Amazing feature of Schrodinger's equation implied by the MWI

[Alan Grayson]

For example, in a horse race with say 10 horses, it tells us that 10 worlds will be created, so each horse can win in some world. But that hardly scratches the surface. For any winner in any world, it tell us the huge number of worlds created for the losing positions of the losers. But that's not all. One way of winning for a winner is for every combination of the losers to have heart failure during the race, and in falling trips the other losers, so they don't make it to the finish line.It's all there in Schrodinger's equation. No doubt about it. AG

[John Clark]

On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 12:11 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>For example, in a horse race with say 10 horses, it tells us that 10 worlds will be created, so each horse can win in some world. But that hardly scratches the surface. For any winner in any world, it tell us the huge number of worlds created for the losing positions of the losers. But that's not all. One way of winning for a winner is for every combination of the losers to have heart failure during the race, and in falling trips the other losers, so they don't make it to the finish line.It's all there in Schrodinger's equation. No doubt about it. AG

Yes, there is no doubt about it, the multiverse is big.

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

rfe

[Alan Grayson]

Better not tell RFK Jr, or he he might decide to use S's equation on Olympic races and obtain heart failure statistics on healthy young hunans and save a ton of money in comparison to the current methodology. AG 

rf

[Alan Grayson]

On Wednesday, September 17, 2025 at 5:31:39 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

I've falsified your interpretation of S's equation as justifying your claim that every possible outcome MUST occur in some world. I suppose I'm using the same reasoning you use in denying SUPER DETERMINISM. Moreover, in your attempts to justify your claim about S's equation, you reference determinism, localism, and realism. What you conclude about these concepts might be true, but what it has to do with your claim that I am disputing, is nowhere in sight. AG 

[John Clark]

On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 11:37 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've falsified your interpretation of S's equation as justifying your claim that every possible outcome MUST occur in some world.

Somehow I missed that post and that's a pity because it must've been very impressive. 

 

> Moreover, in your attempts to justify your claim about S's equation, you reference determinism, localism, and realism. What you conclude about these concepts might be true, but what it has to do with your claim that I am disputing, is nowhere in sight. AG 

Many Worlds has only two fundamental axioms, and they are both simple:

1) The quantum wave function contains all the physical information about a system.

2) The quantum wave function evolves according to the Schrödinger equation.

In some places and at some times the quantum wave function has a very low amplitude but is nevertheless greater than zero, therefore according to axiom #1 it must be physical, and being physical has consequences. And one of those consequences is that the universe is deterministic (because Schrodinger's equation is deterministic) and local but NOT realistic. The great virtue of Many Worlds is that it takes quantum mechanics at face value, it needs no extra machinery to explain measurement or observation. 

 

By contrast In David Bohm's quantum interpretation he keeps Schrödinger's equation but adds another equation for what he calls the "pilot wave" which has some very unusual properties. The pilot wave is extremely non-local, it has to take the state of the entire universe into account in order to know if it should guide an electron through the right slit or the left slit in an experiment, and influences can be instantaneous, and distance does not diminish affects so an electron in the Andromeda galaxy might be just as important in making the decision of which split to go through as an electron that is only 1 foot away.

Also, the pilot wave can affect an electron but an electron cannot affect the pilot wave, the wave pushes the particle but the particle can NOT push back. This sort of one-way causation has never been observed before. And the asymmetry means that matter is real (it always has one definite position and velocity) but is fundamentally passive, matter is guided by the pilot wave but matter is unable to influence the pilot wave. Human Beings are made of matter so we are just puppets, the pilot wave pulls the strings. Well OK… Technically we're marionettes not puppets. 

Bohm and his supporters argue that all of this additional byzantine complexity is worth it because it maintains realism. I disagree, I think that is far too high a price to pay. At the end of the day all the pilot wave does is provide a little arrow that points at a particle and says "this is the real particle, ignore all others". This is why detractors of pilot wave theory have called it "the disappearing worlds theory" or "Many Worlds theory in denial" .   

> I suppose I'm using the same reasoning you use in denying SUPER DETERMINISM.

