• 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?

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?
I just watched @Iron Maiden 's video and the creator of the vid, as well as professor Carroll explain quite well the scientific basis for the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

The suggested experiment that would test the viability of this interpretation is currently outside our capabilities. Basically you would need to place two objects (that you can observe) in a superposition and bombard them with interference and then see what happens.
 
  • Advertisement
  • Myso

    Myso

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    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).
    Typical of you. You not only went to some Christian website and plagiarized while pretending you know one thing or two about the subject. But even used the wrong account to post it.

    This time you went here and picked just one Christian scientist that satisfies you.


    (1) Truth realism doesn't have to be robust. That's a very naive claim to make and coming from someone who is new to philosophy. You can always adopt a "less wrong" model of reality and value truth models based on probability of being true as opposed to ultimate truths or falsehoods.

    (2) Virtual particles - hand fist analogy is very flawed. As those virtual particles are not made of something like a fist is made of fingers. But are briefly there when the Quantum world allows it. And pop out of existence like literal "bubbles in the Quantum foam". Their existence is temporal. You cannot detect them in the Quantum foam and watch them rearrange like you could do with the fingers of your hands. They are there at a moment and then not there at all anymore but part of the original particle. To say that A is A here is rather absurd. The original particle has them and doesn't at the same time. That's why it's called quasi and wiggly and not defined in any rigid state or form.
     
    Orangina

    Orangina

    Legendary Member
    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.
    thx for your answer...Actually i thought you are a physicist!

    To be honest I would have preferred if the guy in the video interviewed some physicists to explain more his theory and to give maybe another opinion on the matter for a little balance
     
    Orangina

    Orangina

    Legendary Member
    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)

    View attachment 18161

    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
    wow..thanks

    This is so interesting to know the difference between different kind of particles

    I was asking about quasiparticles since we know they are real but my question was
    when the quasi particles are present?

    I know the question has no precise answer. Quasi particles can be localized in space and maintain their localization while in motion, they can interact with other particles or other quasiparticles...but unlike particles they cannot be present outside of a medium.

    Please if anything i have said is wrong correct me. Also if you have any suggestion for further readings that would b sweet
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    thx for your answer...Actually i thought you are a physicist!

    To be honest I would have preferred if the guy in the video interviewed some physicists to explain more his theory and to give maybe another opinion on the matter for a little balance
    He did interview a physicist, professor Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist in charge of the physics department in Caltech. He's specialized in quantum mechanics, gravity and cosmology.
     
    Orangina

    Orangina

    Legendary Member
    He did interview a physicist, professor Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist in charge of the physics department in Caltech. He's specialized in quantum mechanics, gravity and cosmology.
    yea but i mean physicists with different opinions and point of views... because i honestly believe that the subject is still not largely accepted and approved as a science by itself

    like the subject of "many minds" for instance
     
    Isabella

    Isabella

    The queen of "Bazella"
    Orange Room Supporter
    yea but i mean physicists with different opinions and point of views... because i honestly believe that the subject is still not largely accepted and approved as a science by itself

    like the subject of "many minds" for instance
    Ah yes okay. Yes it is not largely accepted since it ignores the problem rather than address it.

    The theory only has one axiom and it's that everything can be described perfectly using the wave function, including the universe. And that there is no such thing as a wave function collapse (which is what happens when we perform a measurement). Meaning the only thing that is objectively real and describes everything perfectly is the wave function itself. The results of measurements all exist, as predicted by the wave function, in their own worlds.

    The issue with the theory is that they brushed over the problem rather than address it. Basically they decided to say that while the issue is real, all possible solutions exist in their own worlds and that created other issues down the line of when exactly these worlds are created and separated, along with the fact that since no communication exists between these "worlds" we cannot possibly test the veracity of this claim.

    Meaning in attempting to solve the issue of the wave function collapse they shifted the vagueness onto "new worlds".

    Another criticism of the theory is that it's basically unfalsifiable which means it's not actually a scientific theory. Proponents of the many worlds interpretation say that it is indeed verifiable (with the experiment I stated earlier, or something similar) however the experiments devised are currently beyond our capabilities.

    The firmly established Copenhagen interpretation and quantum decoherence also has its proponents and opponents most notably Schrödinger and the now infamous criticism in the form of Schrödinger's cat. So criticism alone doesn't make a theory not valid.

    There is also the question of whether the many worlds described in the theory are real or not, most notably Stephen hawking favours the fact they're not.

