Does gravity slap us into reality?

[Carrikature]

Jim again this does not make sense. Are all the realities just like ours? If not, why can't the wave actually collapse in one reality and not in another?

Maybe an example will help. If you roll a six-sided die, you have a possible outcome of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Each possible outcome has a probability of 1/6. The 'wave' is simply a combination of these probabilities. Before we roll the die, each of one of these outcomes is possible in accordance with its probability. After we roll the die, we see a 'particle', a single outcome. The many worlds interpretation basically says that all six outcomes take place, but that those outcomes which we don't observe happened in an alternate universe. If you rolled a 6, for example, there were would be an alternate universe where the outcome was 5, another where the outcome was 4, etc. The presence of an observer, then, does not cause a specific outcome. Rather, it allows us to know which universe we're in.

How about this for an interpretation of the quantum world - we really have little or no idea what is going on...

This does not count as an interpretation in any sense of the word.

[seer]

Maybe an example will help. If you roll a six-sided die, you have a possible outcome of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Each possible outcome has a probability of 1/6. The 'wave' is simply a combination of these probabilities. Before we roll the die, each of one of these outcomes is possible in accordance with its probability. After we roll the die, we see a 'particle', a single outcome. The many worlds interpretation basically says that all six outcomes take place, but that those outcomes which we don't observe happened in an alternate universe. If you rolled a 6, for example, there were would be an alternate universe where the outcome was 5, another where the outcome was 4, etc. The presence of an observer, then, does not cause a specific outcome. Rather, it allows us to know which universe we're in.

OK, but how does that explain why we actually go from a wave pattern to a particle pattern in our universe? Jim is claiming that there is no actual wave collapse in our universe.

This does not count as an interpretation in any sense of the word.

It was tongue in cheek.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

How about this for an interpretation of the quantum world - we really have little or no idea what is going on...

Actually, we have a very good idea of what's going on-- one which has proven to be extremely accurate, over the past 80 years. What we have difficulty doing is translating that mathematical concept into language which can be understood by our everyday experience.

[Carrikature]

OK, but how does that explain why we actually go from a wave pattern to a particle pattern in our universe? Jim is claiming that there is no actual wave collapse in our universe.

We go from an unknown state (wave) to a known state (particle) once the outcome has been observed. In my example, a wave collapse points to a single outcome. The many worlds interpretation says that all possible outcomes were realized, but that the unobserved outcomes were realized in alternate universes. In other words, there would be six outcomes of a die roll, not one. The other five that we don't observe happen somewhere else.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

We go from an unknown state (wave) to a known state (particle) once the outcome has been observed. In my example, a wave collapse points to a single outcome. The many worlds interpretation says that all possible outcomes were realized, but that the unobserved outcomes were realized in alternate universes. In other words, there would be six outcomes of a die roll, not one. The other five that we don't observe happen somewhere else.

The weird part about QM, though-- and the part that Seer seems to be wondering about-- is that (using your dice example) the other five outcomes seem to affect the behavior of the die roll when we don't observe it, and do not affect the behavior of that die roll when we do observe it.

[Carrikature]

The weird part about QM, though-- and the part that Seer seems to be wondering about-- is that (using your dice example) the other five outcomes seem to affect the behavior of the die roll when we don't observe it, and do not affect the behavior of that die roll when we do observe it.

At the risk of straining the analogy, I'm not sure why we think the other outcomes don't affect the behavior. A six-sided die roll will only give a single outcome, but the other five outcomes still have a physical effect if for no other reason than changing how the die actually rolls. A six-sided die and a ten-sided die roll differently, after all. My admittedly limited understanding isn't that we think the other outcomes have no effect, but that we're not unsure of the true interactions to know how they're affected. I understand that the presence of the observer is the only thing we've been able to narrow it down to, but I wasn't under the impression scientists are convinced that's the only option. While I'm given to understand that local hidden variables have been ruled out, I'm not aware that non-local hidden variables have been.

[seer]

We go from an unknown state (wave) to a known state (particle) once the outcome has been observed. In my example, a wave collapse points to a single outcome. The many worlds interpretation says that all possible outcomes were realized, but that the unobserved outcomes were realized in alternate universes. In other words, there would be six outcomes of a die roll, not one. The other five that we don't observe happen somewhere else.

