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

February 22, 2018

ARTICLE: Deconstructing Everett's Crazy Idea [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

paul valletta wrote on Jul. 4, 2007 @ 01:44 GMT
The subject being of great interest, if only to confuse one as to intepretation direction?..but I must admit to being curious as to how a (known) quantum process, is certain to have more than one outcome? "therefore no ironclad position can be given to a particle".

Ok lets see if I can untangle my confusion, a wavefunction is used, actually its the process that describes various outcomes of various events, when a measure occurs, the wavefunction collapses? Surely at the collapse junction, the particle in question should automatically dissapear, a collapse really does equal a dissapearence?

So "knowns" become "unknowns", if they (particles) keep branching into hidden area's, then there would be so many junctions where the number of collapses, far exceed the available space's. If knowns are measurments, and unknowns are post measures, then looking up at the moon for a short period should remove a large number of particles near it's vicinity, thus, there must be an infinity number of moons copied to "other" locations?

Every single observation instigated by every single observer, at every single instant, or specifically measurer, in every single multiverse, and all of their particle interactions, (a particle colliding with another particle is surely an act of measure, you do not need eyes to interact?) at local vicinities, would cause the appearence of many moons?..I look up and see only one.

The 100^500 vacuum states would seem miniscule?, in contrast to the number of branching junctions needed to accomodate every single observation, at every possible location, in every many worlds?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

paul valletta wrote on Jul. 4, 2007 @ 01:51 GMT
What happens to a branched of particle, if it enters another world , and is greated by a stadium full of observers?

Is the Everett intepretation to be taken literely in all other woeld?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Reason McLucus wrote on Jul. 15, 2007 @ 07:27 GMT
The problem with the theory is the need to create complete new universes just because of one quantum event. How about combing this theory with entanglement? Instead of separate universes with their own earths, a single universe could have multiple earths that are initially all entanbled. The earths might not need to be in different galaxies. Different outsomes for events would not produce new universes, but cause disentanglement of particles on separate earths. Gradually the different earths would develop differences -- although disentanbled particles might become entangled again.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

paul valletta wrote on Jul. 20, 2007 @ 07:59 GMT
Reason, if one has a two-particle entangled system, this is nothing more than an extended one-particle system, simplistically the one-particle has been chopped into two bits, the two bits are label thus "entangled".

Problems then arise the farther,(distance) away from original source the entangled system, the entangled pair of particles must be in an extremely pure environment, any "noise", obsticles in its path will reduce the entanglement, back to its source.

Now I do not know for sure, but if one has an entangled system, sent to say, from one end of the Universe to the other, then what you are actually producing by experiment, is a Universe compaction?

You cannot send or "branch" particles along a Macro scale (universe) negating the fact that there are other particles present, literally if one has an entangled two-particle system deemed to be sent from one end of the universe to the other without any other particle noise, then you have a Universe that is no bigger than the two un-original particles, plus the source "original" particle?

You have thus created a micro Universe with one original particle and two entangled "virtual" particles. Based on this process, the intepretation of what constitutes a "Universe" and what constitutes "entangled-particles".

A two-particle system has one branch junction, and it leads only back to the original source, this is a very small universe indeed!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

paul valletta wrote on Feb. 12, 2008 @ 02:41 GMT
This new paper by Huw Price

Bookmark and Share
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.