    At the end of the day though the MWI should be viewed more as a convenient simplification of an answer to a problem. What people basically do all day in quantum mechanics is math and calculating conditional probabilities. MWI simplifies these calculations, and that is why it is mostly favoured among physicists
     
    Orangina

    Orangina

    Legendary Member
    Ah yes okay. Yes it is not largely accepted since it ignores the problem rather than address it.

    The theory only has one axiom and it's that everything can be described perfectly using the wave function, including the universe. And that there is no such thing as a wave function collapse (which is what happens when we perform a measurement). Meaning the only thing that is objectively real and describes everything perfectly is the wave function itself. The results of measurements all exist, as predicted by the wave function, in their own worlds.

    The issue with the theory is that they brushed over the problem rather than address it. Basically they decided to say that while the issue is real, all possible solutions exist in their own worlds and that created other issues down the line of when exactly these worlds are created and separated, along with the fact that since no communication exists between these "worlds" we cannot possibly test the veracity of this claim.

    Meaning in attempting to solve the issue of the wave function collapse they shifted the vagueness onto "new worlds".

    Another criticism of the theory is that it's basically unfalsifiable which means it's not actually a scientific theory. Proponents of the many worlds interpretation say that it is indeed verifiable (with the experiment I stated earlier, or something similar) however the experiments devised are currently beyond our capabilities.

    The firmly established Copenhagen interpretation and quantum decoherence also has its proponents and opponents most notably Schrödinger and the now infamous criticism in the form of Schrödinger's cat. So criticism alone doesn't make a theory not valid.

    There is also the question of whether the many worlds described in the theory are real or not, most notably Stephen hawking favours the fact they're not.

    At the end of the day though the MWI should be viewed more as a convenient simplification of an answer to a problem. What people basically do all day in quantum mechanics is math and calculating conditional probabilities. MWI simplifies these calculations, and that is why it is mostly favoured among physicists

    yea i think this whole theory enters in the "shut up and calculate" ethos...
     
    T

    Thoma

    New Member
    Typical of you. You not only went to some Christian website and plagiarized while pretending you know one thing or two about the subject. But even used the wrong account to post it.

    This time you went here and picked just one Christian scientist that satisfies you.


    [...]

    (2) Virtual particles - hand fist analogy is very flawed. As those virtual particles are not made of something like a fist is made of fingers. But are briefly there when the Quantum world allows it. And pop out of existence like literal "bubbles in the Quantum foam". Their existence is temporal. You cannot detect them in the Quantum foam and watch them rearrange like you could do with the fingers of your hands. They are there at a moment and then not there at all anymore but part of the original particle. To say that A is A here is rather absurd. The original particle has them and doesn't at the same time. That's why it's called quasi and wiggly and not defined in any rigid state or form.
    It doesn't matter what we call it in said analogy. Hands, fingers, particles, potatoes, 'an energy field with a particular configuration with particular manifestations', 'excitations or ripples in an energy field', ... , so long as it is ultimately referring to 'existing particular arrangement of elementary physical stuff', rearranging themselves with, say, hands in a default state briefly becoming hand fists, and electron particles briefly becoming photon particles. What a sensational folk statement like "particles going in and out of existence!" actually means, using the most recent scientific jargon, is this: an existing wiggle in the electron field, which is what a charged electron particle is by definition, is being transferred to the electromagnetic field (as naturally expected of 'wiggles in energy fields'), and thereby briefly becoming a wiggle in the electromagnetic field, which is what a photon particle is by definition, before going back to its original state, into being a wiggle in the electron field, which again is what an electron particle is by definition. In the same vein, a set of relaxed fingers and a palm, wiggling to some music in the air, which is what a hand in a particular (default) 'mood field' configuration is by definition, is having its configuration changed with its wiggling being transferred into the 'bad mood' field, getting rearranged into a group of clenched fingers doubled into a palm, wiggling in group there because of the sheer force of the clenching, which is what a hand fist is by common definition, before going back to its original state. In neither of the two example cases of this process ( whether on the quantum scale of reality or on the non-quantum scale of reality) do we have physical stuff 'going in and out of existence!'.

    And definitely no laws of thought are being challenged for []'s sake (otherwise this is an absurd claim on its own).
     
