Many worlds hypothesis disproven

[zep73]

I read this article about the observation of an exotic quantum phenomenon, also posted here on this site, but I failed to understand what it practically meant. So I asked around in a physicist community. At first no one understood it either, but luckily there was one guy able to explain it. He wrote this:

Quote

Hrrm how to simplify this. Ok let's give this a shot.

In classical physics you have the E and B fields for electromagnetism however in QM those fields are replaced by the probability potentials ϕ and A now in regions where the E and B fields are zero you can still have potential via the wavefunction that the ϕ and A are non zero 

This tells us that the QM and QFT subsequently treatments is more fundamental than the classical treatment in that it is more complete in the information of the EM field. In essence the paper helps confirm that the probability wave functions do have a physical and measurable effect through their potentials.

For example it's also a key aspect to how a particle wave packet can go through two slits at once.

So I thought: Hmm... magnetic fields in quantum waves! That does not fit well with parallel universes, does it? So I asked:

Quote

So if the wave state is applicable in our reality/world/universe or whatever, does that not mean it weakens the many worlds hypothesis?

He replied:

Quote

Well it will definitely be something that will be difficult for the MWI interpretation to deal with. MWI doesn't deal well with probability density functions. 

 For one thing then Aharonov Bohm effect was in strong contention as to whether Aμ was strictly a mathematical object without any physical effect.

This paper shows otherwise.

So, ladies and gentlemen, the conclusion: The MWI is as good as disproven. Unless someone can come up with a really good - non hand waving - argument.

There are no parallel universes! There are no alternative realities. The are no other you's out there. This version of the universe is all there is.

[Duke Wellington]

4 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

I read this article about the observation of an exotic quantum phenomenon, also posted here on this site, but I failed to understand what it practically meant. So I asked around in a physicist community. At first no one understood it either, but luckily there was one guy able to explain it. He wrote this:

So I thought: Hmm... magnetic fields in quantum waves! That does not fit well with parallel universes, does it? So I asked:

He replied:

So, ladies and gentlemen, the conclusion: The MWI is as good as disproven. Unless someone can come up with a really good - non hand waving - argument.

There are no parallel universes! There are no alternative realities. The are no other you's out there. This version of the universe is all there is.

It doesnt invalidate or reinforce it.

What the research is saying is that physicists created an experiment which broke time symmetry. In essence, if you were to run time backwards from the end of the experiment to the start then you wouldnt arrive back at the same start conditions.

This is because in the middle of the experiment there was a wavefunction (thats a probability wave containing all possibilities). When time is run backwards to that point it cannot be run backwards any further. This is because there is no specific scenario to run backwards too, but rather all possible pasts. So in essence its impossible in practical terms to get back to the original starting conditions of the experiment.

Bonkers, but the research you are linking too isn't the first instance of breaking time symmetry.

If you are a follower of parallel universes then it means there are parallel histories. If you dont like that theory then you can all pasts existing in the multi-verse, or you can have extra dimensions existing, the choice is a matter of preference.

The reason why there are so many quantum theories is that they are all compatible with each other and the existing physicists. So its irrelevant which one you pick. Also, something better might come along.

[zep73]

9 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

It doesnt invalidate or reinforce it.

It cripples it. The MWI is based on one simple principle: If observation makes particles form, then where are they when we don't look?

That's it. That's all the basis for parallel universes. This proves they never leave or are elsewhere. They are just in an applicable wave state.

Edited September 18, 2019 by sci-nerd

[Duke Wellington]

12 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

I cripples it. The MWI is based on one simple principle: If observation makes particles form, then where are they when we don't look?

That's it. That's all the basis for parallel universes. This proves they never leave or are elsewhere. They are just in an applicable wave state.

There is the wave part of the atom, and when it interacts with a measuring device it takes on the properties of a particle.

Mass, location, speed, direction of travel, are particle properties and only come into existence as a result of measurement. The wave is the probability field from which the particle properties come into existence from. It also has some wave properties unique to it.

That is all that is known about what a wavefunction is and how the particle (the collection of particle properties) comes into existence from it as a result of measurement.

With `MWI` the scientists are arguing that all possibilities physically exist as particles unified together in the wavefunction. Again the experiment only proves time symmetry can be broken. It actually says nothing about the validity of `MWI`. Its actually impossible at this point in history to rule out MWI or any of the quantum theory alternatives that are currently taught. Thats why they are all taught.

