I obviously do not understand quantum mechanics as well as I thought, because I thought this comment and this comment were saying the same thing, but karma indicates differently. Can someone explain my mistake?
The first comment says that the double slit experiment is feasible under both hypothesis, but the second adds on that it is just as likely with MWI as waveform collapse.
Analogy: There are two possible bags arrangements, one filled with 5 green balls and 5 red balls, and the other with 4 green balls and 6 red balls.
It’s true that drawing a green ball is consistent with both, but it’s more likely in the with first bag than the second.
I see what you mean. But I thought “ripples of one wave affected the other wave” was the accepted interpretation of the double slit experiment. In other words, the double slit experiments prove the wave-particle duality. I wasn’t aware that the wave-particle duality was considered evidence in favor of MWI.
“Wave-particle duality” pretty much just means particles that obey the schrodinger wave equation, I think. And it could be more evidence for one theory than another if one theory was vague, ambiguous, etc. The more specific theory gets more points if it matches experiment.
It is evidence of (what we now know as) quantum mechanics. MWI is just an interpretation of QM, so there isn’t really evidence for MWI that isn’t also evidence for the other interpretations according to the people who favor them.
I don’t know nearly enough about QM to say whether or not that’s true, I was just going off what was said in response to your second comment. However, that doesn’t seem to have any upvotes, so it may not be correct either.
I obviously do not understand quantum mechanics as well as I thought, because I thought this comment and this comment were saying the same thing, but karma indicates differently. Can someone explain my mistake?
The first comment says that the double slit experiment is feasible under both hypothesis, but the second adds on that it is just as likely with MWI as waveform collapse.
Analogy: There are two possible bags arrangements, one filled with 5 green balls and 5 red balls, and the other with 4 green balls and 6 red balls. It’s true that drawing a green ball is consistent with both, but it’s more likely in the with first bag than the second.
I see what you mean. But I thought “ripples of one wave affected the other wave” was the accepted interpretation of the double slit experiment. In other words, the double slit experiments prove the wave-particle duality. I wasn’t aware that the wave-particle duality was considered evidence in favor of MWI.
In Fabric of Reality, David Deutsch claims the double-split experiment is evidence of photons interfering with photons in other worlds.
“Wave-particle duality” pretty much just means particles that obey the schrodinger wave equation, I think. And it could be more evidence for one theory than another if one theory was vague, ambiguous, etc. The more specific theory gets more points if it matches experiment.
It is evidence of (what we now know as) quantum mechanics. MWI is just an interpretation of QM, so there isn’t really evidence for MWI that isn’t also evidence for the other interpretations according to the people who favor them.
I don’t know nearly enough about QM to say whether or not that’s true, I was just going off what was said in response to your second comment. However, that doesn’t seem to have any upvotes, so it may not be correct either.