Parallel Universes proven to exist.

[Andy Bowden]

Saw this in the papers the other day, about scientists proving "parallel universes" exist (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=paUniverse_sun14_parallel_universes&show_article=1&cat=0)

I haven't read it, but I heard Socialist Appeal did a book called "Reason in Revolt", basically arguing the principles of dialectics etc fitted in with modern physics. What do comrades think of this discovery, is it genuine, speculation, etc?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This discovery lends suppport to "many worlds" intepretation of quantum physics and thus avoids the philosophical difficulties of the Copenhagen interpretation, which anyway I thought was a load of solipsist rubbish anyway.

[ComradeRed]

However, the "many universes" interpretation of quantum mechanics was recently falsified (http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2357) within the past month or two.

It should be noted that Hugh Everett, the credited founder of the interpretation, originally only began with a relative state interpretation which has continued within the past 10 years as the relational interpretation (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-relational/) of quantum mechanics.

Just my two cents; I have yet to read the supposed proof of the "Existence" of "Parallel Universes".

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 04:51 pm
However, the "many universes" interpretation of quantum mechanics was recently falsified (http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2357) within the past month or two.
The summary of that paper seems to suggest an alternative to either the many-worlds and the copenhagen interpretation - am I correct?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Andy, I am surprised you are referring to that execrable book RIRE here, in view of the fact that is contains far more errors than it does paragraphs.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by NoXion+September 27, 2007 10:10 am--> (NoXion @ September 27, 2007 10:10 am)
[email protected] 27, 2007 04:51 pm
However, the "many universes" interpretation of quantum mechanics was recently falsified (http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2357) within the past month or two.
The summary of that paper seems to suggest an alternative to either the many-worlds and the copenhagen interpretation - am I correct? [/b]
I could understand how one could be led to believe that given the abstract, and little knowledge of quantum gravity (no offense).

The gist of it is this: Gravity when quantized is nonlinear. Even Newtonian gravity, when quantized, yields a non-linear equation (see the Schrodigner-NEwton equations for example).

The many worlds interpretation demands the universe behave linearly...as it uses the linear wave-function of the universe.

But the wave function of the universe, as described by the Hamiltonian constraint in Quantum General Relativity, is nonlinear.

Therefore, knowing that quantum gravity requires the universe's wave function to be nonlinear, we have to reject the many worlds interpretation.

Foundational issues in quantum mechanics, the field dealing with things like thinking about interpretations of quantum mechanics, is closely related to quantum gravity you see...which is how the relational interpretation kind of arose.

The paper is simply pointing out that the many worlds interpretation is necessarily falsified by quantum gravity.

[Dr Mindbender]

the churchies wont like this, because it runs contrary to their love of divine plan and pre-destination.

[Andy Bowden]

I haven't read RIRE Rosa, and physics isn't my area of experience. Whats wrong with it...dialectics? :P :D

[AGITprop]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 27, 2007 04:30 pm
Saw this in the papers the other day, about scientists proving "parallel universes" exist (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=paUniverse_sun14_parallel_universes&show_article=1&cat=0)

I haven't read it, but I heard Socialist Appeal did a book called "Reason in Revolt", basically arguing the principles of dialectics etc fitted in with modern physics. What do comrades think of this discovery, is it genuine, speculation, etc?
so they'e proven it ehh!! finally...lol
my grade 9 science project finally has credibility...if its true or not..it has really no relevancy i think because it does not affect us...now we gotta start caring about the guy in the split universe who was created when we decide to use that extra piece of toilet paper when we wiped our ass

[mikelepore]

I am skeptical. I didn't see the original article, but I've never heard of any case in which the existence of anything physical could be proven mathematically. The most you can do on paper is to show that an idea is so far found to be internally consistent, not yet found to be self-contradictory. That doesn't mean it's real.

[apathy maybe]

I believe mikelepore that, that is all they have done.

They have not proven anything at all; rather they have simply used mathematics to demonstrate that it is plausible and internally consistent.

So, the question of which interpretation of quantum mechanics is the "correct" one is still open.

Though personally, I do like the many worlds idea...

[mikelepore]

Max Born's interpretation, that the wave equation is a probability density, is the only pragmatic one that I know of. Unless we could travel among the many worlds, that interpretation has no detectable consequences. If it always seems like probability, empirical work in science has to treat it as probability.

[Wilfred]

Eh, you can't falsify an interpretation, the copenhagen interpretation is not solipsistic and every theory of quantum gravity is bunk.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 10:33 am
Eh, you can't falsify an interpretation, the copenhagen interpretation is not solipsistic and every theory of quantum gravity is bunk.
Well I&#39;m glad that you provided absolutely no logical reason to believe so... <_<

Contrary to your wishes, you can falsify interpretations of quantum mechanics.

A number of them depend on certain parameters, like a quantum potential or the wave function of the universe is required to be linear, etc.

