• Before posting an article from a specific source, check this list here to see how much the Orange Room trust it. You can also vote/change your vote based on the source track record.

Are you a Boltzmann Brain?

Orangina

Legendary Member
i am going to jump in on this discussion to share this vid about branching wave functions and parallel worlds due to entaglement, i think the idea behind it is quite linked to the boltzmann brain idea

very interesting...

but is there any solid evidence about this theory?

is the many worlds interpretation considered true science or is it closer to metaphysics or science fiction?
 

Curiosum

New Member
very interesting...

but is there any solid evidence about this theory?

is the many worlds interpretation considered true science or is it closer to metaphysics or science fiction?

It's bunkum, at least as popularly portrayed on the web and particularly in that video in your quote. I advise you avoid popularized accounts of science whenever you can, unless you are honest and willing enough to scrutinize them as one should (e.g. with no axe to grind). Here below i'll relay to you two of the faulty premises upon which the author builds and sells his feel-good-but-faulty narrative.

The author claims that the same particle is in two (opposing) states simultaneously, and that this 'therefore yields a contradictory account and is thus problematic'. But in reality "in two places, simultaneously" does not necessarily mean "in two (opposing) states, simultaneously". He apparently equated the two because otherwise in itself "A particle is/can be in two places, simultaneously" is not contradictory and wouldn't therefore be useful for his narrative. A contradiction would be in asserting the statement "A particle is/can be in two places, simultaneously", and its opposite or its negation as being true, or when an assertion or statement leads to its opposite, something "A particle is/can be in two places, simultaneously", or quantum mechanics for that matter, does not do. And with regards to Schrödinger's cat, the author likewise forgoes the distinction between 'there is an equal chance that it is currently alive as that it is currently dead' and 'it is currently in a state that is equally alive as dead' ...
 

Orangina

Legendary Member
I have read somewhere what Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett explained that the presence of many worlds in not a kind of illusion

they state very clearly:

Our world is filled with things that are neither mysterious and ghostly nor simply constructed out of the building blocks of physics. Do you believe in voices? How about haircuts? Are there such things? What are they? What, in the language of the physiicist, is a hole - not an exotic black hole, but just a hole in a piece of cheese, for instance? Is it a physical thing? What is a symphony? Where in space and time does “The Star-Spangled Banner” exist? Is it nothing but some ink trails in the Library of Congress? Destroy that paper and the anthem would still exist. Latin still exists but it is no longer a living language. The language of the cavepeople of France no longer exists at all. The game of bridge is less than a hundred years old. What sort of a thing is it? It is not animal, vegetable, or mineral. These things are not physical objects with mass, or a chemical composition, but they are not purely abstract objects either - objects like the number pi, which is immutable and cannot be located in space and time. These things have birthplaces and histories. They can change, and things can happen to them. They can move about - much the way a species, a disease, or an epidemic can. We must not suppose that science teaches us that every thing anyone would want to take seriously is identifiable as a collection of particles moving about in space and time. Hofstadter and Dennett (1981, pp. 6–7)
 

Myso

Active Member
Orange Room Supporter
It's bunkum, at least as popularly portrayed on the web and particularly in that video in your quote. I advise you avoid popularized accounts of science whenever you can, unless you are honest and willing enough to scrutinize them as one should (e.g. with no axe to grind). Here below i'll relay to you two of the faulty premises upon which the author builds and sells his feel-good-but-faulty narrative.

The author claims that the same particle is in two (opposing) states simultaneously, and that this 'therefore yields a contradictory account and is thus problematic'. But in reality "in two places, simultaneously" does not necessarily mean "in two (opposing) states, simultaneously". He apparently equated the two because otherwise in itself "A particle is/can be in two places, simultaneously" is not contradictory and wouldn't therefore be useful for his narrative. A contradiction would be in asserting the statement "A particle is/can be in two places, simultaneously", and its opposite or its negation as being true, or when an assertion or statement leads to its opposite, something "A particle is/can be in two places, simultaneously", or quantum mechanics for that matter, does not do. And with regards to Schrödinger's cat, the author likewise forgoes the distinction between 'there is an equal chance that it is currently alive as that it is currently dead' and 'it is currently in a state that is equally alive as dead' ...

What you said is true concerning Schrodinger's cat.
But if you're trying to defend the Aristotlean Law of Thought (The Law of Non-Contradiction ) A is Not A, then that's already shattered (on the Quantum scale) with Virtual Particles that pop out of nowhere and not exist but act as if they do exist.
 

Orangina

Legendary Member
What you said is true concerning Schrodinger's cat.
But if you're trying to defend the Aristotlean Law of Thought (The Law of Non-Contradiction ) A is Not A, then that's already shattered (on the Quantum scale) with Virtual Particles that pop out of nowhere and not exist but act as if they do exist.

Like quasi-particles for example?
 

Orangina

Legendary Member
And they're real. Not Quantum bookkeepers / assumed particles.
But their very nature of popping in and out defies our logical laws.

yes quasi-particles are real indeed....they can be detected...they can be scattered off one another..and their time of flight can be measured sometimes!

but when exactly those quasi-particles are present is the question

do we rly know the time of their presence?
 

Myso

Active Member
Orange Room Supporter
yes quasi-particles are real indeed....they can be detected...they can be scattered off one another..and their time of flight can be measured sometimes!

but when exactly those quasi-particles are present is the question

do we rly know the time of their presence?

