Ask Science

15880 readers

6 users here now

Ask a science question, get a science answer.

Community Rules

Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.

Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.

Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.

Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.

Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.

Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.

Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.

Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.

Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.

Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.

Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.

Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.

Rule 7: Report violations.

Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.

Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.

Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.

Rule 9: Source required for answers.

Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.

By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.

We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

sabbah@lemmy.world

AradFort@lemmy.world

ken_cleanairsystems

count_of_monte_carlo@lemmy.world

What proof is there of the multiverse? (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 7 months ago by QueenHawlSera@sh.itjust.works to c/askscience@lemmy.world

113 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I guess I've always been confused by the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Physics and the fact that it's taken seriously. Like is there any proof at all that universes outside of our own exist?

I admit that I might be dumb, but, how does one look at atoms and say "My God! There must be many worlds than just our one?"

I just never understood how Many Worlds Interpretation was valid, with my, admittedly limited understanding, it just seemed to be a wild guess no more strange than a lot things we consider too outlandish to humor.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So here’s where I think we’re getting tripped up. You’re talking as though detecting this radiation would have falsified Many Worlds; I still think it would not. It would have created an explanatory burden on proponents of MWI, to explain where this radiation is coming from if not wave function collapse. These experiments wouldn’t have been able to prove that the collapse was causing any kind of radiation emission; only that radiation emission was concurrent with it. We could conclude the collapse was the source only if all other sources were ruled out as possibilities.

Ok, well now you've basically argued that falsification in general is impossible, for anything. Just like geocentrists could always add more epicycles to explain the motion of the stars, any theory can add more post-hoc explanations for any observations. This isn't a standard you would apply to anything else, so I don't know why you're applying to MWI.

The parameters of the emitted radiation - particle or wave type, energy level, charge, spin, colour, direction of travel, everything - would be different for every collapse

No they wouldn't, the laws of physics still apply

“objective” in “objective collapse” at face value

And why shouldn't I?

No experiment has been performed that has detected this radiation being emitted, but if it had, it still wouldn’t have falsified MWI.

Yes, but by your standard, nothing can ever be falsified.

I’m quite sure there’s no experiment

You asserting it doesn't make it true.

From within each world: Observers see exactly what CSL predicts - apparent spontaneous wave function collapse accompanied by radiation emission (or not, in this case). The collapse looks completely real and objective to the observers, and there is no experimental way to show otherwise.

Except there is no radiation emission unless the wave-function objectively collapses. That's the point.

Both frameworks ultimately make identical (observable) predictions from within each world

No, they don't. One predicts spontaneous radiation release, and one doesn't.

you had a way to definitively show from within this world that MWI’s other worlds don’t actually exist, then it’d be falsifiable.

literally asking to prove a negative.