Thus all the split universes have to conspire to give the same final answer! Am I missing something in this argument? If the argument is that the universe is split already in heavens before any experiment is done and you are just choosing the branch (by free will?!!), that argument would be too religious and unscientific. I would be surprised if an atheist like you would believe it.

I liked the slides; a good way of presenting it to general public listeners. This is such a hard subject to really grasp. One can see why people have a hard time believing that quantum theory provides the true nature of the world we live in.

Being honest with myself, I did not truly grasp this until grad school. Sure, I had the “quantum physics for non-physics majors” in undergrad, but the teacher was uninspiring and I had partying to do. Eventually a good course in applied PDEs and a Mat Sci course heavily based in quantum mechanics cemented the knowledge.

I feel very strongly now that this material needs to be emphasized in high school physics. Obviously the students aren’t going to be doing time-independent solutions to Schrodinger’s equation, but they could certainly stand to see material like your slide show presents. In my science education as a child, I feel like the implications of quantum theory were the major omission. This is how the universe works, after all!

Incidentally, I just made a presentation on QM to my friends, and several parts are identical. I couldn’t use cats and dogs though, because part of the point was to emphasize how decoherence occurs on very small scales; cats are dogs are well beyond that point.

I find that Many Worlds is an important thing to introduce, because most people aren’t aware of any legitimate scientific discussion on the subject. As a little activity, I mixed a bunch of quotes from physicists and pseudoscientists, including one quote by Sean on MWI. My friends thought that one was pseudoscience.

Hi Sean,

Nice slides! I do have three comments, though.

Slide 34, “this can’t be tested” objection. Define “this”, please? In your response to this question you seem to assume that “this” stands for “MW interpretation of QM”, but then go on about the testability of QM itself. My point is that there indeed is *no way* to test the MW interpretation against the Copenhagen interpretation — they are both formally equivalent, since they both interpret the same theory. The fact that all sort of experiments test and support QM itself has nothing to do with the testability of MW interpretation against Copenhagen. Your audience might confuse the two things being tested. Incidentally, if you define “this” as “MW interpretation”, the objection is not silly at all.

Slide 35, bottom row: “The theory is completely deterministic.”. This can also be misleading. The theory is *not* deterministic, because the objects being determined by the theory are not measurement results, but *probabilities* of measurement results. QM deterministically predicts probabilities only. That makes it explicitly non-deterministic, as opposed to a deterministic “clockwork” classical theory. Your audience might get confused by that too. I’ve seen it happen, too many times.

Slide 35, top half, “How do classical worlds emerge?”. This question is not only reasonable for MW interpretation, but for the whole QM, i.e. all interpretations. Moreover, it is a very serious question, down to the point of showing a fundamental gap in the structure of QM. Your comment “Roughly, the answer is because the interactions are local in space” may sound reasonable if you don’t consider the quantization of space itself, i.e. of gravity.

But as soon as you enter the domain of quantum gravity, you must allow for superpositions of the “wavefunction of space”, and locality goes away in a puff of smoke. This leaves the question of emergence of classical world to blow up straight into our faces, uncovering a glaring hole in our understanding of QM.

This glaring hole was ignored for quite a while because quantum gravity is a tough nut to crack, and not many people have been asking those questions over the years. But sooner or later, we need to face the fact that quantization of gravity undermines some answers that we thought were reasonably good, like locality and decoherence. In the context of QG, the measurement problem and the Schroedinger’s cat problem come back to haunt us, showing that our understanding and formulation of QM is conceptually very incomplete.

So your answer that locality specifies a preferred basis may sound plausible, and we may have no better explanation for the time being, but I want to stress that such an answer is certainly not the end of that story. It’s just a patch — one that is likely to burst wide open once we confront it to quantum gravity.

Best,

Marko

kashyap vasavada,

I am not sure I entirely understand your argument, this is what I am getting from it, Student wakes up, does experiment. Universe splits because he awoke (other possibilities = other worlds). Or Student sleeps in and doesn’t do the experiment. Now this is where you lost me, “then the universe does not split!!!” I think this is the problem in your argument (as I understand it). The universe “splits” in either case. What is happening is no matter what the student does all options happen in a “world”, which option splits off is dependant on ones perspective.

The experiments outcome is a different system than the students awaking or not. If said student preforms experiment or if it is another doesn’t matter. One worlds outcome will be X while another worlds is Y.

Every time more than one posibility presents itself, there exists a world where each posibility occurs. Hopefully you get what I’m saying, please let me know if I misunderstand you.

So far as I can see, Many Worlds has two things in its favor:

1) It sounds simple. People are already familiar with one world, the world they experience and know, so it sounds like they just have to imagine that there are more of the same.

2) QM seems to contain coexistence of possibilities (superposition) and interaction of possibilities (interference), and Many Worlds again provides a simple interpretation of this: all the possibilities are actualities.

But when you get into the theoretical details, Many Worlds is a dog’s breakfast of nonsense, evaded questions, and inconsistent positions.

Consider Sean’s slide 34 – his response to the first “silly objection”. “The number of possible states remains fixed.” What fact about quantum theory is he referring to here? That the Hilbert space remains fixed? Or is he perhaps thinking of a particular basis? Maybe he’s referring to unitarity, as the dynamical conservation of the norm (size of the state)?

And isn’t this remark in tension with the common understanding of Many Worlds, that the worlds “split”, i.e. increase in number? Is he alleging that there is a conservation of the number of worlds, so that for each split, there is a join happening elsewhere? Does that mean that he actually has a definite prescription such that, given a particular wavefunction, he can tell us exactly what are the worlds in it, and how many there are? If so, could he tell us what his principle for decomposing the wavefunction into worlds is?

Let’s consider the next slide. We get a mention of the preferred basis problem. In the previous slides, quantum states were illustrated with examples like “cat awake + cat asleep”. Again, the layperson may think that this is all straightforward; it might be strange to think of two worlds coexisting, but one world with a cat awake, or one world with a cat asleep, at least that is a familiar and comprehensible thing… But the meaning of the preferred basis problem is that, confronted with the quantum state “cat awake + cat asleep”, you ask, does it consist of a “cat awake” world and a “cat asleep” world; or does it consist of, e.g., one world that is “99% cat awake and 1% cat asleep”, and another world that is “1% cat awake and 99% cat asleep”?

If I were to try to chronicle everything that is wrong with the intellectual culture of Many Worlds enthusiasts, I would surely exceed the bounds of this comment as well as my own patience. But to summarize my impressions over the years, discussion of Many Worlds exists in a sort of haze that is inherited from the Copenhagen interpretation. (And by the way, the original Copenhagen interpretation is not “wavefunctions are real and they are collapsed by observations”, it is just “wavefunctions are mysteriously effective calculating devices, and we form no opinion about what happens between observations”.)

