Ask Science
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.
view the rest of the comments
There isn't any "proof"; in fact, Many Worlds is what's called "unfalsifiable", which means we don't have a way through the scientific method to show Many Worlds to be false.
Also, it's not really
But more
It's not meant to be a valid theory, it's just a possible outcome of having a spacetime continuum; because it's not falsifiable though, it's not worth pursuing right now, only worth keeping in mind in case we come across new evidence to evaluate.
That's not actually true
For one thing, any experiment which demonstrated objective collapse (which aren't just possible in theory, they've actually been performed) would falsify MW.
I'm aware of the double slit experiment and its variations, but I probably do misunderstand Many Worlds to at least some degree; how does wave collapse prove Many Worlds to be false?
Well, under Many Worlds, wave function collapse isn't a real "thing"; it's just an illusion caused by the observer becoming entangled with the wave function. Objective Collapse theories, however, propose a real physical mechanism of wave function collapse. If that's true, and there was found to be a real mechanism of collapse, then MW would be impossible, because the wave function would collapse before any "branching" could happen.
And what is there to stop the collapse from being the branch point? In one world, it collapses one way; in another, another. There doesn't seem to be any inconsistency there.
Well, because under Many Worlds, the wave-function not collapsing is the reason there are multiple branches; the wave function is the multiverse. So if the wave function has collapsed into a single, definitive state, then there is only a single, definitive universe.
Sorry, that doesn't prove that there's not actually Many Worlds out there. The whole point is that there would be a single, definitive universe state for every possible valid configuration after wave-function collapse. The reason it's unfalsifiable is that it cannot be proven currently whether or not it's a literal plurality of alternate worlds. I would also argue that if there's but one "definitive universe" state then it's not really a Many Worlds theory at all, but just a different theory of the Universe.
I'm not saying you're wrong, or that this interpretation of Many Worlds is wrong - I'm just saying we've not yet developed a way to prove it one way or another. And if we did develop that technology to prove it one way or another, that would in itself unlock a whole new world of questions to answer. Thinking about what those questions might be is worthwhile science, in my view.
Seems like it's splitting hairs and saying the "many worlds" part of MWI doesn't count, as that is only a prediction not postulated.
No? I'm not sure how you got that from my comment
I'm taking about the linked page.
I mean, to be fair that is what the linkes page says, but people are misunderstanding the hypothesis everyone calls many worlds (also what the page says) as Many worlds is just a follow up of the theory not the theory itself.
Like Einsteins Relativity didn't say in the theory that we would be able to predict Mercury's orbit, but it comes from it.
You can probabilistically prove the many worlds exist, because it implies quantum immortality. Just connect a short-half-life Schrödinger mechanism to a nuclear bomb, and some of you will survive for a statistically impossible number of half lives. That version of you will have proven the many worlds to be true.
Right, and you can find out what it looks like beyond the event horizon of a black hole by just throwing a probe in that can survive the approach. Mind you, you're not getting any information back out of the black hole, but it'll be there in the probe's databanks regardless. I suppose you can have it back over the span of the rest of the black hole's life; though, you'll need to record everything else coming out of it and somehow cohere all that information back together in the right order.
Which is only about as difficult to get anything scientifically useful from as your probabilistic proof machine. Both involve lots of radiation though, so they're basically the same thing! (👉ﾟヮﾟ)👉
Except you might be the version who survives!
Except you might be the person who survives!
Except you might be the person who survives!
I don't think it proves many worlds any more than it proves you have a fairy godmother manipulating quantum states for you. All you've done is shown an unlikely occurrence happened, not what caused it.
That's all science is. Collect data, and show how it's unlilely unless your hypothesis is true. Five sigma later, and you've made a discovery.
Great answer, but it unfortunately is taken seriously. The reason is because it is an "end of the road" hypothesis. It tells you all the weirdness is fundamental and no further thought is required. Just like good old Copenhagen. The unfalsifiability is a virtue here, it's a complete explanatin without the messy testing. Now stop thinking, shut up, and calculate.
To be clear, the reason Many Worlds hypothesis exists in the first place is because it's a possible solution to the calculations. It's not that someone just came up with an idea to get out of doing real work. It's just unfortunate when the universe puts multiple possible solutions out of reach of experimentation. But hey, there was a long time of history where virtually any belief about the composition of the moon was considered unfalsifiable.
The "solutions" are not out of reach. Just do the experiment more than once, like any statistical theory.
The moon thing: yes because it was hard to get to, not impossible in principle. If the moon was in a parallel universe your analogy wouldn't be irrelevant.
Why is that unfortunate? It's an extremely well justified theory.
I'm not sure why you say this? If anything, that's a description of Copenhagen, which MWI is a response to.