As I've said before I can't prove that super determinism is wrong but I can prove that super determinism is silly. The greater the violation of Occam's razor that your theory needs to be true the sillier it is, and by that metric it would be impossible to be sillier than super determinism.  

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

q2q

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, September 19, 2025 at 7:08:56 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 11:37 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've falsified your interpretation of S's equation as justifying your claim that every possible outcome MUST occur in some world.

Somehow I missed that post and that's a pity because it must've been very impressive. 

It was obvious for those with eyes that can see. The outcome scenarios in which every subset of losers in any race experience heart failure during the race, drop dead, and trip the other losers are possible outcomes NOT predicted by S's equation, unless you believe that classical energy, used in S's equation, predicts heart failure of horses. AG

 

> Moreover, in your attempts to justify your claim about S's equation, you reference determinism, localism, and realism. What you conclude about these concepts might be true, but what it has to do with your claim that I am disputing, is nowhere in sight. AG 

Many Worlds has only two fundamental axioms, and they are both simple:

1) The quantum wave function contains all the physical information about a system.

As well as heart failure of horses? AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, September 19, 2025 at 7:08:56 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 11:37 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've falsified your interpretation of S's equation as justifying your claim that every possible outcome MUST occur in some world.

Somehow I missed that post and that's a pity because it must've been very impressive. 

 

> Moreover, in your attempts to justify your claim about S's equation, you reference determinism, localism, and realism. What you conclude about these concepts might be true, but what it has to do with your claim that I am disputing, is nowhere in sight. AG 

Many Worlds has only two fundamental axioms, and they are both simple:

1) The quantum wave function contains all the physical information about a system.

Not true. I've specified possible states of the outcome of a horse race which are not predicted by the wf solution of S's equation, unless you believe something very silly; namely, that the coronary status of those horses is determined by their classical energy used in that equation. AG

[John Clark]

On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 9:44 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Many Worlds has only two fundamental axioms, and they are both simple:

1) The quantum wave function contains all the physical information about a system.

> As well as heart failure of horses? AG

Certainly! Microscopic systems have quantum wave functions just like microscopic objects do. A dead horse and a living horse are different physical states and they contain different physical information. And neither physical state is forbidden by Schrodinger's equation. And if Schrodinger's equation is deterministic, which it is, then when it comes to physical information and therefore physical reality, everything that is not forbidden is mandatory.  

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

4gz

 

 

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, September 20, 2025 at 5:31:15 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 9:44 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Many Worlds has only two fundamental axioms, and they are both simple:

1) The quantum wave function contains all the physical information about a system.

> As well as heart failure of horses? AG

Certainly! Microscopic systems have quantum wave functions just like microscopic objects do. A dead horse and a living horse are different physical states and they contain different physical information. And neither physical state is forbidden by Schrodinger's equation. And if Schrodinger's equation is deterministic, which it is, then when it comes to physical information and therefore physical reality, everything that is not forbidden is mandatory.  

Why mandatory? How can you know what's forbidden or not? It's great to know heart research can be done using S's equation. RFK Jr needs to be immediately informed. AG

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, September 20, 2025 at 7:33:06 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Saturday, September 20, 2025 at 5:31:15 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 9:44 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Many Worlds has only two fundamental axioms, and they are both simple:

1) The quantum wave function contains all the physical information about a system.

> As well as heart failure of horses? AG

Certainly! Microscopic systems have quantum wave functions just like microscopic objects do. A dead horse and a living horse are different physical states and they contain different physical information. And neither physical state is forbidden by Schrodinger's equation. And if Schrodinger's equation is deterministic, which it is, then when it comes to physical information and therefore physical reality, everything that is not forbidden is mandatory.  

Why mandatory? How can you know what's forbidden or not? It's great to know heart research can be done using S's equation. RFK Jr needs to be immediately informed. AG

How would you write S's equation so it applies to heart ailments of horses or humans? It seems to me (ISTM) you're out on a limb so to speak, way way out. And to put physics on track for sanity, MWI must be expunged. AG 

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

2) The quantum wave function evolves according to the Schrödinger equation.

