Multiverse Theory Debunked. No Multiple Worlds Can Exist At The Same Time.

[Wuwei]

Woo woo thinks he understand physics. Yet, you were wrong about quantum entanglement, age of the Earth (no rocks and fossils can survive billions of years), and now multiverses.

Read about your hero Hugh Everett III and weep

My understanding of Q entanglement is the same as what came from the many test experiments of Bell's Theorem. If you don't believe those experiments and the conclusions, then you are wrong about quantum entanglement.

You also reject very fundamental aspects of particle physics since you don't believe radiological science. You have no alternate physical theory to show all particle decay is less than 6000 years. That is absurd.

Finally, show a link where I said anything about multiverses. Why should I weep? You went through your long post for naught.

In short, you are anti-physics and have a shallow knowledge of it.
.

 

[Muhammed]

#2 in the Kalam Cosmological Argument is an unsupported assertion.

No. Proven by science.

You're full of shit. Go ahead and prove that the universe began to exist.

 

[esalla]

Woo woo thinks he understand physics. Yet, you were wrong about quantum entanglement, age of the Earth (no rocks and fossils can survive billions of years), and now multiverses.

Read about your hero Hugh Everett III and weep

My understanding of Q entanglement is the same as what came from the many test experiments of Bell's Theorem. If you don't believe those experiments and the conclusions, then you are wrong about quantum entanglement.

You also reject very fundamental aspects of particle physics since you don't believe radiological science. You have no alternate physical theory to show all particle decay is less than 6000 years. That is absurd.

Finally, show a link where I said anything about multiverses. Why should I weep? You went through your long post for naught.

In short, you are anti-physics and have a shallow knowledge of it.
.

Now now children no hair pulling

 

[james bond]

My understanding of Q entanglement is the same as what came from the many test experiments of Bell's Theorem. If you don't believe those experiments and the conclusions, then you are wrong about quantum entanglement.

You also reject very fundamental aspects of particle physics since you don't believe radiological science. You have no alternate physical theory to show all particle decay is less than 6000 years. That is absurd.

Now, you are putting words in my mouth based on your wrong understanding. First, I showed that there were no multiverses. Second, Bell was wrong about superdeterminism and no free will. It's just another way for him to toss it in there when he showed no hidden variables.

Finally, show a link where I said anything about multiverses. Why should I weep? You went through your long post for naught.

In short, you are anti-physics and have a shallow knowledge of it.

>>You nailed it. It looks like you are the only person left on this thread who understands physics. One is a troll and the other believes religion over physics.<<

You agree with zaangalewa who stubbornly thinks there are still multiverses still with no evidence.

>>In short, you are anti-physics and have a shallow knowledge of it. <<

You need to quit bragging about yourself as you are a weakling with no degree and not much credibility about physics and it shows.

I thought I mentioned that Bell showed that there were no hidden variables per Einstein. However, he was wrong about superdeterminism. That's why I said there is free will. Are you partially wrong about quantum entanglement? I thought you were discussing FTL before with spooky action at a distance. Anyway, I suppose we can ignore all that now.

 

[james bond]

You're full of shit. Go ahead and prove that the universe began to exist.

No. I'm right and you're wrong.

We know the universe began to exist because of the CMB. That's how the eternal universe theory or steady state theory was disproved.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

My understanding of Q entanglement is the same as what came from the many test experiments of Bell's Theorem. If you don't believe those experiments and the conclusions, then you are wrong about quantum entanglement.

You also reject very fundamental aspects of particle physics since you don't believe radiological science. You have no alternate physical theory to show all particle decay is less than 6000 years. That is absurd.

Now, you are putting words in my mouth based on your wrong understanding. First, I showed that there were no multiverses. Second, Bell was wrong about superdeterminism and no free will. It's just another way for him to toss it in there when he showed no hidden variables.

Finally, show a link where I said anything about multiverses. Why should I weep? You went through your long post for naught.

In short, you are anti-physics and have a shallow knowledge of it.

>>You nailed it. It looks like you are the only person left on this thread who understands physics. One is a troll and the other believes religion over physics.<<

You agree with zaangalewa who stubbornly thinks there are still multiverses still with no evidence.

>>In short, you are anti-physics and have a shallow knowledge of it. <<

You need to quit bragging about yourself as you are a weakling with no degree and not much credibility about physics and it shows.

I thought I mentioned that Bell showed that there were no hidden variables per Einstein. However, he was wrong about superdeterminism. That's why I said there is free will. Are you partially wrong about quantum entanglement? I thought you were discussing FTL before with spooky action at a distance. Anyway, I suppose we can ignore all that now.

First, I showed that there were no multiverses.

Liar.

 

[Muhammed]

You're full of shit. Go ahead and prove that the universe began to exist.

No. I'm right and you're wrong.

We know the universe began to exist because of the CMB. That's how the eternal universe theory or steady state theory was disproved.

Explain how you came to that ridiculous conclusion, you fucking moron.

