- Aug 31, 2013--- In Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com, Gary Oberbrunner <garyo@...> wrote:
>

Gary - I know MWI People are adamant that whatever belongs to QM belongs to them also. But I don't personally agree with that. Theories earn their rigour, and QM earned it, while MWI never has.

> On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 12:10 AM, hibbsa <hibbsa@...> wrote:

>

> > **

> >

> > Gary - MWI is not defined with a set of equations that I know of...do you

> > have a link?

> >

>

> Sorry, you asked for a link. Here's a nice bit from the Wikipedia article

> on the Schroedinger Wave Equation:

>

> The Schrödinger equation provides a way to calculate the possible wave

> functions of a system and how they dynamically change in time. However, the

> Schrödinger equation does not directly say *what*, exactly, the wave

> function is. Interpretations of quantum

> mechanics<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics>

> address

> questions such as what the relation is between the wave function, the

> underlying reality, and the results of experimental measurements.

> An important aspect is the relationship between the Schrödinger equation and

> wavefunction collapse <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wavefunction_collapse>.

> In the oldest Copenhagen

> interpretation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation>,

> particles follow the Schrödinger equation *except* during wavefunction

> collapse, during which they behave entirely differently. The advent of quantum

> decoherence theory <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence> allowed

> alternative approaches (such as theEverett many-worlds

> interpretation<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everett_many-worlds_interpretation>

> and consistent histories<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_histories>),

> wherein the Schrödinger equation is *always* satisfied, and wavefunction

> collapse should be explained as a consequence of the Schrödinger equation.

>

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation

>

> I also liked this quote from the same article:

>

> "Where did we get that (equation) from? Nowhere. It is not possible to

> derive it from anything you know. It came out of the mind of Schrödinger."

>

> Richard Feynman[25]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation#cite_note-25>

>

> --

> Gary

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

The SWE doesn't require the MWI, and the addition of MWI adds no new value to the equation. The equation doesn't do something that it didn't do before.

Certainly MWI can define itself as SWE, just as an object flying around Venus might reasonably define itself in terms of Newton's gravitational equations.

But QM came out of a hard scientific progression. MWI is one of the interpretations. QM is a set of equations. It's probably the most highly respected work in science of all time. MWI isn't even on the same planet as tht sort of accomplishment.

I honestly find it appalling how MWI people try to beef MWI by telling folk its mathematical and so on. It's really misleureading. Young people are going to be left with and enduring impression of MWI thst isn't true. MWI needs to earn its stripes. If you want MWI to be a set of equations, work for it. Earn it :o) - << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>