/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.8443656]

Is Many-Worlds really the best way to understand what's going on in quantum mechanics? Taking the formalism literally seems a whole lot more conceptually palatable and far less spooky than things like action-at-a-distance, hyperplane dependency, retrocausality, macroscopic superpositions, etc etc. Why does the idea scare so many people when the alternatives are far worse?

[Anonymous No.8443659]

because physicists like to feel like they're unique special snowflakes

[Anonymous No.8443672]

>>8443656
>physics
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.8443685]

>>8443656

>Why does the idea scare so many people

Scare in what sense?

Might be reading you wrong here, but it looks like you are assuming that if someone doesn't hold many-worlds to be true, it must be because the idea "scares" him or her ("scares" as used by you might merely refer to something the person finds uncomfortable to consider).

But might it not also be possible that someone is perfectly comfortable considering the full implications of many-worlds, and simply finds the notion unconvincing? It is both unprovable and unfalsifiable, which, to me, makes it very difficult to care about. Might not other people have similar opinions?

[Anonymous No.8443686]

>>8443656
consistent histories is a better theory all around, and some deeper QFT fields seem to . . . "enrich" what the statistical interpretation really says about the universe.

Most physicists only pick up on the many worlds hypothesis because they read too much sci-fi as kids, and the math is as palatable as anything string theory is doing.

[Anonymous No.8443713]

>>8443686
>and the math is as palatable as anything string theory is doing.

I think you underestimate the math involved in String Theory.

[Anonymous No.8443736]

There is only one world.
There are many stories.

[Anonymous No.8443746]

>>8443656
Who cares? This is a question for philosophers, not scientists.

A quantum state is an element of a Hilbert space. It changes over time via unitary evolution derived from the system's Hamiltonian. When you measure it, a projection operator is applied which can only be predicted probabilistically. Why do I need to even think about the ideas of the Copenhagen interpretation or a MWT?

[Anonymous No.8443836]

>>8443713
not a statement of difficulty anon, more a statement of social acceptance.

I realize many worlds hasn't produced many precise formulations, certainly not as many as decoherence has led to, but my general statement is that it can be swallowed despite lack of testable evidence.

given that many worlds was tacitly assumed as part of the philosophical basis for string theory during it's development would serve to confirm this for me at least.

[Anonymous No.8443874]

>>8443656
>worries why electron goes left or right
>doesn't worry when universes pop up left and right

if this isn't religion, nothing is

[Anonymous No.8443914]

>>8443746
>not being a true seeker of knowledge
>1781+235