Ask Science

12296 readers

51 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@lemmy.sdf.org

count_of_monte_carlo@lemmy.world

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

submitted 5 days ago by QueenHawlSera@sh.itjust.works to c/askscience@lemmy.world

117 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

[–] voracitude@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I provided you with literal peer reviewed physics papers. What the fuck is wrong with you?

I want a paper that analyses information observed from other worlds, which yours DID NOT. Try taking your own advice to that other person in this topic, and read what I wrote.

Because reality is not objective, duh.

Actually, it is. That's kind of foundational for science. If you're going to straight up reject physical realism then you can't really talk about science at all.

Okay, apparently I need to take you to school before I go to work. I didn't realise it was my turn with you this week. Just to catch you up: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/advanced-information/

Because the theories of Bohm and Everett did not make any experimentally testable predictions that differed from standard quantum mechanics, most physicists regarded these kinds of proposals as rather esoteric and preferably only discussed during coffee breaks or in philosophy and history of science departments

(That bit, by the way, is why I'm right and you're wrong. Not experimentally testable? Not falsifiable. Period.) And

Bell pointed out that von Neuman’s proof was not correct (he gave the proof of this statement in a later publication [8]), and he also formulated the first Bell inequality, which was a spectacular theoretical discovery. Using a special version of the Bohmian-EPR thought experiment, he showed mathematically that no theory based on local hidden variables would be able to reproduce all the results of quantum mechanics.

With this mathematical illustration, Bell provided a proof of the assertions made by Bohr and Schrödinger, and thus showed that all attempts to construct a local realist model of quantum phenomena are doomed to fail. Bell used the words local and realist here in a technical sense: the former indicates the impossibility of instantaneous signalling, limited by the finite speed of light, and the latter means that the outcome of any experiment is fully determined by properties of the system, often referred to as hidden, that exist independently of any actual or potential measurement.

Now I'll be blocking you. Happy reading.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 days ago

I think you missed the part where I said I'm done.