To accept Copenhagenist quantum mechanics as the final form of physical theory, one had to rationalize a disinterest in the reality of what happens between observations, and in the causes of individual events. This required a certain slackness or carelessness of thought, a deliberate weakening of the idea of an objective reality. Many Worlds is an attempt to reinstate ontological realism in physics, but the heritage of careless thinking about such matters is still there, and that is why Many Worlds advocates are so characteristically oblivious to questions like, exactly what are the worlds, and how many of them are there, and when do they split, and why.

@John Call . I am not sure if I understand your argument. Are you saying that the universe was already split into possibilities even before you measure the system and you are merely choosing the branch at each instant? That is too much like predestiny or at least some free will. But as I said after you do experiment with billions of electrons, the result is determined for everyone. That is not satisfactory. Do you really take it seriously that in one universe you have an accident and in another one you escaped from having an accident? What is really the meaning of you having multiple lives? Application of QM to our life may look like a joke, but some people believe that QM is always valid no matter what the size of the system is.

@vmarko: What is the basis of your belief that the problem of interpretation of QM has to do with QG? QM works superbly in situations where effect of gravity is insignificant. So we have to find believable interpretation even in those situations.

I have only one question regarding the quote from Deutsch about quantum mechanics: “…the very suggestion that it may be literally true as a description of nature is still greeted with cynicism, incomprehension, and even anger”.

Is this true? In my experience I never encountered this and I highly doubt it. However, I do see this applied to the many-worlds interpretation and maybe Mr. Deutsch equates quantum mechanics with MWI, (which is not true given the other interpretations out there).

@ kashyap vasavada,

“What is the basis of your belief that the problem of interpretation of QM has to do with QG?”

Shortly put, the modern QM resolution of the Schrodinger’s cat problem is via decoherence — large quantum system necessarily interacting with the environment, thereby choosing a preferred basis on orbital Hilbert space (“spatial locality” of the interaction Hamiltonian).

Once you consider gravity/spacetime as a quantum system, spatial locality is lost, and decoherence argument cannot be implemented. Consequently, the Schrodinger’s cat problem comes back from the dead, with no solution in sight.

The argument is conceptual, and it doesn’t depend on the strength of the gravitational interaction, or the very small scales where we are supposed to observe QG effects. It is just a consequence of taking QM seriously, and applying the superposition principle to gravity, i.e. spacetime itself.

Btw, this argument has nothing to do with “interpretations” of QM, but with the actual formalism of QM itself. IOW, this problem must exist equally in all interpretations of QM, given that the superposition principle does.

HTH,

Marko

Thanks so much. This gave me a better and deeper understanding of many-worlds. The examples in the presentation follow the best tradition of David Mermin’s entanglement explanation in his classic 1985 article, “Is the moon there when nobody looks? Reality and the quantum theory.”

@vmarko: Thanks. But you are opening Pandora’s box! You are saying that the whole formalism of QM and QFT would have to be changed to answer the interpretation question! Of course the well known feeling is that the formalism has worked so well that people may not want to throw it out. BTW do you believe in ST? Are there even hints at solving this issue in it?

@ kashyap vasavada:

The measurement problem and the Schrodinger’s cat problem are not issues of interpretation, but of formalism. In order to be resolved, it is quite possible that some of QM (and consequently QFT as well) needs rethinking. The formalism of QM works so well in everyday and atomic-scale physics. That’s how QM got formulated in the first place. But if you dare apply that same formalism to, say, cosmology — you immediately run into trouble. If QM is to be a fundamental theory of nature, there are various things that need to be ironed out. The contact with gravity only emphasizes those things and puts them into focus. Nongravitational issues of QM have already been ironed out, so it should not come as a surprise that QG is the only remaining relevant problem-highlighter for QM.

As for string theory, so far it does not have a proper handle on nonperturbative gravity. There are no equations of M-theory to be found anywhere, nobody really knows how the theory actually looks like. All there is are a handful of low-energy effective-theory limits, which do not encapsulate the issue completely. In those effective theories, gravity is treated as a spin-two field in flat spacetime — while you can formally discuss superpositions of gravitons, you still work in flat Minkowski spacetime, and you have no appropriate tools to even formulate the superpositions of geometries, let alone discuss what happens with them wrt. to the above QM problems. So no, string theory has nothing to say about those problems, so far. Maybe some day, when (if) someone actually writes down the fundamental equations of M-theory or something…

Ehm, we are getting off-topic here…

Best,

Marko

Sean–

I really appreciate this presentation. I agree that going beyond the “gee-whiz” popular depictions of quantum mechanics as having to do with “small” things, “fluctuations,” and “uncertainty” is a great thing to do. And I really like that you’re sharing some of the elegant formalism and deeply subtle fundamental ideas with a lay audience. I wish more of my colleagues would do this.

I like most of your slides, but I have some comments about a few of them.

On slide 22, you write “Classically, we describe the systems separately. In quantum mechanics, we desribe them both at once.” That’s only if we insist on working in terms of state vectors. If we generalize our formalism by using density matrices, which are the natural quantum generalization of classical probability distributions for the individual subsystems, then we can indeed describe the cat and dog subsystems separately. In a grad-level textbook on QM, we do this all the time.

On slide 34, in answer to the “silly” objection “That’s too many universes!”, you write that “The number of possible quantum states remains fixed.” What does that mean? Do you mean that the overall system still has just one state vector? That’s true, but its expansion in the preferred basis will have nonzero components along increasingly many basis states. Indeed, that’s the whole point of thinking about the many-worlds interpretation as consisting of many worlds!

Also on slide 34, in answer to the objection that “This can’t be tested!”, presumably referring by “this” to the many-worlds interpretation, you write “Many-worlds is just QM without a collapse postulate or hidden variables. It’s tested every time we observe interference. If you have an alternative with explicit collapses or hidden variables, we can test that!” Actually, any hidden-variables interpretation without explicit collapse (e.g., something like Bohmian mechanics, rather than, say, a GRW or Penrose stochastic-collapse approach) is also, by construction, going to agree perfectly with all the observable predictions of quantum mechanics. There’s obviously no test that can distinguish between two interpretations of a physical theory that are constructed to give exactly the same observable consequences.

On slide 35, in addressing the not-so-silly objection “How do classical worlds emerge?”, you write “The ‘preferred basis problem.’ Roughly the answer is because interactions are local in space, allowing some configuration to be robust and not others.” The question of the emergence of a classical-looking macro-reality is not the preferred-basis problem — these are two totally different problems you are conflating here — and, indeed, the classical-emergence problem is a problem for any no-collapse interpretation of quantum mechanics, including those that involve hidden variables. See, e.g., books like this one, or this one.