 

[Wuwei]

Now, you are putting words in my mouth based on your wrong understanding. First, I showed that there were no multiverses. Second, Bell was wrong about superdeterminism and no free will. It's just another way for him to toss it in there when he showed no hidden variables.

You showed nothing. I did not put words in your mouth. You are way off base. Superdeterminism, multiverses and a lot of other wacky interpretations agree with the mathematics. If they did not agree, you would hear nobody of merit mentioning them.

I already told you that Cramer's transactional interpretation is the one that most appeals to me. I basically believe the experimental physics. Multiverses to me is too far out

You need to quit bragging about yourself as you are a weakling with no degree and not much credibility about physics and it shows.

Cut the crap. I had three graduate courses in quantum mechanics at U of Mich. So believe me, you don't know quantum physics and it shows.

You agree with @zaangalewa who stubbornly thinks there are still multiverses still with no evidence.

You are putting words in my mouth. In the post you referenced, zaangalewa only said what I just said -- the math is consistent with multiverses. I did not read much of his other posts so I don't know what he believes and what you are talking about .

I thought I mentioned that Bell showed that there were no hidden variables per Einstein. However, he was wrong about superdeterminism. That's why I said there is free will. Are you partially wrong about quantum entanglement? I thought you were discussing FTL before with spooky action at a distance. Anyway, I suppose we can ignore all that now.

Bell only mentioned superdeterminism in this context. Bell said,
“There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will."

Cramer's theory eliminates Bell's difficulty.

.

 

[Fed Starving]

I sort of thought so. Makes good fiction.

 

[james bond]

You showed nothing. I did not put words in your mouth. You are way off base. Superdeterminism, multiverses and a lot of other wacky interpretations agree with the mathematics. If they did not agree, you would hear nobody of merit mentioning them.

Yes. I showed everything including the youtube. You showed nothing woo woo

Okay, big dumb guy.

Show us your math how superdeterminism, multiverses, etc. agree.

I already told you that Cramer's transactional interpretation is the one that most appeals to me. I basically believe the experimental physics. Multiverses to me is too far out

Do you have Cramer's transactional interpretation vid to show everyone and me?

Cut the crap. I had three graduate courses in quantum mechanics at U of Mich. So believe me, you don't know quantum physics and it shows.

I don't believe you. You told too many lies already. This thread is about multiverses and you can't even discuss the subject except ad hominem attacks.

In the post you referenced, zaangalewa only said what I just said -- the math is consistent with multiverses.

You said that already. All talk. No action. Let's see you or zaangalewa show us the math and how it is consistent with multiverses.

Bell only mentioned superdeterminism in this context. Bell said,
“There is a way to escape the inference of superluminal speeds and spooky action at a distance. But it involves absolute determinism in the universe, the complete absence of free will."

Cramer's theory eliminates Bell's difficulty.

Again, this thread is about multiverses. You are all over the place, junior.

ETA: Hey Wuwei, you keep your Cramer's TI and the math to yourself. I don't care about it anymore.

Both you zaangalewa can get a room together. People will continue to believe what they want to believe.

BTW, where did I discuss religion haha?




.

 

[zaangalewa]

For what do I (=all mankind?) have no evidence?

To convince anyone.

From what?

To convince me.

That's unimportant for me. I informed you about some things, that's all.

All it sounds like is personal opinion to me.

The atheist

Atheism is a spiritual belief. If you like to discuss about a belief you don't need physics to do so.

scientists start with something that a given, an assumption. For example, then big bang happened. Then they start making up stuff from there. With Darwin, he started with a cell already. Then afterward, added spontaneous generation which was debunked. Abiogenesis is just SG updated.

Big bang = the universe expands, so it was more little once before it started to expand => the universe was created once
Theory of evolution = Every living entity has with every other living entity a common ancestor => we are all sisters and brothers

Which is very easy realizable. You can take a real cat and do so and the result will not be any other result. But in this case some cats will have to die - without any reason to have to do so.

No. If you kill your cat, then it cannot come back to life.

That's what I said. If you make the experiment then cats will die.

If it's alive, I suppose it could run away before you can show everyone.

Really funny. Still the problem is in 50% the cat will be dead and only in 50% the cat wil be alive, when you measure. But before you measure the cat is in a superposision and it is as well 50% alive and 50% dead.

I can't be the only one who sees it, but those who come later and want to see it. You would be famous having a cat that is alive and dead at the same time. Are you famous?

No. It exists in all thougts of all people, who like to think about the problems in context around "Schrödingers's cat".

Prove it.

You said it is only in my imaginations and I answered this. You should perhaps slowly start to learn how to think.

The guy who made the video eliminated the cat and superposition. I already stated Hugh Everett was mocked and laughed at so hard, he quit his job and went into another industry. He was a better mathematician than physicist. He continued drinking and died early.

No. Not any way. This is for example a way Erwin Schrödinger showed:

In general: The way is physical research. The ideas of Schröderinger are taken serios, because he is an excellent scientist.

So was Everett. Schrodinger and Schrodinger's equation is on my side, remember? I said I liked his thought experiment. The wave exists as potential energy like the electron can be everywhere it can be. It is realized or the energy is realized when it is measured. Now, Everett, he took Schrodinger's equation and manipulated it with his mathematics to fit his wacky idea. You and Everett are on the same side.