In some places and at some times the quantum wave function has a very low amplitude but is nevertheless greater than zero, therefore according to axiom #1 it must be physical, and being physical has consequences. And one of those consequences is that the universe is deterministic (because Schrodinger's equation is deterministic) and local but NOT realistic. The great virtue of Many Worlds is that it takes quantum mechanics at face value, it needs no extra machinery to explain measurement or observation. 

 

By contrast In David Bohm's quantum interpretation he keeps Schrödinger's equation but adds another equation for what he calls the "pilot wave" which has some very unusual properties. The pilot wave is extremely non-local, it has to take the state of the entire universe into account in order to know if it should guide an electron through the right slit or the left slit in an experiment, and influences can be instantaneous, and distance does not diminish affects so an electron in the Andromeda galaxy might be just as important in making the decision of which split to go through as an electron that is only 1 foot away.

Also, the pilot wave can affect an electron but an electron cannot affect the pilot wave, the wave pushes the particle but the particle can NOT push back.

In classical E&M, does a charged particle push back when it responds to the field? Any push back in QED? AG

 

This sort of one-way causation has never been observed before. And the asymmetry means that matter is real (it always has one definite position and velocity) but is fundamentally passive, matter is guided by the pilot wave but matter is unable to influence the pilot wave. Human Beings are made of matter so we are just puppets, the pilot wave pulls the strings. Well OK… Technically we're marionettes not puppets. 

Bohm and his supporters argue that all of this additional byzantine complexity is worth it because it maintains realism. I disagree, I think that is far too high a price to pay. At the end of the day all the pilot wave does is provide a little arrow that points at a particle and says "this is the real particle, ignore all others". This is why detractors of pilot wave theory have called it "the disappearing worlds theory" or "Many Worlds theory in denial" .   

> I suppose I'm using the same reasoning you use in denying SUPER DETERMINISM.

As I've said before I can't prove that super determinism is wrong but I can prove that super determinism is silly.

That's your aesthetic/logical judgment which you tell us is an invalid criterion for determining the validity of a physical theory. AG

[John Clark]

On Sat, Sep 20, 2025 at 10:32 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Microscopic systems have quantum wave functions just like microscopic objects do. A dead horse and a living horse are different physical states and they contain different physical information. And neither physical state is forbidden by Schrodinger's equation. And if Schrodinger's equation is deterministic, which it is, then when it comes to physical information and therefore physical reality, everything that is not forbidden is mandatory.  

> Why mandatory?

Because Schrodinger's equation is deterministic.  

 

> How can you know what's forbidden or not?

If it contradicts Schrodinger's equation then it is forbidden. For example, 2 fermions that are in the same quantum state that are occupying the same position is forbidden because the quantum wave amplitude drops to zero at that point and therefore there is zero probability of it ever happening.   

 >> Also, the pilot wave can affect an electron but an electron cannot affect the pilot wave, the wave pushes the particle but the particle can NOT push back. This sort of one-way causation has never been observed before.

 

>In classical E&M, does a charged particle push back when it responds to the field?

Yes, when you push a charge you accelerate it, and you're not just changing its motion, you're also creating a electromagnetic disturbance that carries energy and momentum away from the system; it's called the the Abraham-Lorentz force, it produces a reaction on an accelerating point charge and it can be calculated with the following equation:  

Reaction force = (μ₀q²/6πc) × (d³v/dt³) where μ₀ is the permeability of free space constant and its value is 4π × 10⁻⁷ N/A² (newtons per ampere squared).

But there's nothing equivalent to that when it comes to pilot waves, which makes me suspicious. I don't think they exist.  

>> As I've said before I can't prove that super determinism is wrong but I can prove that super determinism is silly. The greater the violation of Occam's razor that your theory needs to be true the sillier it is, and by that metric it would be impossible to be sillier than super determinism. 

 

>That's your aesthetic/logical judgment

It certainly is! In my judgment Superdeterminism is ugly and logically flawed. And I've given you a precise definition of "silly".  

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis

pds

[Alan Grayson]

As technical resident expert on silliness, is it not silly to claim S's equation can describe the coronary status of horses and presumably all mammals? If not, how would you write S's equation for wf information on coronary disease? What are the silly aspects of Superdeterminism for comparison? AG