The preferred-basis problem, on the other hand, is specially a problem for the many-worlds interpretation, and refers to the fact that we can trivially expand the overall state vector in any of an infinite set of different choices of basis for the overall Hilbert space, where each basis paints a very, very different picture of what those different worlds are and what are the probabilities associated to them. There is no guarantee that most of those choices of basis will involve basis states that look classical, and, on the other hand, there may well be two (or more) choices of basis that give classical-looking basis states and thus inconsistent sets of classical realities that are not related to each other in a classically understandable way.

The preferred-basis problem is unsolved, and probably unsolvable without somehow adding on more axiomatic principles to the many-worlds interpretation for choosing one basis over all the others.

kashyap vasavada,

no, what I’m saying is that when there is the posibility of more than one outcome (if a person is the “particle” in the system), all those playout in one universe or another. I personaly do not choose my path because I am not outside the system, the universe is my enviroment. If there were someone (God, if you will) outside the system, then all posibilities would collapse into one. Sinse most physicists do not believe there is a God (or anything outside the universe to be an observer), the system does not collapse into one outcome, so there is a multiplicity of worlds all playing out every possible scenario.

At quantumn sizes, every possible scenario plays out (most “paths” cancel out because they are opposites of one another). Once the system is observed all paths collapse into the most likely path.

I can see how this appears like predestiny or that the observer is choosing the outcome for everyone. But this is not the case, the outcome is determined by what is most probable not by what I see. The only thing that is determined by what I see is that one particular event is occuring, rather than many at once.

I think we need to all remeber that these are Sean’s slides, not his whole presentation. (I assume he does not read directly off his slides ). Many of the comments about the presentation have been great; however, some seem to be things that were probably cleared up in the actual lecture. Just my two cents.

Bad pun time: are those kitty kets?

|kitty>

I think these slides are really fantastic! I’ll link to them in the future.

Coincidentally, I just wrote up almost precisely the same thing for a general audience the other day and put it on Quora.

If I were to make any suggestion, it would be to tie in some more physical example to the cat and dog. Most people have heard of the double-slit experiment at some point. At the end, you can say “In the double slit experiment, we shoot a free electron at a crystal and observe interference at some ammeters. The cat is the electron. The food and post are two layers of a crystal that the electron bounces off. The sofa and table are very sensitive ammeters that detect the electron. The dog is the spin degree of freedom a bound electron in the crystal which interacts with the free electron.” I think this might be helpful since dogs and cats don’t actually interfere, and it leads into a short discussion of why not.

Also, it might be helpful to drop some of the early content on history in favor of elaborating the cat/dog experiment with more examples. This just keeps things tight and focused for the entire talk, so that people only have to try to learn one thing. For example, you could then do a “quantum eraser” experiment where the entanglement between dog and cat is reversed and the interference for the cat comes back again.

As a person reared on classical physics + engineering-freshman QM & SR, I could never swallow QM without feeling a great discomfort of the esophagus. That, despite honest efforts to independently continue technical studies of it. (I did succeed to learn GR, though.) Part of the problem, I think, lies in the interpretations: both the Copenhagen and the MW seem outlandish to me.

Of course, the undeniable explanatory and predictive powers of QM, and its success in becoming an indispensable basis for physics’ current paradigm, all but eliminate the odds that it might ever be abolished. The interpretations, however, are another matter: since they do not affect the way the formalism is applied in order to produce explanations and predictions, the latter cannot decide their validity. The very fact that nowadays, some 90 years after the completion of QM, there still exist two contesting, undecidable, interpretations, each with its ardent partisans, tells me that the adjective ‘correct’ is applicable to

neither.I can wait. Maybe sometime in the future some genius will come up with a new idea and a

aha!interpretation. I may not live that long, but I don’t really care, because in the meantime I have my own interpretation: The QM formalism is just amathematical instrumentfor producing quantitative explanations and predictions in the realm of the very-small—a generally valid instrument, marvelously effective and precise, yet still an instrument. The wave function does not “collapse” upon observation, asit isn’t a collapsible physical object. In a similar vein, the different potential outcomes allowed by the wave function do not “exist” in different worlds—their existence is purely of a mathematical nature and has thus nothing to do with “worlds.”@ John Call:

Thanks for your detailed arguments, although I am not convinced by many worlds interpretation.Actually, I am in good company.Remember, Sean’s article “most embarassing graph in modern physics”. There is no consensus on interpretation of QM.

In fact Copenhagen interpretation got more (42%) votes than many world interpretation (18%). Even Weinberg says that he is not happy with any interpretation of QM. So some more debates and work are necessary!!!

You all might enjoy James Ladyman explain that while he intuitively is antagonistic to MWI, he sees that he’s “forced” to take it as most likely accurate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgXVEeL9tzM

For the more advanced, David Wallace has recently published a tour de force defense of MWI against all comers.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Emergent-Multiverse-according-Interpretation/dp/0199546967

Sean, you once participated in an effort to explain QM in 5 words. Here’s my entry with a decidedly MW flavor: Multiple outcomes from one measurement.

Jack

It is hard to find a good description of the MWI even after reading a lot of pop physics books. So, I appreciate what your doing here, because I think there has been a lot of unreasonable bias against a lot of them from this. Although, I still don’t buy the MWI from this.

To me it seems unfair that physicist say that Quantum Physics is extremely accurate, because there have been no experiments that can disprove it. When it accounts for many worlds that are not even in our own, how could it? I tend to think there is just something missing from it that tells us why particles decohere in some instance and do not in others.

Say, I sent an electromagnetic wave down a half wave guide, the wave will not travel down that path, ever! Did I just send a probability wave into another universe by doing this? No, I think not, otherwise radars would have a lot of unwelcome electromagnetic interference. I think it was just able to interfere with itself before it went down the guide. Time is relative, and for particles traveling the speed of light, they have a complete lack of it from their own frame of reference, at least that is my hypothesis or interpretation of it all.

Sean: I thought the dogs and cats

weresilly, and that giving a sales pitch for many-worlds is effectively peddling woo. Sorry, but the presentation smacks of quantum mysticism that’s past its sell-by date. IMHO you should talk to guys like Jeff Lundeen, see http://www.photonicquantum.info/ and clock this:“With weak measurements, it’s possible to learn something about the wavefunction without completely destroying it. As the measurement becomes very weak, you learn very little about the wavefunction, but leave it largely unchanged. This is the technique that we’ve used in our experiment. We have developed a methodology for measuring the wavefunction directly, by repeating many weak measurements on a group of systems that have been prepared with identical wavefunctions. By repeating the measurements, the knowledge of the wavefunction accumulates to the point where high precision can be restored.So what does this mean? We hope that the scientific community can now improve upon the Copenhagen Interpretation, and redefine the wavefunction so that it is no longer just a mathematical tool, but rather something that can be directly measured in the laboratory”.kashyap vasavada

Yes, I deffinetly agree, there remains quite a bit of work to be done. I myselef am a fence sitter, it seems to make sense to me but I have a hard time swallowing it. It is especcially difficult when applied to macroscopic things. Also, I don’t yet have the mathematical training to study QM in any great detail beyond the concepts presented by analogy. Thanks for the discussion, it has been quite insightful and interseting.

