MWI (Many Worlds)

Does a growing number of "similar" Worlds exist?
What do the visitors of the BJKlein Forum think about this Theory ?

Are you talking about other alien civilizations in the observable universe...that are at the same technological level as we are. Or, are you talking about parallel universes in the multiverse.

He's talking about the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics. So, yes, parallel Universes in the Multiverse.

I think the MWI is true; I think I posted my reasons and an explanation of what it is somewhere on bjklein.com (the free will thread, probably).

In one of Martin Gardners Articles i found this:

If all these countless billions of parallel universes are taken as no more than abstract mathematical entities-worlds that could have formed but didn't-then the only "real" world is the one we are in. In this interpretation of the MWI the theory becomes little more than a new and whimsical language for talking about QM. It has the same mathematical formalism, makes the same predictions. This is how Hawking and many others who favor the MWI interpret it. They prefer it because they believe it is a language that simplifies QM talk, and also sidesteps many of its paradoxes.

http://www.csicop.or...ge-watcher.html

Now I had a question, Mechanus :

Do you think David Deutsch is right with his realistic view of the MWI or do you think the "common" theorie is true?

I think Deutsch is correct.

What we know in the MWI is that there are lots of universes that mathematically exist.

Postulating that all these universes also have physical existence is simpler than postulating that, for some reason, only one of them exists physically, and the others don't (don't have that special stuff that blows life into the equations). It also makes more sense considering things like quantum computers. The other worlds interfere with ours, even after decoherence (though just a very tiny bit).

I would say that other universes are merely mathematical abstractions in the same way that other stars are merely mathematical abstractions that we need to account for the radiation we receive from space, and that America is merely a mathematical abstraction that Europeans need to account for (for example) people coming from across the sea, and where all these web sites come from.

Of course, America doesn't really exist (anyone who says otherwise has never heard of Occam's Razor). All we Europeans can say is that we have observed certain correlations between e.g. what messages we send there by phone lines, and what messages return. But "America" is a convenient way to talk about the Great Particle Stream from Overseas.

This sort of thinking would also bring indeterminism back into MWI - conditions at one time no longer determine which world will be the "real" world, the one that really exists. New information has to enter the Multiverse at every instant, from nowhere.

The article you linked is quite silly. It mentions the old "More than 1 universe is a violation of Occam" nonsense, as well as that MWI has made no testable predictions (not true, and if true, so what?). There are sensible arguments against MWI, but "Parallel universes? Har! Ridiculous!" isn't one of them.

http://hotwired.lyco...41/index0a.html

Brain tennis debate on this topic between Deutsch and Seth Lloyd

I am not really "happy" with the MWI ( ok my happynes is of no importance )
cause i think it is to simple to say everything happens.
(Also Iam not satisfied with Koppenhagen and Einsteins hidden variables)

Now, in the near future i hope, we will be able to do the experiments with Quantum Computers to prove theories like this.

Here is a great article from Scientific American that delves into the many theories of the universe, all of them are infinite theories like MWI (MWI is included in the discussion).

Great Article About Infinite Universe Theories

I would also recommend the above-linked SciAm article very much, as well as its more technical version posted earlier at http://xxx.lanl.gov/...stro-ph/0302131 . It's full of interesting ideas and examples.

It's nice to see the "all possible worlds" idea get more mainstream attention. Theories of what's going on in the universe seem to become stranger by the year -- it's the next best thing to future shock.

is the number of worlds in many worlds interpretation infinite cause surely in say the biggest universe it could allways be bigger and surely in the longest lasting 1 theirs allways 1 that lasts 1 planck time longer ? Have I misunderstood something if it is finite why?

  is the number of worlds in many worlds interpretation infinite...

Assuming that every quantum event branches a new universe, it's silly to speak of the "number" of universes. It's much more relevant to talk about the "proportion" of universes. 50% go this way, 50% that way. In a sum of six independent quantum events with two equally likely outcomes each, about 1.6% go each way. It's not about numbers, it's about percentages. Knowing "how many" would require analyzing the number of quantum events that could happen, and how many outcomes would be possible, for every instant in time. The "number" would exceed a googolplex in far less than a second, probably.

Assuming a finite period of time since the "beginning", there would technically be a finite number of universes, but "finite" is a relative term, if you have a googolplex to the googolplex power universes (a finite number).

On the other hand, if we allow infinite time, then we could have an infinite number of universes, even if there was only one split every billion years.

So the question of infinite universes isn't a relevant one, in my opinion. What matters is proportions.

I am of the opinion that on the quantum level there might be many worlds, however I have a feeling that on the macroscopic scale they tend to average out to just one. The interference patterns produced with one photon at a time both demonstrate that many worlds exist and that only one does.

If many worlds do exist macroscopically all this immortality research is pointless. We're all immortal anyway, and we all die every second.

The biggest thing I don't understand about MWI is why histories in which time travels locally in a diffrent direction to the arrows of time of the majority of the universe aren't included in MWI because if theirs a billion different worlds relative to a planck time now from who's frame of reference is the planck second from? because as far as I know from my frame of refernce theirs a small probility of histories in which my next planck second is actually before "this" planck time of the rest of the universe. Does anyone have an answer for this?

theres a theory Ive heard not obviously a part of quentum mechanics that notes
Cube B
Cube A
a different curved surface

comments