Is it? Why?

I can only explain it using Schrodinger's thought experiment; It exists in our thoughts. It is potential energy that is there, i.e. the photon energy. We just don't know where it goes through the right or left slit until it is observed. Then the energy is real; It is released and we see it. What if you had a light reading device? It would record it. That is observable and demonstrable.

You don't read what someone says to you, isn't it? Otherwise you would know now that potential energy is a real energy.

Prove it.

You can't even measure the energy; That's such a lame argument because it proves my point . Now, you're being mocked like Everett .

It is "spooky" because something is wrong with our perception of space and time.

Go on explain more. What's wrong with our perception of space and time?

I have to know nothing about the person Mr. Hugh Everett and your totally mad psychological structure in context of your attacks against this person. The idea "multiverse" is a mathematical plausible idea. The problem is it is not provable. So some people call it meta-physics. And physics is not meta-physics. So physicists don't know what to do with this idea now. A similar problem exists in case of the string theory. But for sure both concepts are interesting for physicists.

You didn't read about Everett, did you? I'm entitled to my scientific opinion if I'm peer reviewing his work. His theory didn't pass peer review; did you know that? It was only in more modern times that Schrodinger (who came before Everett (!)) was taken more seriously. Everett is the one who came up with the many worlds interpretation. No one likes to be associated with that mad man. That's why the newer version was called Multiverse.

Moreover, the creationists have Kalam Cosmological Argument. The multiverse side has no logical argument. They couldn't find anything in the past light in the expanding universe as evidence. Thus, you have nothing anymore. I can explain the wave and it's collapse.

Basically, we have the same facts of the expanding universe. The differences between your view and mine are age of the universe, around 6000 years, vs 13.7 billion years, .

I have to know nothing about the person Mr. Hugh Everett and your totally mad psychological structure in context of your attacks against this person. The idea "multiverse" is a mathematical plausible idea. The problem is it is not provable. So some people call it meta-physics. And physics is not meta-physics. So physicists don't know what to do with this idea now. A similar problem exists in case of the string theory. But for sure both concepts are interesting for physicists.

I give up.

Okay.

I presented scientific evidence, a valid argument, and Schrodinger, his equation, and thought experiment backing me up. I can show you an experiment where no human consciousness is necessary to see the wave collapse. All we have to do is measure the energy released, for example.

What about the partridge in the pear tree

As far as I know Lord Ribbeck on Ribbeck in Havelland had engaged a partridge after his death to tell children the story of Lord Ribbeck on Ribbeck in Havelland. And still today sometimes a child sits around, eats one of his pears, and sings about Lord Ribbeck, who had lived once on Ribbeck, in Havelland.

You would know

What would I know? ... The pear tree on the grave of Lord Ribbeck says he is Lord Ribbeck. But you are not a pear tree, aren't you? Do you speak pear? Or do you speak only nationalistic megalomania?

 

[esalla]

For what do I (=all mankind?) have no evidence?

To convince anyone.

From what?

To convince me.

That's unimportant for me. I informed you about some things, that's all.

All it sounds like is personal opinion to me.

The atheist

Atheism is a spiritual belief. If you like to discuss about a belief you don't need physics to do so.

scientists start with something that a given, an assumption. For example, then big bang happened. Then they start making up stuff from there. With Darwin, he started with a cell already. Then afterward, added spontaneous generation which was debunked. Abiogenesis is just SG updated.

Big bang = the universe expands, so it was more little once before it started to expand => the universe was created once
Theory of evolution = Every living entity has with every other living entity a common ancestor => we are all sisters and brothers

Which is very easy realizable. You can take a real cat and do so and the result will not be any other result. But in this case some cats will have to die - without any reason to have to do so.

No. If you kill your cat, then it cannot come back to life.

That's what I said. If you make the experiment then cats will die.

If it's alive, I suppose it could run away before you can show everyone.

Really funny. Still the problem is in 50% the cat will be dead and only in 50% the cat wil be alive, when you measure. But before you measure the cat is in a superposision and it is as well 50% alive and 50% dead.

I can't be the only one who sees it, but those who come later and want to see it. You would be famous having a cat that is alive and dead at the same time. Are you famous?

No. It exists in all thougts of all people, who like to think about the problems in context around "Schrödingers's cat".

Prove it.

You said it is only in my imaginations and I answered this. You should perhaps slowly start to learn how to think.

The guy who made the video eliminated the cat and superposition. I already stated Hugh Everett was mocked and laughed at so hard, he quit his job and went into another industry. He was a better mathematician than physicist. He continued drinking and died early.

No. Not any way. This is for example a way Erwin Schrödinger showed:

In general: The way is physical research. The ideas of Schröderinger are taken serios, because he is an excellent scientist.

So was Everett. Schrodinger and Schrodinger's equation is on my side, remember? I said I liked his thought experiment. The wave exists as potential energy like the electron can be everywhere it can be. It is realized or the energy is realized when it is measured. Now, Everett, he took Schrodinger's equation and manipulated it with his mathematics to fit his wacky idea. You and Everett are on the same side.