Actually, it was Schrödinger who first showed that the Schrödinger and Heisenberg pictures were the same thing, not Dirac. At least, Moore claims this in his biography of Schrödinger.

I had a 5 minute flip and will look again and try to solve your problem later, but a couple of quick comments. The first is a need for mechanisms – I will track the deductive logic of your approach, but whether there are intact alternative interpretations using mechanisms is the issue. That would be the proof, rather than measured events based on probabilities necessarily from limitations to measurement itself and the frames of position and motion, for example, as well as rotation and tension.

The conclusions based on measurement need to account for the limitations to measurement before expressing confidence. In using position and motion to measure (relative) momentum, uncertainty is an issue of measurement and not a property of mass. All mass continually moves and positions or repositions, but we are limited either to measuring motion or position. You cannot freeze frame a position in space OR time and measure its “frozen” motion in space AND time, you can only closely approximate its motion, and likewise when motion is known but not position.

Until science can come to grips with how the limitations of measurement itself drive the need to use probabilities (opening the magic door to interpretation of what the probabilities mean). Mechanisms are the key, rather than probabilities. Your deductive analysis may be replaced by a more useful paradigm I write about in my free book at thehumandesign.net (geometrical design, not spiritual). I will get back to you about the answer to your specific slide show.

I just had a quick flip through From Here to Eternity – its actually much clearer and quicker to scan that long page than trying to work through the “simplified” slides. You do rely fundamentally on the inability to measure motion and position (as momentum) at the same time to open the magic door to interpretation. It is a limitation to frames of measurement and not a property of mass. I will get back to you.

Jack M wrote

“For the more advanced, David Wallace has recently published a tour de force defense of MWI against all comers.”

Wallace may be articulate but his ideas are trash. I think I can’t overemphasize how barren they are.

You say there are many worlds, Mr Wallace – how many of them are there? “… it is a non-question to ask

how many.” (From page 16 here.)What about the Born rule, Mr Wallace? Why do observed frequencies go with the square of the amplitude? “… rational agents in an Everett universe must act in accordance with the Born-rule probabilities” (from page 3 here).

Hopefully it is obvious that the first answer is a non-answer. What’s wrong with the second answer requires more explanation.

There is a formal notion of rationality from game theory: to be rational is to maximize your payoff. In a situation of uncertainty, this means to maximize your

expectedpayoff, so not just the payoff of various possible outcomes must be considered, but also the probability. It is irrational to stake everything on a million-to-1 outcome, even if the payoff would be enormous, because that outcome is probably not going to happen… This “decision-theoretic” notion of rationality therefore depends logically on a prior notion of probability. The fact that the outcome is improbable, is logically prior to the fact that betting on it is irrational.However, Wallace, and before him David Deutsch, want to explain the Born probability rule of quantum mechanics, by inverting this logical dependency. They

beginwith a certain notion of what constitutes rational action in a quantum multiverse, and then derive from this the probabilities that they want.I need to point out something else in order to explain what’s going on here. If the basic theory is that there are Many Worlds, and if event A is observed to be twice as common as event B, one might suppose that this is because worlds containing event A are twice as numerous as worlds containing event B.

But it is actually not so easy to get definite worlds out of a quantum wavefunction in a non-arbitrary way. This is why Wallace wants to say that there is no particular number of worlds: if he can be vague about worlds, that will help his case, he doesn’t have to overcome this problem through the awkward step of adding extra structure to QM.

However, if there is no definite number of worlds, then the Born probabilities can’t be explained by the relative frequencies of events in the multiverse. That is why he and Deutsch would even consider the sort of contorted argument that they produce.

But the argument is nonsense, and so is the earlier idea that Everett worlds can be fuzzy things like clouds, without sharp objective distinctions between them.

The latter idea is nonsense because if the Many Worlds theory is right, you reading these words inhabit a particular Everett world; but if the existence of a world is only a vague approximate thing, a matter of convention, then the same must be true for the existence of anything in that world, including you. The vagueness of worlds would imply that your own existence is something less than absolute fact.

I regret the abstractness of this argument (some people get it, some don’t), but it is because Many Worlds advocates generally refuse to specify, clearly and exactly, what the worlds are, that one has to dig this deep and show why vagueness about worlds is not an option. If they actually had a theory, it could be discussed in a more rigorous way, and there is nothing to stop them from

makinga genuine theory of interacting multiple worlds, except for the difficulty of that task.But instead they have an “interpretation”, which is to say, a wall of words, a set of constructs which are rhetorical rather than mathematical.

Anyway, I give up. Reader, please consider yourself warned. These people – many-worlders – do not have a theory, and they cannot back up the claims they make.

Mitchell: that “These people – many-worlders – do not have a [scientific] theory,” stems from the fact that there exists no experiment or observation that can pit MWI against Copenhagen and thus decide between them, or against both. (See the better parts of the previous post+comments on falsifiability.) But Copenhageners fare no better, and that’s why both fan groups duly call their positions “interpretation” rather than “theory.”

One cannot do science or think science without a theory, but one can—though with appreciable cognitive difficulty—do without outlandish interpretations. See my Feb. 13 comment to this post and I hope you help tip its rating towards the green.

DEL: your previous comment noted. You know how you said

“The wave function does not ‘collapse’ upon observation, as it isn’t a collapsible physical object”. Jeff Lundeen would say its something that’s actually there in the lab. And have you ever looked at the optical Fourier transform? Think of a photon as an extended non-local wavelike entity. Think of an electron in a detector as more of the same. When they interact, imagine something like an optical Fourier transform occurs. Imagine the photon gets converted into a dot at the detector. Which is at one slit. Which the photon then travels through. But if there is no detector, the photon travels through both slits. Like this.Interesting John, if I read you right, you are reading photons right. Photons would have characteristics when not detected that differ from any Fourier form they take when detected, but I am still wondering about the appearance it actually has when not detected, in your last link. That seems to be a reasonable explanation of the result of an interference pattern, but I think physics still needs to take a step beyond the distinction between ‘as observed’ and ‘when not observed’ to explain the double slit pattern (and redshift between galaxies). That explanation “might” still be merely a probability wave, rather than a diagram of the mechanism itself.

