Many Worlds Interpretation and Schrodinger's Equation

[Alan Grayson]

Supposedly, S's equation justifies the claim that every outcome is realized in its some world, but in the case of a single polarized photon, the equation seems out-to-lunch, that is, missing-in-action. A single photon can be polarized in every direction, which implies by the Many Worlds Interpretation, at least a countably infinite number of outcomes, or possibly an uncountably infinite number of outcomes. But where is S's equation to support this conclusion? AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, August 30, 2025 at 4:11:06 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

Supposedly, S's equation justifies the claim that every outcome is realized in its some world, but in the case of a single polarized photon, the equation seems out-to-lunch, that is, missing-in-action. A single photon can be polarized in every direction, which implies by the Many Worlds Interpretation, at least a countably infinite number of outcomes, or possibly an uncountably infinite number of outcomes. But where is S's equation to support this conclusion? AG

When I claimed the polarizer experiment shows that photons do NOT have a pre-existent polarization before measurement, you were surprised, as if that conclusion supports the MWI. But I don't see that implication, and I still deny the MWI. In fact, since S's equation is nowhere in sight, how can you support the MWI when, according to your many posts, it's what supports the claim that all possible outcomes must occur in some world? AG 

[Alan Grayson]

What I've shown is that there is a countably infinite, and possibly uncountable infinite, set of outcomes which cannot be implied by S's equation since it's missing in action in the polarizer experiment. In effect, I've falsified the claim of the MWI. Time has come to admit this reality. AG

[John Clark]

On Sat, Aug 30, 2025 at 6:11 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Supposedly, S's equation justifies the claim that every outcome is realized in its some world, but in the case of a single polarized photon, the equation seems out-to-lunch, that is, missing-in-action

Schrodinger's equation says that regardless of what angle you set your polarizer at, there is always a 50% chance you will observe a previously unmeasured photon make it through that polarizer and a 50% chance you will not. And Many Worlds explains how in the world this strange but true fact can possibly be true by saying the unmeasured photon is NOT in one and only one polarization angle but in every conceivable angle, and there is a polarizer for every conceivable rotational setting, and there are 2 Alan Graysons for every polarizer, one Alan Grayson observes the photon passing through the polarizer and the other Alan Grayson observes the photon being absorbed by the polarizer. This is because the photon, the polarizer and Alan Grayson must all obey the laws of quantum mechanics. 

I believe the reason Many Worlds is not as universally accepted as Kepler's laws of planetary motion has nothing to do with physics, it has to do with human psychology.

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

ndp

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, September 7, 2025 at 4:41:14 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Aug 30, 2025 at 6:11 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Supposedly, S's equation justifies the claim that every outcome is realized in its some world, but in the case of a single polarized photon, the equation seems out-to-lunch, that is, missing-in-action

Schrodinger's equation says that regardless of what angle you set your polarizer at, there is always a 50% chance you will observe a previously unmeasured photon make it through that polarizer and a 50% chance you will not. And Many Worlds explains how in the world this strange but true fact can possibly be true by saying the unmeasured photon is NOT in one and only one polarization angle but in every conceivable angle, and there is a polarizer for every conceivable rotational setting, and there are 2 Alan Graysons for every polarizer, one Alan Grayson observes the photon passing through the polarizer and the other Alan Grayson observes the photon being absorbed by the polarizer. This is because the photon, the polarizer and Alan Grayson must all obey the laws of quantum mechanics. 

I thought you wrote that an unmeasured photon will pass through any polarizer, set at any angle, and will pass 100% through another polarizer with the same orientation, and never pass through a polarizer rotated 90 degrees from the first. Is this what you claimed? As for S's equation, I don't see it predicting anything in this situation. You've just stated an empirical fact, not what S's equation predicts. In this case it predicts nothing, and is irrelevant to the central claim of the MWI. AG 

I believe the reason Many Worlds is not as universally accepted as Kepler's laws of planetary motion has nothing to do with physics, it has to do with human psychology.