Is it? Why?

I can only explain it using Schrodinger's thought experiment; It exists in our thoughts. It is potential energy that is there, i.e. the photon energy. We just don't know where it goes through the right or left slit until it is observed. Then the energy is real; It is released and we see it. What if you had a light reading device? It would record it. That is observable and demonstrable.

You don't read what someone says to you, isn't it? Otherwise you would know now that potential energy is a real energy.

Prove it.

You can't even measure the energy; That's such a lame argument because it proves my point . Now, you're being mocked like Everett .

It is "spooky" because something is wrong with our perception of space and time.

Go on explain more. What's wrong with our perception of space and time?

I have to know nothing about the person Mr. Hugh Everett and your totally mad psychological structure in context of your attacks against this person. The idea "multiverse" is a mathematical plausible idea. The problem is it is not provable. So some people call it meta-physics. And physics is not meta-physics. So physicists don't know what to do with this idea now. A similar problem exists in case of the string theory. But for sure both concepts are interesting for physicists.

You didn't read about Everett, did you? I'm entitled to my scientific opinion if I'm peer reviewing his work. His theory didn't pass peer review; did you know that? It was only in more modern times that Schrodinger (who came before Everett (!)) was taken more seriously. Everett is the one who came up with the many worlds interpretation. No one likes to be associated with that mad man. That's why the newer version was called Multiverse.

Moreover, the creationists have Kalam Cosmological Argument. The multiverse side has no logical argument. They couldn't find anything in the past light in the expanding universe as evidence. Thus, you have nothing anymore. I can explain the wave and it's collapse.

Basically, we have the same facts of the expanding universe. The differences between your view and mine are age of the universe, around 6000 years, vs 13.7 billion years, .

I have to know nothing about the person Mr. Hugh Everett and your totally mad psychological structure in context of your attacks against this person. The idea "multiverse" is a mathematical plausible idea. The problem is it is not provable. So some people call it meta-physics. And physics is not meta-physics. So physicists don't know what to do with this idea now. A similar problem exists in case of the string theory. But for sure both concepts are interesting for physicists.

I give up.

Okay.

I presented scientific evidence, a valid argument, and Schrodinger, his equation, and thought experiment backing me up. I can show you an experiment where no human consciousness is necessary to see the wave collapse. All we have to do is measure the energy released, for example.

What about the partridge in the pear tree

As far as I know Lord Ribbeck on Ribbeck in Havelland had engaged a partridge after his death to tell children the story of Lord Ribbeck on Ribbeck in Havelland. And still today sometimes a child sits around, eats one of his pears, and sings about Lord Ribbeck, who had lived once on Ribbeck, in Havelland.

You would know

What would I know? ... The pear tree on the grave of Lord Ribbeck says he is Lord Ribbeck. But you are not a pear tree, aren't you? Do you speak pear? Or do you speak only nationalistic megalomania?

Take your pills...........................please

 

[zaangalewa]

To inform you, Wuwei .

... You agree with zaangalewa who stubbornly thinks there are still multiverses still with no evidence. ...

You never understand what someone says to you, because you don't read what someone says to you. I said the mathematical concept of a multiverse is plausible. The problem is: It is not provable. I used in this context the word "ignoramus, ignorabimus" = We don't know, we never will know. Not to know whether a multiverse exist or not means not to say a multiverse exists. I used the word "still" in this context in: "¿still? we are not able to prove this" to express the hope that we perhaps one day will be able to say more about this. The idea "multiverse" fits very good to the belief in god. It could explain why everything is predestined and free the same time.

 

[zaangalewa]

For what do I (=all mankind?) have no evidence?

To convince anyone.

From what?

To convince me.

That's unimportant for me. I informed you about some things, that's all.

All it sounds like is personal opinion to me.

The atheist

Atheism is a spiritual belief. If you like to discuss about a belief you don't need physics to do so.

scientists start with something that a given, an assumption. For example, then big bang happened. Then they start making up stuff from there. With Darwin, he started with a cell already. Then afterward, added spontaneous generation which was debunked. Abiogenesis is just SG updated.

Big bang = the universe expands, so it was more little once before it started to expand => the universe was created once
Theory of evolution = Every living entity has with every other living entity a common ancestor => we are all sisters and brothers

Which is very easy realizable. You can take a real cat and do so and the result will not be any other result. But in this case some cats will have to die - without any reason to have to do so.

No. If you kill your cat, then it cannot come back to life.

That's what I said. If you make the experiment then cats will die.

If it's alive, I suppose it could run away before you can show everyone.

Really funny. Still the problem is in 50% the cat will be dead and only in 50% the cat wil be alive, when you measure. But before you measure the cat is in a superposision and it is as well 50% alive and 50% dead.

I can't be the only one who sees it, but those who come later and want to see it. You would be famous having a cat that is alive and dead at the same time. Are you famous?

No. It exists in all thougts of all people, who like to think about the problems in context around "Schrödingers's cat".