Lost frequencies from one form of “interference” – by gravitons to photons between galaxies, might have a consistent thread to interference by gravitons to photon passages through slits. A galaxy is big, but its light reaching us here with consistent redshift is still affected by a “graviton” field all the way to receipt. My supposition is that the void is thick with graviton strings and loops, and that they always interfere, in different ways, with photon passages. Even in a quiet lab gravitons extend between apparatus in regular light speed wave patterns.

Gravity being omnipresent, we only know it relatively as “weight”, but that is quite something considering a human mass held to earth by a void with “gravitons”, which must be immense in a void. And invisible, unlike photons. In a way, we live in a uniform fluid of which we are unaware, and in a lab that fluid as a graviton field is sufficient to affect photons passages by establishing regular wave patterns everywhere according to motion and position of masses – or instruments.

A very basic style/content comment: I found the inclusion of the masthead for key papers to be especially evocative, visceral, almost tactile, concretely linking the physicist (through their actual work) with me, the reader.

Combining images of august papers with images if kitty cats and doggies did bend my mind a bit.

@ John Duffield

Do you have more information on what Jeff Lundeen would think? I would agree, and I think it would be the exact opposite of what DEL stated. I don’t think I am going to be able to help applying at the website you gave. Any extra information may come in handy when trying to make up my CV. This is really the kind of opportunity I have been waiting for and been wanting to do for some time. Any extra information would be much appreciated. Thanks.

All in order to not understand aether has mass and is what waves in a double slit experiment.

“The word ‘ether’ has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..] It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with ‘stuff’ that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.” – Robert B. Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics, endowed chair in physics, Stanford University

Matter, a piece of window glass and stuff have mass.

In a double slit experiment it is the stuff which waves.

“any particle, even isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium … If a hidden sub-quantum medium is assumed, knowledge of its nature would seem desirable. It certainly is of quite complex character. It could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be contrary to relativity theory.” – Louis de Broglie, Nobel Laureate in Physics

“According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense.” – Albert Einstein, Nobel Laureate in Physics

The relativistic ether referred to by Laughlin is the hidden sub-quantum medium referred to by de Broglie is the ether which propagates light referred to by Einstein.

By relativistic ether Laughlin is saying you can’t know the state of the ether. You can’t know if the ether flows or not. You can’t point to an object and say, “I know that object is at rest with respect to three dimensional space”.

Same for de Broglie. de Broglie is saying the hidden medium of de Broglie wave mechanics can not “serve as a universal reference medium”.

Einstein says the ether does not consist of individual particles which can be separately tracked through time. This is Einstein’s way of discussing the relativistic ether. If we can’t know if the aether consists of particles or not then we probably can’t know if the ether flows or not. If you can’t know if the aether flows or not then it isn’t an ultimate reference frame. That’s without even attempting to discuss the notion of flows relative to what? Itself? Our Universe? What if our Universe is moving through three dimensional space? How would we ever detect its motion?

The ether of relativity is relativistic.

‘Einstein: Ether and Relativity’

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

“More careful reflection teaches us however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether; only we must give up ascribing a definite state of motion to it, i.e. we must by abstraction take from it the last mechanical characteristic which Lorentz had still left it.”

Einstein defines motion in terms of the aether as the aether does not consist of individual particles which can be separately tracked through time. The same for ponderable matter.

Ponderable media is defined as the aether does not consist of parts which can be tracked through time.

“ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time”

The mechanical characteristic Einstein takes away from the aether is its immobility.

“It may be added that the whole change in the conception of the ether which the special theory of relativity brought about, consisted in taking away from the ether its last mechanical quality, namely, its immobility.”

Meaning, the aether of relativity is mobile. Meaning, the aether of relativity is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

The following analogy explains it best.

“Think of waves on the surface of water. Here we can describe two entirely different things. Either we may observe how the undulatory surface forming the boundary between water and air alters in the course of time; or else-with the help of small floats, for instance – we can observe how the position of the separate particles of water alters in the course of time. If the existence of such floats for tracking the motion of the particles of a fluid were a fundamental impossibility in physics – if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the water as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that water consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium.”

if, in fact nothing else whatever were observable than the shape of the space occupied by the aether as it varies in time, we should have no ground for the assumption that aether consists of movable particles. But all the same we could characterise it as a medium having mass which is displaced by the particles of matter which exist in it and move through it.

Watch the following video starting at 0:45 to see a visual representation of the state of the aether. What is referred to as a twist in spacetime is the state of displacement of the aether.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ITt44-EHE

“Imagine the Earth as if it were immersed in honey,” says Francis Everitt of Stanford University in California, the mission’s chief scientist. “As the planet rotates, the honey around it would swirl, and it’s the same with space and time.”

The ‘swirl’ is more correctly described as the state of displacement of the aether.

You have a mesh bag full of marbles that you spin in a supersolid. If you can’t know if the supersolid consists of particles or not you should still be able to determine the state of displacement of the supersolid as determined by its connections with the marbles and the state of the supersolid in neighboring places.

The state of the aether as determined by its connections with the Earth and the state of the aether in neighboring places is the state of displacement of the aether.

Marcus: IMHO in its own little way, a photon is a graviton. To try to visualize this, imagine a stiff lattice. Put your hands in back-to-back and top to bottom, and

pull. The lattice now has a lemon-like “pulse” of distortion in it. And it’s a stiff lattice, there is no outer edge to this distortion. This is a snapshot of a photon. Wherever the distortion is the photon is, so the photon takes many-paths. The slope of a horizontal lattice line denotes E, and as the photon moves say left to right at c the rate of change of slope denotes B. In the middle of the pulse four-potential is at a maximum but E and B are zero, as per Aharonov-Bohm. A lattice square that is skewed is a spin1 virtual photon. A lattice square that is vertically shortened is a spin2 virtual graviton. Butskewed squares are shortened.John: nothing much, see Jeff Lundeen’s website and my comment of 13th Feb above where I quoted from his semi-technical explanation. Also see Aephraim Steinberg’s website and the physicsworld article In praise of weakness.

Very interesting; I may have to borrow these slides and see if I can use them myself to explain QM to my relatives

One typo, I think, on slide 25 that I’m surprised no one mentioned yet: It reads something like “if we observe Ms. Kitty under the table, we know Mr. Dog is in the yard with 100% certainty”. Shouldn’t it be Mr. Dog is in the doghouse, or have I just not had enough coffee yet to properly function?

When a downconverted photon pair are created, in order for there to be conservation of momentum, they are created with opposite angular momentum.

As they are propagating with opposite polarization, they can determine their partner’s location and momentum based upon their own.

They are not physically or superlumanally connected.

They are entangled as they can determine each other’s state.

Phillip Helbig: It was Schrodinger, indeed. See his 1926 Annalen der Physik paper:

http://www.physics.drexel.edu/~bob/Quantum_Papers/Equivalence_WM_QM.pdf

“Phillip Helbig: It was Schrodinger, indeed. See his 1926 Annalen der Physik paper:”I guess that proves that I am smarter than the Time Lord. Where do I collect my reward?

John Duffield, there is a danger in the approach you are suggesting. Consider a system of entangled photons:

|up>|down> – |down>|up>

what wavefunction would you ascribe to the first photon? What about the second? Or are you suggesting that in such a situation, there aren’t individual photons at all, but only a composite system?

John, that might take me a while to solve. Its an interesting idea though, equating the two. I would definitely say the same “material” and both rotating, but photons would detach to move regularly between particles (I will avoid your alternative use of photons for now) and gravitons must stay attached in some way to be able to move with particles as a source of field variation. I use a void as background for simplicity, and Newton reinterpreted merely to allow more properties to masses than he imagined in a void. Action- reaction, and space-time as background to motion and position remain from Newton. Einstein is preserved only from his SR reconciliation, which apply in a void using the properties of masses uncovered in the 20thC. I reject the pure Isotropy of GR and its necessity that we live on the surface of a hologram, and allow all mass to exist in a void and expand under gravitational energy conversion from rest in a compressed state with that given potential – linearly in direct opposition to its own gravitational field.

With that background, undoubtedly debateable on all points,, photons become backwards rotating loops, right or left, that have direct interference by gravitons extending in a void and making a “fluid” through which all mass moves. In my model, the relationship is more fundamental even than photon-photon, or photon-particle, or graviton-graviton, or graviton-particle. They are glued together by shearing each other in common passages at light speed between particle sources that carry both fields in their travels. So, yes to photons and gravitons being the most fundamentally tied masses in existence, and yes to materiality (photons might actually be gravitons concentrated on themselves to literally bounce rather than always attract by loops), but they would each preserve their forces at all times in their separate phenomena, and so no ultimately to them being the same thing, as such. But I will try to have a look at your outline above.

That reads right, Mike.

John Duffield:

1) For some reason, the Jeff Lundeen link and associated URL do not work for me.

2) If, as I understand, Lundeen claims he measures

psi, does he measure both its real and imaginary parts? He must, because, as far as I know, the wave function of QM is the only physics quantity that is inherently complex, its complexity not just a matter of mathematical convenience or convention. In contrast, in classical waves, exp(ikx)usually means either cos(kx)or sin(kx). And no classical wave equation containsiexplicitely, as Schrodinger’s does. (Boy! does that look like a mathematical miracle-maker contraption!)3) Now, what about the matrices of Heisenberg’s matrix mechanics? Matrix mechanics is known to be mathematically equivalent to Schrodinger’s wave mechanics. So what is it that Lundeen measures, a

psiwave or some matrix? If these are concrete physical objects, they can’t be both right.4) As a Caltech Ph.D. (Aeronautics, 1985,) with a long career of signal processing behind me, of course I know about the Fourier transform, optical or otherwise. And my basic QM education did include the trick of turning a localized particle into a spread wave, and vice versa, courtesy Mr. Fourier.

4) The key word in your reply is “imagine.” No, I would not imagine a photon performing the Fourier trick on interacting with an electron—I cannot imagine either of them having reached the necessary college level. If it’s any consolation, I also do not believe that a macroscopic dumb projectile calculates its way along its trajectory according to Newton’s laws.

5) My point, and my philosophy of science, is this: scientific theory is strewn with “entities” and “narratives” that help us process it in our imagination, apply it in calculations, design experiments and interpret their results. But the success of a theory doesn’t necessarily mean that these entities and narratives are real physical objects and processes. And the best proof for this view is the history of science: those entities and narratives do have a way of being replaced once in a while. So how can one of them actually literally collapse? (It might collapse, figuratively, when a paradigm shift comes and discards it.)

David: I’m afraid I side with Einstein, and consider “spooky action at a distance” entangled photons to be a misinterpretation. See http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.0401 re Bell.

Marcus: IMHO it’s important to distinguish virtual particles from real particles. See this. Virtual photons relate to the evanescent wave aka near field. Hydrogen atoms don’t twinkle, there aren’t any actual photons zipping back and forth in an electromagnetic field. Likewise for gravitons in a gravitational field. IMHO the key to it is here where Einstein referred to a field as a state of space. Think about the state of space around an electron.

DEL: your points aren’t easy to respond to quickly, and I have to go now. But for now see these URLs:

http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~aephraim/PWMar13steinberg-final.pdf

http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~aephraim/

http://www.photonicquantum.info/

http://www.photonicquantum.info/Research/SemiTechnical_Wavefunction.html

Marcus, I take it you are referring to my understanding of entanglement, correct?

Understanding entanglement is one downconverted photon’s ability to know the state of the other means there are no such things as hidden variables.

This from a biologist way out of his depth. I have never been able to understand how we know that “there is no reality (e.g., regarding the position of an electron) until we make an observation, causing the wave function to collapse”. How do we exclude this interpretation: the electron has a real position all along and the “wave function” simply describes our ignorance? Similarly for entanglement. Two particles interact and separate. When we observe one, do we really instantaneously influence the other, or do we simply learn something about it that we previously did not know? How can you make that distinction other than on grounds of some ideology? I think of a quadratic equation: two solutions are equally good. Now we add another relevant equation that “chooses” between those two. Should we say that the second equation mysteriously influenced the first, or just that new information let us choose? Help!!

@ Joe Dickinson:

“This from a biologist way out of his depth. I have never been able to understand how we know that “there is no reality (e.g., regarding the position of an electron) until we make an observation, causing the wave function to collapse”.”

Try these keywords for Wikipedia and Google: “counterfactual definiteness”, “local realism”, “Bell’s theorem”, “reality”, “locality”, “measurement”. A good places to start reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfactual_definiteness

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_realism#Local_realism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

HTH,

Marko

Yes Mike, that seems more sensible than saying there is a spooky connection.

John, that’s good advice, I should look more at how physics interprets a “field”. I tend to think of virtual photons as unobserved, particularly inside atoms. Photons of light or heat are lost and gained when atoms compound or interact and a field is evident.

Maybe I should broaden my thinking, but the idea of a field concerns me – a wave is fine as one interpretation, or a particle, or collapsed wave, and so on, but its purpose is to exchange fixed momentum, whether observed or not, and I would propose a three dimensional object rather than a “space” filled by (?). A photon can be an object with wave-particle properties depending on the flexibility of its rotations, particularly if it has a flexible back end.