    Myso

    Myso

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    It doesn't matter what we call it in said analogy. Hands, fingers, particles, potatoes, 'an energy field with a particular configuration with particular manifestations', 'excitations or ripples in an energy field', ... , so long as it is ultimately referring to 'existing particular arrangement of elementary physical stuff', rearranging themselves with, say, hands in a default state briefly becoming hand fists, and electron particles briefly becoming photon particles. What a sensational folk statement like "particles going in and out of existence!" actually means, using the most recent scientific jargon, is this: an existing wiggle in the electron field, which is what a charged electron particle is by definition, is being transferred to the electromagnetic field (as naturally expected of 'wiggles in energy fields'), and thereby briefly becoming a wiggle in the electromagnetic field, which is what a photon particle is by definition, before going back to its original state, into being a wiggle in the electron field, which again is what an electron particle is by definition. In the same vein, a set of relaxed fingers and a palm, wiggling to some music in the air, which is what a hand in a particular (default) 'mood field' configuration is by definition, is having its configuration changed with its wiggling being transferred into the 'bad mood' field, getting rearranged into a group of clenched fingers doubled into a palm, wiggling in group there because of the sheer force of the clenching, which is what a hand fist is by common definition, before going back to its original state. In neither of the two example cases of this process ( whether on the quantum scale of reality or on the non-quantum scale of reality) do we have physical stuff 'going in and out of existence!'.

    And definitely no laws of thought are being challenged for []'s sake (otherwise this is an absurd claim on its own).
    Simple question...

    Can you tell when the virtual particle is part of the original particle?
    There's no rearrangement taking place. I urge you to read more (Virtual particle - Wikipedia) on the topic instead of plagiarizing.
     
    T

    Thoma

    New Member
    Simple question...

    Can you tell when the virtual particle is part of the original particle?
    There's no rearrangement taking place. I urge you to read more (Virtual particle - Wikipedia) on the topic instead of plagiarizing.
    Well according to the correct explanation I've offered above, If it emerges from and back to itself, we'd say it's always part of it, and that It just changes. If it emerges from it and ends up (back) as something other than the former particle, there also wouldn't be any problem, let alone a 'challenge to the laws of thought' with 'things being and not being simultaneously'. Just as with a hand turning briefly into a fist, and a hand decomposing and eventually becoming something else, laws of though aren't being challenged, 'no things are and are not simultaneously'. Nothing is challenged here, besides you, mentally, that is. And by the way, virtual particles are qualified as 'virtual' for no other reason than the fact that they appear for an extremely short period of time relatively to other particles. That's all there is to it.
     
    Myso

    Myso

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    If it emerges from and back to itself, we'd say it's always part of it, and that It just changes.
    It doesn't emerge from itself. That's the thing. "Itself" is the separate original particle, which is not it. While a Fist is the Hand.
    Quantum science as a whole doesn't follow the classical modal of logic. Otherwise it would make sense. It doesn't.

    The book review you quoted was a response to atheist Physicist Lawrence Krauss using vague language to say the universe popped out of "nothing".
    The response was right in its conclusions as there's no "absolute nothingness" to begin with... But the metaphors it uses are actually wrong.
    Quantum states are not like Newtonian level states. An apple exists or doesn't exist. A virtual particle, not quite so.
     
    T

    Thoma

    New Member
    It doesn't emerge from itself. That's the thing. "Itself" is the separate original particle, which is not it. While a Fist is the Hand.
    Quantum science as a whole doesn't follow the classical modal of logic. Otherwise it would make sense. It doesn't.

    The book review you quoted was a response to atheist Physicist Lawrence Krauss using vague language to say the universe popped out of "nothing".
    The response was right in its conclusions as there's no "absolute nothingness" to begin with... But the metaphors it uses are actually wrong.
    Quantum states are not like Newtonian level states. An apple exists or doesn't exist. A virtual particle, not quite so.
    According to the current standard scientific explanation that I relayed above, virtual particles (continuing with my current example) are electrons briefly turning into photons before going back to being electrons, which entails the fact that what is changing between being an electron and being two photons is actually the same particle wiggling differently or in different energy fields (going back and forth from one field to another), which they now understandably prefer to technically just call it 'a wiggle or a ripple in an energy field'. And said photons are qualified as virtual, not because they aren't actually photons but because they appear temporarily, just for a very short period of time, compared to those denoted as non-virtual.
     
    Last edited:
    Myso

    Myso

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    According to the current standard scientific explanation that I relayed above, virtual particles (continuing with my current example) are electrons briefly turning into photons before going back to being electrons, which entails the fact that what is changing between being an electron and being two photons is actually the same particle wiggling differently or in different energy fields (going back and forth from one field to another), which they now understandably prefer to technically just call it 'a wiggle or a ripple in an energy field'. And said photons are qualified as virtual, not because they aren't actually photons but because they appear temporarily, just for a very short period of time, compared to those denoted as non-virtual.
    Hmm, I didn't understand it in this manner. I have to read more.
     
    Top