Prove it.

You said it is only in my imaginations and I answered this. You should perhaps slowly start to learn how to think.

The guy who made the video eliminated the cat and superposition. I already stated Hugh Everett was mocked and laughed at so hard, he quit his job and went into another industry. He was a better mathematician than physicist. He continued drinking and died early.

No. Not any way. This is for example a way Erwin Schrödinger showed:

In general: The way is physical research. The ideas of Schröderinger are taken serios, because he is an excellent scientist.

So was Everett. Schrodinger and Schrodinger's equation is on my side, remember? I said I liked his thought experiment. The wave exists as potential energy like the electron can be everywhere it can be. It is realized or the energy is realized when it is measured. Now, Everett, he took Schrodinger's equation and manipulated it with his mathematics to fit his wacky idea. You and Everett are on the same side.

Is it? Why?

I can only explain it using Schrodinger's thought experiment; It exists in our thoughts. It is potential energy that is there, i.e. the photon energy. We just don't know where it goes through the right or left slit until it is observed. Then the energy is real; It is released and we see it. What if you had a light reading device? It would record it. That is observable and demonstrable.

You don't read what someone says to you, isn't it? Otherwise you would know now that potential energy is a real energy.

Prove it.

You can't even measure the energy; That's such a lame argument because it proves my point . Now, you're being mocked like Everett .

It is "spooky" because something is wrong with our perception of space and time.

Go on explain more. What's wrong with our perception of space and time?

I have to know nothing about the person Mr. Hugh Everett and your totally mad psychological structure in context of your attacks against this person. The idea "multiverse" is a mathematical plausible idea. The problem is it is not provable. So some people call it meta-physics. And physics is not meta-physics. So physicists don't know what to do with this idea now. A similar problem exists in case of the string theory. But for sure both concepts are interesting for physicists.

You didn't read about Everett, did you? I'm entitled to my scientific opinion if I'm peer reviewing his work. His theory didn't pass peer review; did you know that? It was only in more modern times that Schrodinger (who came before Everett (!)) was taken more seriously. Everett is the one who came up with the many worlds interpretation. No one likes to be associated with that mad man. That's why the newer version was called Multiverse.

Moreover, the creationists have Kalam Cosmological Argument. The multiverse side has no logical argument. They couldn't find anything in the past light in the expanding universe as evidence. Thus, you have nothing anymore. I can explain the wave and it's collapse.

Basically, we have the same facts of the expanding universe. The differences between your view and mine are age of the universe, around 6000 years, vs 13.7 billion years, .

I have to know nothing about the person Mr. Hugh Everett and your totally mad psychological structure in context of your attacks against this person. The idea "multiverse" is a mathematical plausible idea. The problem is it is not provable. So some people call it meta-physics. And physics is not meta-physics. So physicists don't know what to do with this idea now. A similar problem exists in case of the string theory. But for sure both concepts are interesting for physicists.

I give up.

Okay.

I presented scientific evidence, a valid argument, and Schrodinger, his equation, and thought experiment backing me up. I can show you an experiment where no human consciousness is necessary to see the wave collapse. All we have to do is measure the energy released, for example.

What about the partridge in the pear tree

As far as I know Lord Ribbeck on Ribbeck in Havelland had engaged a partridge after his death to tell children the story of Lord Ribbeck on Ribbeck in Havelland. And still today sometimes a child sits around, eats one of his pears, and sings about Lord Ribbeck, who had lived once on Ribbeck, in Havelland.

You would know

What would I know? ... The pear tree on the grave of Lord Ribbeck says he is Lord Ribbeck. But you are not a pear tree, aren't you? Do you speak pear? Or do you speak only nationalistic megalomania?

Take your pills...........................please

Anti-German: I never drink alcohol, I never use drugs - and I use only medicaments if it is really necessary to do so. But I have hobbies. When you will hear a soft "ssswshwshhhh" behind you, then you could perhaps hear a good old German tomahawk.

 

[zaangalewa]

... Go on explain more. What's wrong with our perception of space and time? ...

Two (or more) entangled particles react as if they would be one particle. So if changes something in one of the entangled particles, which is millions of lightyears away, then changes the other particle. This happens not with light speed - this happens with the speed "oo". Somehow it looks like as if there is no spacetime between this particles.

...Basically, we have the same facts of the expanding universe. The differences between your view and mine are age of the universe, around 6000 years, vs 13.7 billion years, ...

13.8 billion years since we found the Higgs particle. That's the last approximation which I know. 6000 years was the first step in a long row of approximations since the first calculator in this row - he was a priest (and a genius) - asked: "I know the world is old - that's a qualitative knowledge. But how old is the world quantitative - expressed in a very concrete number of years?"

It's by the way stupid today to say the world is 6000 years old. This ignores the history of science and epistemology. If you really think this is true, then you have to start to fight against a brainwashing indoctrination. And if you are a liar ... then you have a damned big problem and I don't have any idea, how you will be able to solve this problem. Irrealism is able to be deadly - not only for you, but also for everyone, who trusts in you. It's more than a nerviness that you argue "trust in me" while you misuse the Christian rebound in god for your ... ¿stupidities?, ¿crimes? ... ?¿??