In my book I use a flexible back end to a three dimensional rotating object, as a photon, to enable it to couple and decouple with a particle to allow for the particle motion by its flexible rotating back end. I use a two step process of front end at light speed and back end adjusting to redistribute the photon “position” across a particle surface rather than more directly by a front end always at light speed. This enables photons to be a c in a void and as measured by moving particle – in a void. No need for abstruse interpretations of SR without a void. Assumed rest for exchanges is by a field mechanism.

So we may have different ideas about fields and what they do. As a space filler, sure they decouple and recouple and in between they use a void for their wave-particle passage – as a rotating loop that drags its tail. I will read more about your interpretation of particle and field behaviour and coupling, as I know from other reading that current physics does not explain things the way I do, and yet we purport to explain the are the same events.

Joe Dickinson, I agree with you. Much of science is badly explained.

How on earth a simple limit to measurement – being unable to freeze frame a motion (space AND time) while freeze framing its true position (in space OR time) – became misunderstood as a property of mass is beyond me.

We have an absolute frame limit to measurement. This is not magic – it arises by definition. Position is space OR time. You measure where it is or when it is in relation to where it was or when it was. You can fix a true position. But motion is by definition space AND time, and it is not a fixed position. It moves by definition and cannot be frozen to be known exactly when a position is known – by the same measurement at the same time.

How can you measure literally different things at the same time? You can only measure a smear of motion at a fixed position – at best. Or a smear of position if motion is known. You are not allowed, but definition, to fix a position while measuring motion. The position is a smear.

They have an inverse relation. I use that relation in my photon model (above) to enable a positional adjustment to take some of the momentum and maintain a fixed motion when photons couple and decouple with particles.

How on earth this all became interpreted as mass itself being in a state of uncertainty rather than measurement, is beyond me. But the fact is that it has been quite logically extended on that basis into deductive “follow-on” in Sean’s slide show and so on. They are just saying “if” mass is uncertain, this is what is “might” mean as a deductive follow-on of logic. “If”.

I go my own way as far as science is concerned because I have found so many blunders, if the above counts as such. I know several that are firmly rooted in current science. Anyway you can read more about my grumbling in my free book (click my name for my site) – all good natured and always logical, as above. You may not agree with me., but you should understand me as I abhor abstraction.

Forgot to say – excellent coverage above, Mike, thanks for the many references. Science likes to look at the world, but not at itself.

DEL, I have caught up with your comments. I would definitely say we are philosophically opposed in our views of what physics “is”: I say math merely describes three dimensional and temporal objects that have literal mechanical interfaces to achieve their phenomena (but too small and intricate even for Horatio’s philosophy). You appear to like mathematics without real collapses and so on. I keep an open mind to waves extending and concertinaing on themselves when collapsing – loops can do it if made of a flexible material. Which philosophy is true? Who knows? – I have read about the “calculator school” of physics where folk are told to just calculate and don’t worry about what is creating the momentum.

Marcus, I don’t even try to catch up with your comments—they are so numerous, lengthy and, to me, incomprehensible. I would definitely say your physics is alien to what most physicists and science philosophers would think physics “is.”

DEL, no doubt, but physics should welcome input from disparate sources (in plain concepts) to help solve its undoubted problems. Uncertainty, Pure Isotropic expansion resulting in a Holographic surface, double slit, redshift, and others are mentioned in this thread alone. An attempt should be made to lay them out in plain language for understanding rather than simply calculating various “momenta”.

I have plenty of time to read and respond to posts for the next little while. I have an ongoing project in a book at my site that I am continually trying to improve, and I find these blogs help freshen my memory. They are great way to share resources and exchange ideas, as I’m sure you will agree (like Mike’s list of references above, half of which I had never read) . John is a bit abstract for me, but otherwise I understand quite well what others write here, including you.

I really can’t see the attraction of the MWI or any other of the “psi-ontic” interpretations. As RF Streater says, “quantum theory is a generalisation of probability, rather than a modification of the laws of mechanics” and, for me at least, “psi-ontology” reeks of what ET Jaynes called the “mind projection fallacy” and/or of forgetting what a (pedantically) “honest” classical theory would look like:

DEL: I can’t speak for Jeff Lundeen I’m afraid. But I would hazard a guess that yes he measures both psi’s real and imaginary parts, the latter being related to rotation. And that he measures a ψ wave rather than some matrix. And that the ψ wave is something real, but that it’s more like “spacewarp” than a “concrete physical object”. Re

“…my basic QM education did include the trick of turning a localized particle into a spread wave, and vice versa…”I’d say the thing to appreciate is that particles are “spread waves”, and that nothing is every really localized. Likethe electron’s field is what it is. You might not like to imagine the photon doing the Fourier trick, but I like the many-worlds multiverse even less. And wavefunction collapse. I share your sentiment on that.Pingback: Damage control for the Multiverse | The Great Vindications

Joe Dickinson, get ready for some pseudo-science.

The way I visualize it is that anything “smaller” than the wave function is not able to be described by the currently accepted laws of physics or mathematics. That means that anything smaller than the wave function (if there is anything beyond the wave function) does not exist for all intents and purposes. Maybe one day String Theory or some other multidimensional theory will have some sort of formulation that proves it should be a fundamental part of our understanding of physics, but at the moment, the wave function is what a sensible person would call the ‘known’ limit of reality.

If everything we are composed of is just a superposition of wave functions (which is true); then reality doesn’t exist until the wave function collapses and a boundary has been defined (an electron or atom could be…what’s the word I’m looking for…pseudo-scientifically declared a defined boundary). Understand that the collapse of the wave function would be the fastest possible occurring event in the universe (if you accept the idea by 2 very respected physicists that entanglement is just quantum wormholes). So from a biological understanding, it takes far longer for the first electron to be generated for a single electrical pulse traveling between 2 neurons than it does for the wave function to collapse.

If you accept that wave function collapse is the fastest possible event producible by the universe, then you must also accept that reality does not exist until the wave function collapses. You cannot know that the wave function has collapsed until the collection of recursively collapsing wave functions, which compose your instrumentation, are used to make a measurement.

