Well, in this case the universal wavefunction does factorise into a product of two functions 𝛙(light cone)𝛙(cat), where 𝛙(cat) has an “alive” branch and “dead” branch, but 𝛙(light cone) does not. I’d rather identify with 𝛙(light cone) than 𝛙(light cone × cat) [i.e. 𝛙(universe)], but whatever.
The point you were trying to make is correct anyway, either way.
I just threw Schrodinger’s cat outside the future light cone. In your Everett branch is the cat alive or dead?
It seems to me that asking about the state of something in “your” Everett branch while it’s outside your light cone is rather meaningless. The question doesn’t really make sense. Someone with a detailed knowledge of physics in this situation can predict what an observer anywhere will observe.
But in general, your point is correct. We do have a very hard time trying to learn about events outside our light cone, etc. But the message in the quote is simply the idea that an uncertain map != an uncertain territory.
It seems to me that asking about the state of something in “your” Everett branch while it’s outside your light cone is rather meaningless. The question doesn’t really make sense. Someone with a detailed knowledge of physics in this situation can predict what an observer anywhere will observe.
So, if it was someone you care about instead of a cat, would you prefer that this happened or that they disappeared entirely?
It is still not meaningful from a physical standpoint. If you were to throw something I valued outside my future lightcone, then I would take the same as you destroying said thing.
And may I remind you that Schrödingers cat was proposed as a thought experimental counter argument to the copenhagen inteprentation, so asking if it is alive or dead before I have had particle interaction with it is equally meaningless, because it has yet to decohere.
It is still not meaningful from a physical standpoint.
Yes it is. Physics doesn’t revolve around you. The fact that you can’t influence or observe something is a limitation in you, not in physics. Stuff keeps existing when you can’t see it.
If you were to throw something I valued outside my future lightcone, then I would take the same as you destroying said thing.
I don’t believe you. I would bet that if actually given the choice between someone you loved being sent outside your future lightcone then destroyed or just sent outside the future lightcone and given delicious cookies then you would prefer them to be given the far-away cookies than the far away destruction.
Yes, of course I believe in the implied invisible. But from a personal standpoint It does not matter because the repercussions are the same either way, unless you can use your magical “throw stuff outside my future lightcone” powers to bring them back. Outside f-lightcone = I can never interact with it.
And if I have to be really nitpicky, current macroscopic physcis does revolve around the observer, but certain things can be agreed upon; such as the hamiltonian, timelike, spacelike and lightlike distances, etc.
Saying physics does not revolve aroud me implies that there is a common reference point, which there isn’t.
Also, I think we are straying from meaningful discussion.
The question doesn’t really make sense. Someone with a detailed knowledge of physics in this situation can predict what an observer anywhere will observe.
No they can’t. They most certainly can’t predict what the observer that is right next to the damn box with the cat in it will observe when it opens the box. In fact, they can’t even predict what all observers anywhere in my future light cone will observe (just those observations that could ever be sent back to me).
“Temporarily” can be quite a long time… So when can we expect to probe plank-energy physics solidly enough to
really test how quantum gravity works? :)
-Captain Kirk
Nonsense. I just threw Schrodinger’s cat outside the future light cone. In your Everett branch is the cat alive or dead?
Ok, sure, having a physics where faster than light and even (direct) time travel are possible makes things easier.
Both?
No.
Well, in this case the universal wavefunction does factorise into a product of two functions 𝛙(light cone)𝛙(cat), where 𝛙(cat) has an “alive” branch and “dead” branch, but 𝛙(light cone) does not. I’d rather identify with 𝛙(light cone) than 𝛙(light cone × cat) [i.e. 𝛙(universe)], but whatever.
The point you were trying to make is correct anyway, either way.
It seems to me that asking about the state of something in “your” Everett branch while it’s outside your light cone is rather meaningless. The question doesn’t really make sense. Someone with a detailed knowledge of physics in this situation can predict what an observer anywhere will observe.
But in general, your point is correct. We do have a very hard time trying to learn about events outside our light cone, etc. But the message in the quote is simply the idea that an uncertain map != an uncertain territory.
So, if it was someone you care about instead of a cat, would you prefer that this happened or that they disappeared entirely?
It is still not meaningful from a physical standpoint. If you were to throw something I valued outside my future lightcone, then I would take the same as you destroying said thing.
And may I remind you that Schrödingers cat was proposed as a thought experimental counter argument to the copenhagen inteprentation, so asking if it is alive or dead before I have had particle interaction with it is equally meaningless, because it has yet to decohere.
Yes it is. Physics doesn’t revolve around you. The fact that you can’t influence or observe something is a limitation in you, not in physics. Stuff keeps existing when you can’t see it.
I don’t believe you. I would bet that if actually given the choice between someone you loved being sent outside your future lightcone then destroyed or just sent outside the future lightcone and given delicious cookies then you would prefer them to be given the far-away cookies than the far away destruction.
Yes, of course I believe in the implied invisible. But from a personal standpoint It does not matter because the repercussions are the same either way, unless you can use your magical “throw stuff outside my future lightcone” powers to bring them back. Outside f-lightcone = I can never interact with it.
And if I have to be really nitpicky, current macroscopic physcis does revolve around the observer, but certain things can be agreed upon; such as the hamiltonian, timelike, spacelike and lightlike distances, etc. Saying physics does not revolve aroud me implies that there is a common reference point, which there isn’t.
Also, I think we are straying from meaningful discussion.
No they can’t. They most certainly can’t predict what the observer that is right next to the damn box with the cat in it will observe when it opens the box. In fact, they can’t even predict what all observers anywhere in my future light cone will observe (just those observations that could ever be sent back to me).
“Temporarily” can be quite a long time… So when can we expect to probe plank-energy physics solidly enough to really test how quantum gravity works? :)