Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

January 18, 2018

ARTICLE: The Many Lives of Hugh Everett III [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Matt Leifer wrote on Apr. 11, 2009 @ 21:41 GMT
The pdf file is mangled. You cannot read it with any pdf viewer other than Adobe acrobat. For example, it doesn't work with Preview, which is the default pdf viewer in Mac OS X.

report post as inappropriate

John Merryman wrote on Apr. 17, 2009 @ 19:27 GMT
Same problem as Matt. Couldn't read the file on 'Out of the Dark,' either.

report post as inappropriate

Brian Beverly wrote on Apr. 18, 2009 @ 02:47 GMT
Do not fret matt and john because in another universe you were able to open the PDF file.

report post as inappropriate

Member Peter Byrne wrote on Apr. 21, 2009 @ 02:54 GMT
This is an exhilerating discussion.

report post as inappropriate

Brian Beverly wrote on Apr. 22, 2009 @ 02:20 GMT

I dislike the many worlds interpretation; however, I'm very interested in the measurement problem. If Everett were to convince me that he is right what would he say?

The article mentions that DeWitt "could not feel himself split". Everett retorted that, "critics of Copernicus also said they could not feel themselves moving through the heavens". There is evidence that supports Copernicus. What evidence supports Everett?

If Everett had been aware of quantum uncollapse how would such experiments be explained with his theory? Does this mean that parallel universes can be created and also destroyed?

I'm not sure I understand how Everett allowed physicists to think quantum mechanically, could you clarify that? Lastly, how much did Everett's work on MAD contribute to his depression?

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray wrote on Apr. 24, 2009 @ 11:49 GMT

In your October 2008 SciAm article, you capture what is often overlooked--the simple non-mystical motivation behind Everett's interpretation; i.e., quantum mechanics is compelled to be nonlocal. Otherwise, the theory is not just incomplete, it is incoherent. Which justifies Stephen Hawking's alleged comment that Many Worlds is "trivially true."

I suppose I agree with Christopher Fuchs in your FQXI article. Further, though, I think it is somewhat tragic that Everett was more against the Copenhagen interpretation than he was for the generalization of QM. This point also comes out in your SciAm article, in exploring the communication between Wheeler and Everett. Great story. I wish you success with the book.


report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on May. 1, 2009 @ 17:47 GMT
Brian, The Copernicus example is interesting because, as Feyerabend points out in Against Method, his helio-centric theory (which was later shown to be correct) was inconsistent with the "facts" available at the time. Everett, like Bohm, was in a pickle since the "proof" of his theory, he said, is that reality will appear exactly as it does; so believing it is "a matter of taste." Everett tried to explain why we perceive "our" sinlge branch as classical even though it "exists" in a giant superposition of all physically possible universes. Everett's universa wave function allowed physics to think about the universe (or multiverse) as NOT dependent upon an external observer, i.e. quantum mechanically.

report post as inappropriate

Peter Byrne wrote on May. 1, 2009 @ 17:48 GMT
oops, the post above is by me, Byrne.

report post as inappropriate

Brian Beverly wrote on May. 15, 2009 @ 23:37 GMT

Thank you for the reply.

I dislike the MWI, but in a way I suppose it is progress. I do respect Everett for taking on Bohr and his interpretation of quantum physics. If you make the Devil's Pitchfork available for the Kindle then I will definitely buy a copy.

report post as inappropriate

paul valletta wrote on Jul. 8, 2009 @ 08:39 GMT
Could it be that just like a cat is assumed to have "9 LIVES", and shroedinger placed a many-life entity into a duality situation with parallel paths, leading to half-life half-dead scenario, then it would be only a natural outcome for someone to evolve a many-world theory?

The shroedinger cat scenario is reponsable for many-world/half-life/half-dead and parralel transportation/entanglement intepretations.

Very thought provoking and really interesting if one replaces a cat with a knowing and intelligent human entity, for he she may choose the path that is:walk over to the hammer and remove the danger that will arise if left to half-life decay!

report post as inappropriate

a scientific believer wrote on Aug. 24, 2009 @ 21:36 GMT
Does the Everett Many-World-Theory imply that there are many Jesuses, and that in some worlds, he is the Son of God, and in others he is the son of satan. What does the Everett MWI have to do with the Bible, or even spirituality, and why is the Templeton Foundation funding research in such junk?

report post as inappropriate

peter byrne replied on May. 15, 2010 @ 00:28 GMT

report post as inappropriate

Address007 wrote on Nov. 11, 2009 @ 09:01 GMT
Hello everybody to know about me plz visit this site

Thank you


take care

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Apr. 10, 2010 @ 18:41 GMT
"Many Worlds" hypothesis -> Infinity might be bigger than we thought.

report post as inappropriate

David wrote on Jun. 21, 2010 @ 07:58 GMT
Byrne, you actually believe MWI?

report post as inappropriate

CyberBeach wrote on Aug. 19, 2010 @ 05:45 GMT
David, if you don't accept the MWI, then I guess you believe Peter Byrne simultaneously both believed MWI and didn't believe MWI until you asked and he answered, at which point the wave function collapsed and he only disbelieved.

Whereas I think that in another universe, Peter Byrne does believe in the MWI, and that you have only discovered that you are in the branch where he doesn't.

As have I... :)

report post as inappropriate

Manfred wrote on Jan. 19, 2012 @ 04:57 GMT
Thus, the problem of parallel universe for you, too, is of interest, I decided to write to you and ask to read twenty-first chapter, "Revelation," where, I think, St. John gives a symbolic description ofa parallel universe. My article "hereafter OR DIVINE UNIVERSEUNIVERSE" in Russian and English is available at / MB.html, where I tried to decipher the 21 chapters of "Revelation."For...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.