Since everything which exists is composed of the same medium, then every action effects every other action. It’s the probability(I) of probability (A) occurring, yet probability (A) effects the result of probability (I). Quantum mechanics uses so many ideas used in fluid mechanics and aerodynamics because they all study the way that equivalent waves effect each other’s behavior. Weather systems are a great example of large scale “wave mechanics”…though there are too many variables to tell you what the weather will be with 100% certainty, and meteorological certainty changes as we watch the weather; we can still make very good predictions of what will happen and when it will happen.

to no particular person in general,

It is not that science is poorly explained; as though it is a scientist’s job to make you understand it (to be clear IT ISN”T, it is their job to do science…and it is impossible to “MAKE” you understand something; that is the ultimate example of laziness). It is that this stuff is very difficult to understand. You have to fight your ego and accept that while you may be smart in one way, you probably aren’t smart in other ways. I know plenty of great mathematicians who would be horrible accountants. Many great scientists are horrible engineers because application rarely 100% conforms to theory. Many engineers who are horrible scientists.

It’s hard to accept, but even after putting in years of effort trying to understand something, the simple truth may be that you just aren’t smart enough to understand it or don’t possess the drive to learn it.

another short way to explain it, then I’ll stop.

If you are part of an unknown area within an unknown shape, and that area has no measurable upper or lower boundaries, then there is no known way to determine where you are located within that shape or know with any certainty how you are distributed throughout it. To add to that, you are a percentage of the area; that’s quantum mechanics, the geometry of probability. Luckily, we experience other phenomenon which help us deduce how we are distributed and where the boundaries are. If our understanding of Physics started from quantum mechanics and we had to deduce our way to classical mechanics, we’d be fu…screwed.

Meh, interesting ideas, and mostly true so far as our limits to actual measurement are concerned. The distinction you have failed to make in an otherwise useful analysis of what scientists can actually measure, is between measurement itself and what is measured.

Meh, the measurer is limited by the reality of measurement – you cannot determine position and motion at the same time to determine momentum at any instant. Particles and fields reduce to wave functions as the briefest intervals when one is fixed – the other is a “wave-function” smear and no better dues to the above limit. Read my post above – this is a limit to measuring – it does not mean that matter cannot “exist” other than as a wave function = it means we cannot measure it any more accurately.

So, don’t worry about ego and so on. Just lift your analysis to take into account a distinction you have may not be aware of. That’s an ego issue, but easily solved by grasping the distinction. There is no ego issue in this generally for humans understanding matter, just an inability to measure it exactly at all times.

Give it some thought and let me know if I can help further.

marcus, I can’t understand your sentence or paragraph structure, so I don’t know what you’re trying to tell me. I wasn’t going to point fingers, but my comment on ego was a result of reading your post above. It’s directed at you. Chill out dude.

I’m attempting to present a simplified understanding of a very complex subject. A subject so complex that there is no way to simplify it without crossing into pseudoscience, hence the problem with physicists being able to communicate it to the general public in a way that they can understand it. Physicists don’t want to loose credibility by dumbing it down into an innacurate description, something about solutions tending to be boolean or whatevs, but there doesn’t seem to be a better way for the modern 120 character attention span. Visualizing the wave function as real has always worked for my communication purposes.

Meh, how could

psibe real if it’s mathematically a complex quantity?And as to understanding dudes, mystics have always used obscure and obscurantist language—it’s in the trade. If they are clear they might be contradicted. Try Nostradamus.

But they do have one immeasurably huge advantage over scientists: what takes the latter decades of hard work, millions of man-hours, innumerable sleepless nights, billions of taxpayer dollars in experimental facilities and space observatories, and once-in-a-lifetime ingenious idea, takes them just a snap of a finger followed by a bout of disconnected keypad drumming. And, boy! they can produce several new such discoveries every day!

Hey, I warned you to get ready for some pseudo-science didn’t I?!

For the sake of explaining the concept of “reality doesn’t exist until the wave function collapses during measurement” to the layperson, I honestly feel it’s better to just bend the truth and tell them that it’s a real thing even if that’s a serious stretch. If LQG becomes a fundamental part of physics, which I think it will be in my life, then sure, http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328v1. But you’re right, conjecture is just that.

No one can do better than plain language Meh. If you come to grips with what I wrote (perhaps re-read it?) then I would be happy to read about ago and such. Otherwise, you are in limbo taking a guess. The logic here is quite plain, or not?

Brett, I agree with you part the way, but it’s not much of a stretch. Read my post above, which some people here find difficult to understand, so you may need patience. We have limits to measurement itself. The act of measuring by a measurer is constrained – limited. What he measures might not have those same limitations. His knowledge about it is limited by his measurements, so he cannot know everything about it.

In fact this is very simple. A position in space OR time units is not the same as motion in space AND time units. When one is measured it is, by definition literally impossible to measure the other at the same time. Try it. Freeze frame a position 2 meters from a table when moving a hand and tell me the rate of motion AT that position – you cannot have frozen motion – the best you can do is approximate its motion around that frozen point when measuring a fixed position.

Now Brett, somehow this has been egotistically interpreted as matter being what WE can measure – ignoring the above limitations to OUR measurements, and matter becomes exactly that and no more – and therefore (if my sentence structure is not getting too complex in logical steps) WE say it smears all over the place as a wave functions that exist in “probabilities”.

In fact, they may exist in their own right. They may be three dimensional and temporal objects that are literally emitted and absorbed, with clearly flexible capacities. they are probabilistic waves to the extent we are limited in measuring them, but otherwise they are quire real and interacting as objects when we cannot measure them due to smears. The relation of position and motion in inverse – the better you know one the less the other. Hopefully that is clear enough to understand – whether you agree that scientists could be so egotistical as to limit nature to exactly what we can measure and no more and then frame conjectures around that. I think that is the exact case.

It is a preference for deduction – as with Sean and many physicists – where you only know what you can measure and you do not conjecture beyond that to hypothesize what might be happening in the “smears”. Is matter really a “smear” of probabilities? I think you have to go beyond deductive certainty of measurement by introducing the equally deductive certainty of limitation to measurement itself – then match the two principle and have a bit of humility about what we know about nature. Start conjecturing.

Thanks, Sean.

I realize this comment is late, but thanks anyway for the post. I hadn’t imagined the double slit experiment could be described in terms of cat trajectories. My feeling is that your explanation adds something to my understanding of QM. That is, I have usually distinguished the case of where the cat does not go and where the electron does not go in terms of behaviors and events. In the macroscopic world, a cat that never takes a nap under the table is a behavior that would be due to some preference of the cat itself, whereas where the electron does not go is determined by the experimental setup. My conclusion is that no-go areas do not require a probability calculation in principle to determine the chance event of a cat sleeping there or an electron hitting the screen. In that sense, we know something completely deterministic about electron trajectories; a non-event is one which we don’t have to calculate the probability and the wave function itself is all that we need to express with certainty that it will not happen. Now instead of imagining the different worldviews for a moment, I am thinking about the uncertainty principle. That is, in an experiment, does the Uncertainty Principle play a part in smearing the zero amplitude areas so that after all there could be electrons striking the screen or cats tracks under the table?