I'm not sure what your point is. Granted that there are other outcomes in other universes but Jim was saying that the wave never actually collapses in our universe. Do you agree or disagree?

[Truthseeker]

Are we not assuming that the outcome of rolling a fair dice is random, not determinate?

[JimL]

I'm not sure what your point is. Granted that there are other outcomes in other universes but Jim was saying that the wave never actually collapses in our universe. Do you agree or disagree?

If we recognise the fact that there are many differing possibilities within the wave even though we don't know the nature of those possibilities, can't actually observe them, and then we observe only one of those many possibilities come to pass, then it is going to seem as though the other possiblities vanished (the illusion of collapse) leaving only the one we observe. In Carrikatures dice roll example for instance, even if the dice roll we observe is a 3, that doesn't mean that the other 5 options vanished, that the 6 possibilities collapsed leaving only 1 reality. They all, each reality, the 1,2,4,5, and 6, still exist on differing sides of the cube. There was no collapse, each possibility exists, each side of the die corrosponding to a different reality. Thats the difference between the 2 main theories, that all the realities defined by the wave exist (many worlds) and continue to evole in a deterministic way while we observe only the one that corrosponds to our world, or that all of the other possibilities vanish (Copenhagen) due to our observance of one of them.

[Leonhard]

The Copenhagen interpretation and the Multiverse interpretation can both suck it. I prefer the Thomistic one.

[JimL]

The Copenhagen interpretation and the Multiverse interpretation can both suck it. I prefer the Thomistic one.

Obviously they are all interpretations, the truth of the matter isn't known, so could you sum up how the Thomistic philosophy would explain whats going on in the double slit experiment?

[seer]

If we recognise the fact that there are many differing possibilities within the wave even though we don't know the nature of those possibilities, can't actually observe them, and then we observe only one of those many possibilities come to pass, then it is going to seem as though the other possiblities vanished (the illusion of collapse) leaving only the one we observe. In Carrikatures dice roll example for instance, even if the dice roll we observe is a 3, that doesn't mean that the other 5 options vanished, that the 6 possibilities collapsed leaving only 1 reality. They all, each reality, the 1,2,4,5, and 6, still exist on differing sides of the cube. There was no collapse, each possibility exists, each side of the die corrosponding to a different reality. Thats the difference between the 2 main theories, that all the realities defined by the wave exist (many worlds) and continue to evole in a deterministic way while we observe only the one that corrosponds to our world, or that all of the other possibilities vanish (Copenhagen) due to our observance of one of them.

No Jim, even in Carrikature's example the wave does actually collapse in our universe, regardless of what happens in the other universes. In our reality (the only one we know about BTW) we get a collapse - why else would we get a particle pattern?

[JimL]

No Jim, even in Carrikature's example the wave does actually collapse in our universe, regardless of what happens in the other universes. In our reality (the only one we know about BTW) we get a collapse - why else would we get a particle pattern?

We see the tell tale signs of a wave, not the wave itself, but a wave "pattern" because the particle is associated with a wave, a wave that encompasses each and every reality, not because it collapses to a non wave. We see a wave pattern, we don't see a wave collapse.

[seer]

We see the tell tale signs of a wave, not the wave itself, but a wave "pattern" because the particle is associated with a wave, a wave that encompasses each and every reality, not because it collapses to a non wave. We see a wave pattern, we don't see a wave collapse.

What? A particle is not a wave - they produce different results. Observable results. Nothing you are suggesting tells us why we actually see a particle pattern, why the wave pattern is no longer observable.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

No Jim, even in Carrikature's example the wave does actually collapse in our universe, regardless of what happens in the other universes. In our reality (the only one we know about BTW) we get a collapse - why else would we get a particle pattern?

I don't think you're quite understanding the position of Many-Worlds.

Think of a wave of water. That wave is not just a single entity spread out over an area, but it is composed of a multitude of water molecules which each occupy a discrete location. No single water molecule ever behaves like a wave, but the large collection of water molecules does behave like a wave.

Similarly, on Many-Worlds, no single photon ever behaves like a wave. It is the collection of all photons from every possible world which behaves like a wave. The strange part is that measurement or observation of that photon seems to cut it off from interaction with the rest of the collection.