If it can be found that these parameters are contradicted empirically, the interpretation is falsified.

As for quantum gravity being bull, well empiricism disagrees with you. There are experiments that have demonstrated that gravity necessarily is quantum in nature; see Page. D. N. and Geilker, C. D. (1981) "Indirect evidence for quantum gravity". Phys. Rev. Lett., 47 979-82.

There are also theoretical justifications, e.g. Eppley, K. and Hannah, E. (177). "The Necessity of Quantizing the Gravitational Field." Found. Phys., 29, 454-62.

But I am glad to see that you haven&#39;t thought this through at all <_<

[Eleftherios]

Originally posted by Andy [email protected] 27, 2007 10:30 am
I heard Socialist Appeal did a book called "Reason in Revolt", basically arguing the principles of dialectics etc fitted in with modern physics.
It did, but it argued against the notion of parallel universes, among other ideas.

[Wilfred]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+October 21, 2007 08:41 pm--> (ComradeRed @ October 21, 2007 08:41 pm)
[email protected] 21, 2007 10:33 am
Eh, you can&#39;t falsify an interpretation, the copenhagen interpretation is not solipsistic and every theory of quantum gravity is bunk.
Well I&#39;m glad that you provided absolutely no logical reason to believe so... <_<

Contrary to your wishes, you can falsify interpretations of quantum mechanics.

A number of them depend on certain parameters, like a quantum potential or the wave function of the universe is required to be linear, etc.

If it can be found that these parameters are contradicted empirically, the interpretation is falsified.

As for quantum gravity being bull, well empiricism disagrees with you. There are experiments that have demonstrated that gravity necessarily is quantum in nature; see Page. D. N. and Geilker, C. D. (1981) "Indirect evidence for quantum gravity". Phys. Rev. Lett., 47 979-82.

There are also theoretical justifications, e.g. Eppley, K. and Hannah, E. (177). "The Necessity of Quantizing the Gravitational Field." Found. Phys., 29, 454-62.

But I am glad to see that you haven&#39;t thought this through at all <_< [/b]
There is a difference between having a theory of quantum gravity and knowing that we should have one. You&#39;re very good in reading stuff which isn&#39;t there...

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Wilfred+October 22, 2007 12:43 pm--> (Wilfred @ October 22, 2007 12:43 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 08:41 pm

[email protected] 21, 2007 10:33 am
Eh, you can&#39;t falsify an interpretation, the copenhagen interpretation is not solipsistic and every theory of quantum gravity is bunk. [...]
There is a difference between having a theory of quantum gravity and knowing that we should have one. You&#39;re very good in reading stuff which isn&#39;t there... [/b]
Emphasis is mine.

This is the point I was refuting, or did you miss that point entirely?

1) Gravity is necessarily quantum.
2) Quantum Newtonian gravity results in a nonlinear wave function of the universe, thus a nonlinear classical theory (general relativity) would result in a nonlinear quantum theory.
3) An interpretation of quantum mechanics depends on the wave function of the universe being linear.

"Thus", given that the linear approximation to classical general relativity results in a nonlinear wave function of the universe when quantized, we falsify the interpretation of quantum mechanics that depends on the wave function of the universe being linear.

How fucking pedantic to I need to be for you to understand this simple point? <_<

[Wilfred]

Originally posted by ComradeRed+October 22, 2007 09:26 pm--> (ComradeRed @ October 22, 2007 09:26 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 12:43 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 08:41 pm

[email protected] 21, 2007 10:33 am
Eh, you can&#39;t falsify an interpretation, the copenhagen interpretation is not solipsistic and every theory of quantum gravity is bunk. [...]
There is a difference between having a theory of quantum gravity and knowing that we should have one. You&#39;re very good in reading stuff which isn&#39;t there...
Emphasis is mine.

This is the point I was refuting, or did you miss that point entirely?

1) Gravity is necessarily quantum.
2) Quantum Newtonian gravity results in a nonlinear wave function of the universe, thus a nonlinear classical theory (general relativity) would result in a nonlinear quantum theory.
3) An interpretation of quantum mechanics depends on the wave function of the universe being linear.

"Thus", given that the linear approximation to classical general relativity results in a nonlinear wave function of the universe when quantized, we falsify the interpretation of quantum mechanics that depends on the wave function of the universe being linear.

How fucking pedantic to I need to be for you to understand this simple point? <_< [/b]
Actually make sense? Know what you are talking about? Hint, confusing the Kopenhagen interpretation with solipsism means you don&#39;t know what you are talking about.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 11:17 am
Actually make sense? Know what you are talking about? Hint, confusing the Kopenhagen interpretation with solipsism means you don&#39;t know what you are talking about.
Hint, I never said the "Kopenhagen" interpretation was solipsist. Perhaps you should actually read what I wrote? :rolleyes: