102
What proof is there of the multiverse?
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2025
102 points (100.0% liked)
Ask Science
12329 readers
1 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
Yea, the difference between a classical statistical theory with and without many worlds is whether or not you maintain a state that includes all possible outcomes as you continue your analysis, or restrict the state you are analyzing to one possible outcome from one of your statistical events. The same is true of quantum mechanics.
I’m arguing that quantum mechanics is a rethinking of statistics more so than a rethinking of physics. The world cannot be explained without it.
I think that even if I must consider a state that includes all possible outcomes while doing my analysis of the situation, that doesn’t mean those “alternate worlds” necessarily physically exist in any meaningful way.
Yes, but, again, this is only because you have imperfect information about the underlying physical system. The array of possibilities presented by classical statistics are strictly epistemic; the actual real state of the system you're analyzing is always definitive and determinate.
And very, very importantly, this is not that case in quantum physics. The indeterminacy of state in a super position is not just the result of imperfect information; it is a fundamental part of the underlying system. It is not the case that, in the double slit experiment, the electron only travels through one slit, and we just don't know which one. It really really does travel through both. This is fundamentally different from classical mechanics.
Look, if you want to try and argue that quantum physics isn't physics, I won't stop you, but you'd better have an extraordinary argument, because this is an extraordinary claim. One that rejects the last century of scientific consensus. If you can demonstrate that quantum mechanics is just a different statistical model of classical physics, it would be a revolution in science.
That's correct, and MWI doesn't argue otherwise. The important part isn't just that these states are possible, it's that they have real physical existence.
You are glossing over my point. I’ll try to put it as concretely as I can think of:
Assume for the sake of argument that there is a process in an otherwise classical physical system that is truly nondeterministic, meaning there is randomness that isn’t due to any hidden variable or otherwise incomplete knowledge of the state of the system.
When describing such a system, you will run into the same dilemma of either needing a “wavefunction collapse” or “many worlds” interpretation of your statistics.
And yet this model is not quantum. It is a classical nondeterministic model.
My point being, it’s the existence of true nondeterminism that leads to the “many worlds” idea, not the other strange properties of quantum mechanics.
I really, genuinely, think this is not a controversial take. The idea that quantum mechanics is more of a rethinking of statistics than physics comes from my own personal experience studying quantum physics. Most of the time, you take the classical Newtonian mechanics equations (sometimes including “corrections” for relativity), and treat them with the “quantum mechanics” version of statistics, and out pops all the important things you’d like to model, like how electrons arrange into orbitals in an atom. The results of slit/entanglement/bell experiments depend on having an object that obeys quantum statistics, but it can be a wide variety of objects with vastly different physical properties and behaviors (e.g. slit experiments have been done with both photons and electrons).
I don’t think there is any reason to believe the “other worlds” needed to analyze quantum systems “physically exist” to any meaningful extent. It’s the same as considering all possible outcomes of a classical truly random event (if you assume there exists true nondeterminism, not simply a lack of complete information).
I promise I'm not doing it deliberately.
Yes, I would agree with that if we're using "wave function collapse" to refer to any truly probabilistic mechanism in a general sense (as, strictly speaking you could have a non-deterministic mechanics without wave functions at all).
But I note the important fact that you don't need both.
Well no, it's the existence of true non-determinism without any form of wave function collapse.
Well if that's the case, with all due respect, I think you need to study quantum physics more. Because trying to overturn a century of scientific consensus is definitely controversial, at best.
How, specifically, are you modeling the double slit experiment using only Newtonian Mechanics? How about quantum tunneling?
Are claiming that super positions don't actually exist at all? Because, again, you'd better have a solid argument for such a radical claim.
Is it? Hard to say when we're talking about something that doesn't actually exist.
I don’t think what I’m suggesting is “trying to overturn a century of scientific consensus”. It’s a mildly different interpretation of the same math, that doesn’t require many physical worlds. It’s also not that uncommon. The “many worlds” idea is not scientific consensus. Go read about interpretations of quantum mechanics from sources other than Sean Carroll.
Both the double slit experiments and quantum tunneling emerge when you apply quantum statistics to any point particle following Newtonian mechanics.
Superpositions are a mathematical tool for describing the statistics of potential measurements.
Here’s an interesting example:
The Bell test about entanglement is one of the best-known proofs that quantum mechanics can’t be explained using classical statistics.
The Bell test is an analysis of the correlation between two entangled particles.
However, that correlation is only notable because we are analyzing the evolution of both particles.
If we analyze one particle, alone, we wouldn’t be able to determine if it is entangled with any other particles (and we wouldn’t be able to model it without the need for quantum mechanics).
In other words, you only need the “other worlds” when you are analyzing a system and trying to predict its behavior. You can completely ignore all information or “other worlds” external to the system you are studying.
That seems to demonstrate the opposite of your argument though, because the other particle does still exist even if you don't consider it.