 

[esalla]

For what do I (=all mankind?) have no evidence?

To convince anyone.

From what?

To convince me.

That's unimportant for me. I informed you about some things, that's all.

All it sounds like is personal opinion to me.

The atheist

Atheism is a spiritual belief. If you like to discuss about a belief you don't need physics to do so.

scientists start with something that a given, an assumption. For example, then big bang happened. Then they start making up stuff from there. With Darwin, he started with a cell already. Then afterward, added spontaneous generation which was debunked. Abiogenesis is just SG updated.

Big bang = the universe expands, so it was more little once before it started to expand => the universe was created once
Theory of evolution = Every living entity has with every other living entity a common ancestor => we are all sisters and brothers

Which is very easy realizable. You can take a real cat and do so and the result will not be any other result. But in this case some cats will have to die - without any reason to have to do so.

No. If you kill your cat, then it cannot come back to life.

That's what I said. If you make the experiment then cats will die.

If it's alive, I suppose it could run away before you can show everyone.

Really funny. Still the problem is in 50% the cat will be dead and only in 50% the cat wil be alive, when you measure. But before you measure the cat is in a superposision and it is as well 50% alive and 50% dead.

I can't be the only one who sees it, but those who come later and want to see it. You would be famous having a cat that is alive and dead at the same time. Are you famous?

No. It exists in all thougts of all people, who like to think about the problems in context around "Schrödingers's cat".

Prove it.

You said it is only in my imaginations and I answered this. You should perhaps slowly start to learn how to think.

The guy who made the video eliminated the cat and superposition. I already stated Hugh Everett was mocked and laughed at so hard, he quit his job and went into another industry. He was a better mathematician than physicist. He continued drinking and died early.

No. Not any way. This is for example a way Erwin Schrödinger showed:

In general: The way is physical research. The ideas of Schröderinger are taken serios, because he is an excellent scientist.

So was Everett. Schrodinger and Schrodinger's equation is on my side, remember? I said I liked his thought experiment. The wave exists as potential energy like the electron can be everywhere it can be. It is realized or the energy is realized when it is measured. Now, Everett, he took Schrodinger's equation and manipulated it with his mathematics to fit his wacky idea. You and Everett are on the same side.

Is it? Why?

I can only explain it using Schrodinger's thought experiment; It exists in our thoughts. It is potential energy that is there, i.e. the photon energy. We just don't know where it goes through the right or left slit until it is observed. Then the energy is real; It is released and we see it. What if you had a light reading device? It would record it. That is observable and demonstrable.

You don't read what someone says to you, isn't it? Otherwise you would know now that potential energy is a real energy.

Prove it.

You can't even measure the energy; That's such a lame argument because it proves my point . Now, you're being mocked like Everett .

It is "spooky" because something is wrong with our perception of space and time.

Go on explain more. What's wrong with our perception of space and time?

I have to know nothing about the person Mr. Hugh Everett and your totally mad psychological structure in context of your attacks against this person. The idea "multiverse" is a mathematical plausible idea. The problem is it is not provable. So some people call it meta-physics. And physics is not meta-physics. So physicists don't know what to do with this idea now. A similar problem exists in case of the string theory. But for sure both concepts are interesting for physicists.

You didn't read about Everett, did you? I'm entitled to my scientific opinion if I'm peer reviewing his work. His theory didn't pass peer review; did you know that? It was only in more modern times that Schrodinger (who came before Everett (!)) was taken more seriously. Everett is the one who came up with the many worlds interpretation. No one likes to be associated with that mad man. That's why the newer version was called Multiverse.

Moreover, the creationists have Kalam Cosmological Argument. The multiverse side has no logical argument. They couldn't find anything in the past light in the expanding universe as evidence. Thus, you have nothing anymore. I can explain the wave and it's collapse.

Basically, we have the same facts of the expanding universe. The differences between your view and mine are age of the universe, around 6000 years, vs 13.7 billion years, .

I have to know nothing about the person Mr. Hugh Everett and your totally mad psychological structure in context of your attacks against this person. The idea "multiverse" is a mathematical plausible idea. The problem is it is not provable. So some people call it meta-physics. And physics is not meta-physics. So physicists don't know what to do with this idea now. A similar problem exists in case of the string theory. But for sure both concepts are interesting for physicists.

I give up.

Okay.

I presented scientific evidence, a valid argument, and Schrodinger, his equation, and thought experiment backing me up. I can show you an experiment where no human consciousness is necessary to see the wave collapse. All we have to do is measure the energy released, for example.

What about the partridge in the pear tree

As far as I know Lord Ribbeck on Ribbeck in Havelland had engaged a partridge after his death to tell children the story of Lord Ribbeck on Ribbeck in Havelland. And still today sometimes a child sits around, eats one of his pears, and sings about Lord Ribbeck, who had lived once on Ribbeck, in Havelland.