They are saying because the wavefunction contains all possibilities you cannot go back before it to the original starting conditions. Not that any outcomes in the wavefunction (as in MWI outcomes) dont exist. Hence, information about the past before the wavefunction is lost.

Edited September 18, 2019 by RabidMongoose

[zep73]

2 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

It actually says nothing about the validity of `MWI`.

I know, that's why I made this OP. To tell you about it.

This OP is about the consequence of magnetic fields in the wave state. A consequence that the original authors haven't realized yet, it seems.

Remember, I got it validated by a physicist. Are you a physicist?

[Duke Wellington]

2 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

I know, that's why I made this OP. To tell you about it.

This OP is about the consequence of magnetic fields in the wave state. A consequence that the original authors haven't realized yet, it seems.

Remember, I got it validated by a physicist. Are you a physicist?

Thats not what he told you.

He told you that making MWI work becomes more difficult because of it, not broken. 

Edited September 18, 2019 by RabidMongoose

[zep73]

1 minute ago, RabidMongoose said:

Thats not what he told you.

He told you that making MWI work becomes more difficult because of it, not broken. 

That is hand waving.

A hypothesis that is already weak has now become even weaker. That is broken in my book,

[Duke Wellington]

1 minute ago, sci-nerd said:

That is hand waving.

A hypothesis that is already weak has now become even weaker. That is broken in my book,

Its not broken, its main stream physics.

There are 5 theories all accepted, all taught, and none of them can currently be falsified. Even worse, they might all just be different ways of saying the same thing.

Edited September 18, 2019 by RabidMongoose

[zep73]

@danydandan what is you input on this?

[zep73]

1 minute ago, RabidMongoose said:

Its not broken, its main stream physics.

No it isn't. It has always been fringe. Now it's bad fringe.

You need a new definition to revive it. A new hypothesis. Good luck!

[Duke Wellington]

9 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

No it isn't. It has always been fringe. Now it's bad fringe.

You need a new definition to revive it. A new hypothesis. Good luck!

The many worlds interpretation is not a fringe theory.

[zep73]

3 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

The many worlds interpretation is not a fringe theory.

No, it's an almost - if not fully - disproven hypothesis.

Theories have multiple strong evidences to support them. The MWI had only duality. Now it barely has that.

[Duke Wellington]

Just now, sci-nerd said:

No, it's an almost - if not fully - disproven hypothesis.

Theories have multiple strong evidences to support them. The MWI had only duality. Now it barely has that.

You are wrong.

And trying to distort to support what you want to believe. Your personal dislike of MWI needs to be kept separate so you can be objective about the state of the science.

 

[danydandan]

26 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

@danydandan what is you input on this?

I agree, the MWI is a great way to explain probabilities in 'real' terms so people can understand in my opinion. But it's purely mathematical in nature. 

If you want to simplify it, it's like you trying to decide what's for dinner. You have Curry, Steak and Soup in the fridge. In your mind you have eight possible outcomes. No dinner, one of each option, two of each option and then all three. During this decision process you don't magically discombobulate into do eight realities. At the end of the day if I pick Curry. There isn't seven other me's eating all the other options. In different universe's. 

Like I said it's simply a mathematical way of explaining the interpretation. 

In my opinion.

Edited September 18, 2019 by danydandan

[zep73]

7 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

You are wrong.

And trying to distort to support what you want to believe. Your personal dislike of MWI needs to be kept separate so you can be objective about the state of the science.

You are wrong about my motive.

I am excited about the evidence. I am excited about removing an option from the table. I am excited about getting closer to the truth about our universe.

I am not excited about a failed hypothesis.

Edited September 18, 2019 by sci-nerd

[Duke Wellington]

6 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

You are wrong about my motive.

I am excited about the evidence. I am excited about removing an option from the table. I am excited about getting closer to the truth about our universe.

I am not excited about a failed hypothesis.

What I read (and I went to the article) is just a demonstration that time symmetry can be broken. I dont see any invalidation of MWI in it. I am not a physicist but I do have an engineering degree and we use various aspects of QM in it.

I can certainly follow what the article is about and saying.

Edited September 18, 2019 by RabidMongoose

[Duke Wellington]

8 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I agree, the MWI is a great way to explain probabilities in 'real' terms so people can understand in my opinion. But it's purely mathematical in nature. 

