Comment on Multiverse

wuphysics87@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

• BrainInABox@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  This is such anti-intellectual cliche, and it’s a damn shame that a generation of Reddit pseudo-intellectuals parroting a Feynman quote has made it so wide spread.

  source

  • wuphysics87@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I don’t come without credentials. I have a phd in physics

    source

    • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Hugh Everett also had a PhD in Physics.

      source
  • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Which is the anti-intellectual cliché?

    source

    • BrainInABox@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      The post I replied to.

      source

      • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        You mean the post at the top? Or the comment you replied to? Either way I don’t really see the cliché.

        Do you mean that something being non-falsifiable making it non-scientific is a cliché? That’s how science works: by having theories that can be differentiated with experiment.

        Or, of the post, that multiverses contain every conceivable universe, then why anti-intellectual, when it’s just a silly joke?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  It’s not purely a wild, non-falsifiable idea. It comes from a theory to reconcile the very-much-falsifiable-but-not-falsified results of quantum mechanics. IIRC there are three main theories to interpret the results and all of them are down-and-out weird. Last I looked, one of them at least is controversial about whether or not it could (in principle) be experimentally differentiated from the others.

  source

  • wuphysics87@lemmy.ml ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Is this what you are referring to?

    Image Image

    Bell’s Theorem pretty well settles this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

    source

    • milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      More or less. There’s a bit more nuance to it, and I was thinking particularly of the case of entangled particles at a distance rather than a self-interfering particle through a slit - but it probably resolves down to much the same mathematics.

      Bell’s inequality proves the simple (‘realist’, above) option can’t be true, but the Copenhagen Interpretation is the most accepted interpretation of the alternative. Wikipedia lists three such interpretations, and IIRC “many worlds” is a separate one to the Copenhagen Interpretation. Though again, it’s a bit more nuanced. When I was studying, I think they basically assumed Copenhagen, though not treating that entirely as settled fact, and leaving other interpretations as niche.

      source