You would know

What would I know? ... The pear tree on the grave of Lord Ribbeck says he is Lord Ribbeck. But you are not a pear tree, aren't you? Do you speak pear? Or do you speak only nationalistic megalomania?

Take your pills...........................please

Anti-German: I never drink alcohol, I never use drugs - and I use only medicaments if it is really necessary to do so. But I have hobbies. When you will hear a soft "ssswshwshhhh" behind you, then you could perhaps hear a good old German tomahawk.

Well find a good doctor and start using..........................

People who never use drugs are retarded

Just like people who let drugs use them are retarded

 

[Wuwei]

Yes. I showed everything including the youtube. You showed nothing woo woo

Okay, big dumb guy.

Show us your math how superdeterminism, multiverses, etc. agree.

Youtube is a poor source for science. I don't use it. It is generally guys like Bill Nye oversimplifying. I prefer to go to the original sources.

Re. your first video here is the original source of Proietti etal. research:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.05080.pdf

"If one holds fast to the assumptions of locality and free-choice, this result implies that quantum theory should be interpreted in an observer-dependent way."

MIT Technology review

A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality

Physicists have long suspected that quantum mechanics allows two observers to experience different, conflicting realities. Now they’ve performed the first experiment that proves it.

www.technologyreview.com

"But Proietti and co’s result suggests that objective reality does not exist. In other words, the experiment suggests that one or more of the assumptions—the idea that there is a reality we can agree on, the idea that we have freedom of choice, or the idea of locality—must be wrong."

The conclusion is that one must not hold fast to locality. Entanglement already shows that it is hard to get around locality.
In the paper Proietti does not refer to multiverses anywhere. His paper and an MIT review refer to the idea that locality could be wrong .

The math is Quantum Mechanics. Most interpretations don't agree with each other, but they all are consistent with the math. For a colorful chart of all interpretations see, Interpretations of quantum mechanics - Wikipedia. It shows the major differences of around a dozen interpretations.

Do you have Cramer's transactional interpretation vid to show everyone and me?

As I said Youtube is a poor source for science understanding, so here is a reprint of Cramer's original paper in Review of Modern Physics. There are diagrams but very little math, since it's an interpretation:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280926546_The_transactional_interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics

You said that already. All talk. No action. Let's see you or @zaangalewa show us the math and how it is consistent with multiverses.

The underlying math is in a graduate course of QM. It's the same for all interpretations.

In your own words, why do you think the multiverse interpretation is debunked.
.

 

[zaangalewa]

For what do I (=all mankind?) have no evidence?

To convince anyone.

From what?

To convince me.

That's unimportant for me. I informed you about some things, that's all.

All it sounds like is personal opinion to me.

The atheist

Atheism is a spiritual belief. If you like to discuss about a belief you don't need physics to do so.

scientists start with something that a given, an assumption. For example, then big bang happened. Then they start making up stuff from there. With Darwin, he started with a cell already. Then afterward, added spontaneous generation which was debunked. Abiogenesis is just SG updated.

Big bang = the universe expands, so it was more little once before it started to expand => the universe was created once
Theory of evolution = Every living entity has with every other living entity a common ancestor => we are all sisters and brothers

Which is very easy realizable. You can take a real cat and do so and the result will not be any other result. But in this case some cats will have to die - without any reason to have to do so.

No. If you kill your cat, then it cannot come back to life.

That's what I said. If you make the experiment then cats will die.

If it's alive, I suppose it could run away before you can show everyone.

Really funny. Still the problem is in 50% the cat will be dead and only in 50% the cat wil be alive, when you measure. But before you measure the cat is in a superposision and it is as well 50% alive and 50% dead.

I can't be the only one who sees it, but those who come later and want to see it. You would be famous having a cat that is alive and dead at the same time. Are you famous?

No. It exists in all thougts of all people, who like to think about the problems in context around "Schrödingers's cat".

Prove it.

You said it is only in my imaginations and I answered this. You should perhaps slowly start to learn how to think.

The guy who made the video eliminated the cat and superposition. I already stated Hugh Everett was mocked and laughed at so hard, he quit his job and went into another industry. He was a better mathematician than physicist. He continued drinking and died early.

No. Not any way. This is for example a way Erwin Schrödinger showed:

In general: The way is physical research. The ideas of Schröderinger are taken serios, because he is an excellent scientist.

So was Everett. Schrodinger and Schrodinger's equation is on my side, remember? I said I liked his thought experiment. The wave exists as potential energy like the electron can be everywhere it can be. It is realized or the energy is realized when it is measured. Now, Everett, he took Schrodinger's equation and manipulated it with his mathematics to fit his wacky idea. You and Everett are on the same side.

Is it? Why?

I can only explain it using Schrodinger's thought experiment; It exists in our thoughts. It is potential energy that is there, i.e. the photon energy. We just don't know where it goes through the right or left slit until it is observed. Then the energy is real; It is released and we see it. What if you had a light reading device? It would record it. That is observable and demonstrable.

You don't read what someone says to you, isn't it? Otherwise you would know now that potential energy is a real energy.

Prove it.