Don't know enough to answer.
Let's bother @Isabella
:)
 

Isabella

The queen of "Bazella"
Orange Room Supporter
very interesting...

but is there any solid evidence about this theory?

is the many worlds interpretation considered true science or is it closer to metaphysics or science fiction?

No solid evidence but it makes sense as an answer to the problem of the wave function collapse, I wrote a bit about it in an earlier thread, I'll expand in a future post

AKA the many worlds interpretation which solves the problems with the copenhagen interpretation! Meaning that an observer and his observable become themselves the system, the two are connected, you can define the observable in regards to the observer! and every possible outcome exists in its own world!

This interpretation replaces the wave function when it becomes indeterministic (don't really know if this is a real word lol) and replaces it with quantum incoherence, thus removing the 'randomness' of quantum mechanics, it also solves the schrodinger's cat paradox, it has its own problems of course but I will not be diving into that since that becomes off topic :p
 

Iron Maiden

Paragon of Bacon
Orange Room Supporter
very interesting...

but is there any solid evidence about this theory?

is the many worlds interpretation considered true science or is it closer to metaphysics or science fiction?
and i guess @Iron Maiden might have an answer too!
alas i am but a lowly engineer, my knowledge cant answer those questions, but the guy did show off his book and am thinking abt getting it to see the whole picture.

@Curiosum i wasnt just showing a bogus science channel, there is literature behind the concept and i thought in the perspective of this thread that the vid would be a nice head scratcher.
 

GrumpForTrump

Legendary Member
Orange Room Supporter
alas i am but a lowly engineer, my knowledge cant answer those questions, but the guy did show off his book and am thinking abt getting it to see the whole picture.

@Curiosum i wasnt just showing a bogus science channel, there is literature behind the concept and i thought in the perspective of this thread that the vid would be a nice head scratcher.

You know what, Iron Maiden. I like that you're humble. Unlike that other person who pretends to be the Lebanese Stephen Hawking.
 

SeaAb

Legendary Member
Staff member
Super Penguin
 

Thoma

New Member
But if you're trying to defend the Aristotlean Law of Thought (The Law of Non-Contradiction ) A is Not A, then that's already shattered (on the Quantum scale) with Virtual Particles that pop out of nowhere and not exist but act as if they do exist.

But their very nature of popping in and out defies our logical laws.

Yes, they also destroy The Law of Identity - A is A. By nature of their existence.


Really.

First off, in the case of the virtual particles “popping in and out of nowhere/nothingness/nonexistence", these particles aren't really emerging out of nowhere/nothingness/nonexistence, but from the quantum vacuum, or a field with a very low energy level. Hence, along with Columbia University Philosopher and theoretical physicist David Albert, we can utter: “Vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems—are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff...the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those [quantum] fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings—if you look at them aright—amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing". And thus no law of thought is being challenged there anymore than it is on the non-quantum system/scale of reality. All that while assuming, for argument's and charity's sake, the absurd position that a classical law of thought can be challenged in the first place. Now off to the next point below.

Secondly, the classical laws of thought (classical logic) are the sine qua non not just of science but of any intelligible (let alone rational) discourse. To challenge them one must first assume their validity in order to make the challenge. To deny them, one must affirm them. To say anything intelligible, positive or negative, about them requires that the words we use in the assertion or denial have intelligible meaning. If the words we use can mean what they mean and their contrary, then they mean nothing and our words are unintelligible. And yet unfortunately we still find wicked and foolish individuals, even some with uni degrees and teaching positions, being true to form by pretending and passing themselves as though they are challenging and denying something such as the law of non-contradiction "i know what i say is contradictory, but that's okay because truth is contradictory and yet it is still truth or something of value", and then they usually supplement that with a quantum mechanics folk line as a kind of support of their view, of course without having any clue whatsoever (or with having some clue but are mainly being wicked).
 

Isabella

The queen of "Bazella"
Orange Room Supporter
yes quasi-particles are real indeed....they can be detected...they can be scattered off one another..and their time of flight can be measured sometimes!

but when exactly those quasi-particles are present is the question

do we rly know the time of their presence?

I'm assuming you are talking about virtual particles, not quasiparticles.

For reference: quasiparticles are usually composed of many particles but interact and behave like a single particle (particularly as far as energy-momentum are concerned) most notable example of quasiparticles are the holes in superconductors that are formed when an electron is excited and leaves its place. Holes in a semiconductor can move through the lattice the same way electrons can but they act similarly to positively charged particles.

Virtual particles on the other hand are mathematical fictions that exist inside Feynman diagrams in quantum field theory. The longer they live the closer their properties are to a real particle. However the only measurable things are real particles (the ins and outs of Feynman diagrams)

diagram-Feynman-interaction-electron-force-vertex-photon.jpg

Basically what happens when two electrons collide is that you have a virtual photon emitted (the squiggly line in the photo) as a result of the interaction, this photon would then split into a quark- anti quark pair and one would eventually radiate a gluon.

Their existence and accuracy are firmly established in calculations however they cannot be detected.

There's a note here that all particles are now thought of as "virtual particles" considering the typical view we have towards "real particles" is that they are isolated systems, free and non interacting however that's not the reality, it's just a way to simplify calculations. So the more accurate description would be to say that all particles are virtual particles.



Also since you mentioned antiparticles in a post and I brought up Feynman diagrams, antiparticles are basically the same particle with an opposite charge, like an electron and a positron with the positron being the antiparticle of the electron. When the two collide they annihilate each other resulting in the creation of a photon.

A notable example is the existence of positrons in radioactive materials and their interactions with electrons resulting in radioactive decay.

Positron emission - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
Top