/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10524230
>implying that the law of conservation of energy is true

>>10524236
>science in 2020

>>10524230
hey look a ebin hat maymay poster who can’t into quantum, whoda thunkit?

think of it like this, at first you have a superposition that isn’t decohered. this is like a little strand of threads all tightly wrapped together in a tight bundle. in this state they can interfere with one another. now it decoheres; half the threads go left and half go right in two bundles. now they can’t interfere. did you create any new threads? no. no violation of conservation of anything

>>10524252
yeah but less "measurement" means less of those threads have to be wound together which means just measuring something necessitates a whole other universe existing which is convoluted and not even a violation but a direct disregard

you realize how much information a whole other universe is?

>>10524252
just think how crazy you sound

>literally everything i do needs a whole other universe with its own branch of branching universes just for reality to work

>>10524268
all the information was in the initial threads before they decohered, too

>>10524272
it’s just math bro

>>10524279
>all the information was in the initial threads before they discovered, too
>hurr durr hidden variables

let me guess you are an atheist that idolizes sam harris?

>>10524268
Universes aren't created, they're just non-interfering components of the global wavefunction. It's the same global wavefunction before and after a measurement, it's just undergone unitary time evolution. There's no more or less information.

Learn the theory before shitposting about it

>>10524282
nope, no hidden variables. lrn2qm

>>10524285
thanks, true patrician anon

>>10524285
i said necessitating not creating

>>10524285
>non-interfering components of the global wavefunction
you could also say that for a free energy machine

>>10524308
Referring to the non-interfering components as 'Universes' is convenient shorthand vocabulary, but calling them Universes leads people to think they're similar to the scifi conception of a multiverse, which isn't true at all. It leads to confusion such as
>many worlds interpretation disregards the conservation of energy (information)
and
>just measuring something necessitates a whole other universe existing
which, upon studying the theory, are plainly not true at all.

>>10524345
then explain it better smarty pants

feynman:
>feynman if you can explain it simply etc etc

>>10524345
and ill ask why do you think many worlds is less convoluted than simulation theory?

why isn't it suffecient to just say the universe is like a computer or something and it doesnt care what sometihng does until it interacts with something else and there is a probabilty associated with that event?

Many worlds is dumb and gay, so is pilot wave
just determinists trying to cope

>>10524393
it’s not about being convoluted or not. it’s about having well-motivated theories supported by evidence. MW is a straightforward way to picture what is going on in the equations of quantum mechanics. simulation theory is motivated by an old wachowski sisters movie

>>10524421
>just determinists trying to cope
exactly

>>10524436
yeah but it's a problem when people try to say many worlds implies determinism and even well respected physicists claim they are real worlds like Max Tegemark who says he feels kinship with his many selves

the matrix is a good movie but i didnt even mean it that way like it's a real computer but just thats how the rules of physics works and we don't have to think of it like "particles" or "stuff"

>>10524389
Say we have a photon which is polarized diagonally (along the top right-bottom left axis), halfway between horizontal and vertical. We shoot it at a detector which doesn't care about polarization. We can either describe the state of the photon as |RD> in the right diagonal-left diagonal basis, or as |V>+|H> in the vertical-horizontal basis. Both expressions describe the same quantum state, just using different basis vectors. Describe the detector state as |1> for a detection, and |0> for no detection.
After firing the photon at the detector, the combined state of the experiment is |1>×|RD> or equivalently, |1>x|V> + |1>x|H> = |1>x(|V>+|H>). The state of the environment (through the detector) doesn't depend on the vertical/horizontal component of the photon, so those components can interfere with each other. In the shitty Universe analogy, these possibilities are 'both in the same Universe', but this is just jargon for the mathematics.

Imagine that in front of the detector, we place a polarization filter that only lets through horizontally polarized photons. The |V>+|H> photon passes through the filter, and whether it reaches the detector or not now explicitly depends on the horizontal-vertical component. The combined state is now |1>x|H>+|0>x|V>. Notice that the state of the environment can't be factored out of the H-V state. The environment is entangled with the H-V polarization state of the photon.

>>10524508
Cont'd.

Note that nothing I've said so far depends on interpretation (except for the one sentence about the Universe analogy). This is all uncontested QM. Now comes the interpretational part:
In the Copenhagen interpretation, once this environmental entanglement happens, one side of the + sign suddenly disappears. The decision happens randomly, weighted by the multiplied probability amplitudes (which I didn't include for simplicity). The combined state is now either |1>x|H> or |0>x|V>, which is consistent with the detector either clicking or not clicking.

In many-worlds, neither side disappears. Instead, the combined state continues to evolve by the laws of quantum mechanics, and the two polarization possibilities can no longer interfere because the state of the environment significantly depends on those components. The observed result is the same (the detector either clicks or doesn't click, we don't see it half-click), but bits of the Universe's quantum state don't automagically disappear.

This is just a very basic barebones overview, you will still be left with many questions that can be answered fully only by studying quantum mechanics.

>>10524509
Cont'd.
I don't mean to support many worlds over Copenhagen, I'm simply explaining some of the fundamentals of QM and of the theory.

I do personally think the Universe is fundamentally stochastic, but even with the power of decoherence, there are suspicious characteristics of Copenhagen that need refining.

le hat maymay discord BTFOOOOooo

>>10524230
Please take the time to read this and educate yourself before spewing garbage again.

https://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/manyworlds/pdf/dissertation.pdf

>>10524230
(((information)))