You can't even measure the energy; That's such a lame argument because it proves my point . Now, you're being mocked like Everett .

It is "spooky" because something is wrong with our perception of space and time.

Go on explain more. What's wrong with our perception of space and time?

I have to know nothing about the person Mr. Hugh Everett and your totally mad psychological structure in context of your attacks against this person. The idea "multiverse" is a mathematical plausible idea. The problem is it is not provable. So some people call it meta-physics. And physics is not meta-physics. So physicists don't know what to do with this idea now. A similar problem exists in case of the string theory. But for sure both concepts are interesting for physicists.

You didn't read about Everett, did you? I'm entitled to my scientific opinion if I'm peer reviewing his work. His theory didn't pass peer review; did you know that? It was only in more modern times that Schrodinger (who came before Everett (!)) was taken more seriously. Everett is the one who came up with the many worlds interpretation. No one likes to be associated with that mad man. That's why the newer version was called Multiverse.

Moreover, the creationists have Kalam Cosmological Argument. The multiverse side has no logical argument. They couldn't find anything in the past light in the expanding universe as evidence. Thus, you have nothing anymore. I can explain the wave and it's collapse.

Basically, we have the same facts of the expanding universe. The differences between your view and mine are age of the universe, around 6000 years, vs 13.7 billion years, .

I have to know nothing about the person Mr. Hugh Everett and your totally mad psychological structure in context of your attacks against this person. The idea "multiverse" is a mathematical plausible idea. The problem is it is not provable. So some people call it meta-physics. And physics is not meta-physics. So physicists don't know what to do with this idea now. A similar problem exists in case of the string theory. But for sure both concepts are interesting for physicists.

I give up.

Okay.

I presented scientific evidence, a valid argument, and Schrodinger, his equation, and thought experiment backing me up. I can show you an experiment where no human consciousness is necessary to see the wave collapse. All we have to do is measure the energy released, for example.

What about the partridge in the pear tree

As far as I know Lord Ribbeck on Ribbeck in Havelland had engaged a partridge after his death to tell children the story of Lord Ribbeck on Ribbeck in Havelland. And still today sometimes a child sits around, eats one of his pears, and sings about Lord Ribbeck, who had lived once on Ribbeck, in Havelland.

You would know

What would I know? ... The pear tree on the grave of Lord Ribbeck says he is Lord Ribbeck. But you are not a pear tree, aren't you? Do you speak pear? Or do you speak only nationalistic megalomania?

Take your pills...........................please

Anti-German: I never drink alcohol, I never use drugs - and I use only medicaments if it is really necessary to do so. But I have hobbies. When you will hear a soft "ssswshwshhhh" behind you, then you could perhaps hear a good old German tomahawk.

Well find a good doctor and start using..........................

People who never use drugs are retarded

Just like people who let drugs use them are retarded

no comment

 

[esalla]

Yes. I showed everything including the youtube. You showed nothing woo woo

Okay, big dumb guy.

Show us your math how superdeterminism, multiverses, etc. agree.

Youtube is a poor source for science. I don't use it. It is generally guys like Bill Nye oversimplifying. I prefer to go to the original sources.

Re. your first video here is the original source of Proietti etal. research:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.05080.pdf

"If one holds fast to the assumptions of locality and free-choice, this result implies that quantum theory should be interpreted in an observer-dependent way."

MIT Technology review

A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality

Physicists have long suspected that quantum mechanics allows two observers to experience different, conflicting realities. Now they’ve performed the first experiment that proves it.

www.technologyreview.com

"But Proietti and co’s result suggests that objective reality does not exist. In other words, the experiment suggests that one or more of the assumptions—the idea that there is a reality we can agree on, the idea that we have freedom of choice, or the idea of locality—must be wrong."

The conclusion is that one must not hold fast to locality. Entanglement already shows that it is hard to get around locality.
In the paper Proietti does not refer to multiverses anywhere. His paper and an MIT review refer to the idea that locality could be wrong .

The math is Quantum Mechanics. Most interpretations don't agree with each other, but they all are consistent with the math. For a colorful chart of all interpretations see, Interpretations of quantum mechanics - Wikipedia. It shows the major differences of around a dozen interpretations.

Do you have Cramer's transactional interpretation vid to show everyone and me?

As I said Youtube is a poor source for science understanding, so here is a reprint of Cramer's original paper in Review of Modern Physics. There are diagrams but very little math, since it's an interpretation:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280926546_The_transactional_interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics

You said that already. All talk. No action. Let's see you or @zaangalewa show us the math and how it is consistent with multiverses.

The underlying math is in a graduate course of QM. It's the same for all interpretations.

In your own words, why do you think the multiverse interpretation is debunked.
.

LOL have a nice quantum entanglement discussion with the local delusions of grandeur expert

 

[Wuwei]

Somehow it looks like as if there is no spacetime between this particles.

That is a good observation. In a frame of reference at the speed of photons or light, the distance between emission and absorption goes to zero because of the Fitzgerald contraction. Try plugging in c for the velocity in his equation and you will see that it is zero.
.