You later our such complex concepts in a really digest-able way. I feel I understand a bunch of this stuff much better than I did before, thanks to your article.
The whole thing is still so fascinating and it creates so many questions — which I love.
Also, I really liked these two lines:
“To me, electrons are “cyberpunk”, which is why I love them.” — this was funny.
“Therefore, every time an observer makes a measurement, reality splits, creating a parallel world in which a copy of him makes the same measurement and gets a different one of the possible results.” — this is so fascinating. It boggles the mind.
Hi Michael, are you going to dwell into the reason why there is no communication between the alternate copies of the universe?
If we are part of one whole wave, does it mean the act of we measuring is also a reaction to an act of 'not measuring' from an 'originators reality'? Does it mean we become a copy? And in this way, each reality is in a superposition state of values = Copy/Originator ?
For now, I can tell you that the absence of communication between the different worlds is a condition imposed by Everett's reasoning, either that or it doesn't work. But I am studying it, because there are other daughter theories of Everett's one that are either explanations or denials of this point.
The value of the amplitude of the universe wave function is always 1 (100% probability). So if a measurement produces a split, the generated worlds have different "amplitudes", i.e. they are more or less subtle, but their sum, exactly, is always 1.
And if you do not measure, you do not generate a split, so a non-measurement cannot be a point of origin.
Great! I'd love to meet another me but better! ;-)
Schroedinger reminded me of Sheldon, so had to share for your input on my below post:
https://medium.com/@jayshreegururaj/what-do-you-think-is-in-sheldons-survival-kit-b96ce56a7765
You are also on Medium, how nice ;-)
It is very different from substack, but somehow interesting.
Got it, thanks Jayshree.
Yes, very different ecosystems! I am learning new stuff on your blog here, thanks.
I'm glad :-)
Michael, this was great!
You later our such complex concepts in a really digest-able way. I feel I understand a bunch of this stuff much better than I did before, thanks to your article.
The whole thing is still so fascinating and it creates so many questions — which I love.
Also, I really liked these two lines:
“To me, electrons are “cyberpunk”, which is why I love them.” — this was funny.
“Therefore, every time an observer makes a measurement, reality splits, creating a parallel world in which a copy of him makes the same measurement and gets a different one of the possible results.” — this is so fascinating. It boggles the mind.
Thanks for a great article :)
Thank you very much. Also your comment is very "cyberpunk" for me ;-). Well, I'm cyberpunk addicted, ya must have got it :-D
Ya make me want to keep learning. Remember I am here, if you discover something and want to talk about it.
Haha yeah I kinda figured :)
And thanks, Michael. I appreciate that, and same too you.
Hi Michael, are you going to dwell into the reason why there is no communication between the alternate copies of the universe?
If we are part of one whole wave, does it mean the act of we measuring is also a reaction to an act of 'not measuring' from an 'originators reality'? Does it mean we become a copy? And in this way, each reality is in a superposition state of values = Copy/Originator ?
Good questions, buddy. I'll try to answer them.
For now, I can tell you that the absence of communication between the different worlds is a condition imposed by Everett's reasoning, either that or it doesn't work. But I am studying it, because there are other daughter theories of Everett's one that are either explanations or denials of this point.
The value of the amplitude of the universe wave function is always 1 (100% probability). So if a measurement produces a split, the generated worlds have different "amplitudes", i.e. they are more or less subtle, but their sum, exactly, is always 1.
And if you do not measure, you do not generate a split, so a non-measurement cannot be a point of origin.
This gives me a splitting headache :D
That's because I'm not very good at explaining it. But I promise to make it up better :-)
I enjoy so much your QM articles!!!