If you want to simplify it, it's like you trying to decide what's for dinner. You have Curry, Steak and Soup in the fridge. In your mind you have eight possible outcomes. No dinner, one of each option, two of each option and then all three. During this decision process you don't magically discombobulate into do eight realities. At the end of the day if I pick Curry. There isn't seven other me's eating all the other options. In different universe's. 

Like I said it's simply a mathematical way of explaining the interpretation. 

In my opinion.

In your opinion.

But so we dont mislead sci-fi please point out there are a range of opinions that physicists have as to what is happening. Some take the stance that each reality is in a state of co-existence with each other before wavefunction collapse. Some believe in extra dimensions, some in wave packets, some in the multiverse, etc.

And at the present moment in history none can be falsified or proven to be the correct theory.

[zep73]

4 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

What I read (and I went to the article) is just a demonstration that time symmetry can be broken. I dont see any invalidation of MWI in it. I am not a physicists but I do have an engineering degree and we use various aspects of QM in it.

I know. The disproving of the MWI is a biproduct. And I am a bit proud to have found it 

Edited September 18, 2019 by sci-nerd

[danydandan]

9 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

In your opinion.

But so we dont mislead sci-fi please point out there are a range of opinions that physicists have as to what is happening. Some take the stance that each reality is in a state of co-existence with each other before wavefunction collapse. Some believe in extra dimensions, some in wave packets, some in the multiverse, etc.

And at the present moment in history none can be falsified or proven to be the correct theory.

I feel the interpretation is completely arbitrary and unfalsifiable, like many others.

It will probably be proven or disproven when quantum gravity is sorted out. But I think ( I know might be a better statement) it's incompatible with the conservation of energy and special relativity's locality principle.

@sci-nerd interesting topic, thanks for highlighting it for me. 

Edited September 18, 2019 by danydandan

[Duke Wellington]

8 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I feel the interpretation is completely arbitrary and unfalsifiable, like many others.

It will probably be proven or disproven when quantum gravity is sorted out. But I think ( I know might be a better statement) it's incompatible with the conservation of energy and special relativity's locality principle.

@sci-nerd interesting topic, thanks for highlighting it for me. 

With the conversation of energy it depends if we see the universe that we experience as a closed system.

If something much larger than that exists such as the multiverse then we have to accept that energy can leak from and enter into the more limited universe we like to believe exists. But in the larger multiverse, no overall energy has been lost or gained so there has been no violation.

I have a problem with locality and I seem to remember you having done electrical engineering. So how to you reconcile mesh theory and Bells Inequality if non-locality isn't real? You no doubt were taught to use them when calculating properties of circuits as I was and it works.

Edited September 18, 2019 by RabidMongoose

[zep73]

7 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

With the conversation of energy it depends if we see the universe that we experience as a closed system.

If something much larger than that exists such as the multiverse then we have to accept that energy can leak from and enter into the more limited universe we like to believe exists. But in the larger multiverse, no overall energy has been lost or gained so there has been no violation.

I think you are confusing the MWI of quantum mechanics with the multiverse of M-theory. They are not the same.

In M-theory the universes are neighbors, like balloons in an endless void . Not parallel.

Edited September 18, 2019 by sci-nerd

[danydandan]

12 minutes ago, RabidMongoose said:

With the conversation of energy it depends if we see the universe that we experience as a closed system.

If something much larger than that exists such as the multiverse then we have to accept that energy can leak from and enter into the more limited universe we like to believe exists. But in the larger multiverse, no overall energy has been lost or gained so there has been no violation.

I have a problem with locality and I seem to remember you having done electrical engineering. So how to you reconcile mesh theory and Bells Inequality if non-locality isn't real? You no doubt were taught to use them when calculating properties of circuits as I was and it works.

All the universes, if there's any others, can be considered a closed system. In total.

Mesh theory, you mean Kirchhoff equations? Not sure how that relates to Bells inequality. But Bells inequality could simply be a result of error.

[danydandan]

19 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

I think you are confusing the MWI of quantum mechanics with the multiverse of M-theory. They are not the same.

In M-theory the universes are neighbors, like balloons in an endless void . Not parallel.

I think you may have hit the nail on the head.

[danydandan]

@sci-nerd thought you might enjoy this;