Kepler's laws make verifiable predictions, unlike MWI. In the polarizer experiment, there's just too many unverifiable worlds being created. And Yes, this is a value judgement which I am allowed to make, even though the universe isn't structured to suit my fancy. Same situation at a T-intersection; too many worlds posited in the MWI. The proliferation of worlds is orders worse than metastasizing cancer. So I refuse to accept what I consider as nonsense. Relativity, e.g., makes apparent predictions which seem ridiculous. but they are the logical consequences of a few axioms. In polarizer experiment, there is no model I am aware of, that makes the prediction you claim. AG 

[John Clark]

On Sun, Sep 7, 2025 at 7:10 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Schrodinger's equation says that regardless of what angle you set your polarizer at, there is always a 50% chance you will observe a previously unmeasured photon make it through that polarizer and a 50% chance you will not. And Many Worlds explains how in the world this strange but true fact can possibly be true by saying the unmeasured photon is NOT in one and only one polarization angle but in every conceivable angle, and there is a polarizer for every conceivable rotational setting, and there are 2 Alan Graysons for every polarizer, one Alan Grayson observes the photon passing through the polarizer and the other Alan Grayson observes the photon being absorbed by the polarizer. This is because the photon, the polarizer and Alan Grayson must all obey the laws of quantum mechanics. 

> I thought you wrote that an unmeasured photon will pass through any polarizer,

If an unmeasured photon manages to make its way through a polarizer set an a random angle (and there's a 50% chance it will) then it is no longer unmeasured,  and then there is a 100% chance it will pass through a second polarizer that is set at the same angle. And if it doesn't make it through the first polarizer then there is no longer a photon that you can perform experiments on. 

> Kepler's laws make verifiable predictions, unlike MWI. In the polarizer experiment, there's just too many unverifiable worlds being created.

Most theories make some predictions that can't be verified, but a theory should be judged on things that CAN be verified not on things that can't be, and Many Worlds is consistent with all known experimental results. And unlike Copenhagen (a.k.a. shut up and calculate) it is able to explain how radically unintuitive results can possibly be true. 

> too many worlds posited in the MWI.

So your objection is that Many Worlds can't be true because that would mean the universe would be just too big. During the middle ages a few brave individuals postulated that maybe the stars were just as bright as the sun and they only looked small and dim because they were very far away, but medieval philosophers insisted that can't be true because the universe would be just too big. 

And the MWI does NOT postulate Many Worlds, they are a consequence of assuming that measured and unmeasured particles obey the same laws of physics, and of assuming that conscious and unconscious matter does too.  

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

3n8

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, September 7, 2025 at 6:53:51 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Sep 7, 2025 at 7:10 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Schrodinger's equation says that regardless of what angle you set your polarizer at, there is always a 50% chance you will observe a previously unmeasured photon make it through that polarizer and a 50% chance you will not. And Many Worlds explains how in the world this strange but true fact can possibly be true by saying the unmeasured photon is NOT in one and only one polarization angle but in every conceivable angle, and there is a polarizer for every conceivable rotational setting, and there are 2 Alan Graysons for every polarizer, one Alan Grayson observes the photon passing through the polarizer and the other Alan Grayson observes the photon being absorbed by the polarizer. This is because the photon, the polarizer and Alan Grayson must all obey the laws of quantum mechanics. 

> I thought you wrote that an unmeasured photon will pass through any polarizer,

If an unmeasured photon manages to make its way through a polarizer set an a random angle (and there's a 50% chance it will) then it is no longer unmeasured,  and then there is a 100% chance it will pass through a second polarizer that is set at the same angle. And if it doesn't make it through the first polarizer then there is no longer a photon that you can perform experiments on. 

And where is S's Equation this scenario? Answer; missing in action. It doesn't exist to support the claim that all possible measurements are in fact measured in some world. AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, September 7, 2025 at 4:41:14 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Aug 30, 2025 at 6:11 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Supposedly, S's equation justifies the claim that every outcome is realized in its some world, but in the case of a single polarized photon, the equation seems out-to-lunch, that is, missing-in-action

Schrodinger's equation says that regardless of what angle you set your polarizer at, there is always a 50% chance you will observe a previously unmeasured photon make it through that polarizer and a 50% chance you will not.

Show me how it says that!  I'm from Missouri and I think your claim is specious. You're just inferring that it would if it could be applied to polarization. AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, September 7, 2025 at 6:53:51 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Sep 7, 2025 at 7:10 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Schrodinger's equation says that regardless of what angle you set your polarizer at, there is always a 50% chance you will observe a previously unmeasured photon make it through that polarizer and a 50% chance you will not. And Many Worlds explains how in the world this strange but true fact can possibly be true by saying the unmeasured photon is NOT in one and only one polarization angle but in every conceivable angle, and there is a polarizer for every conceivable rotational setting, and there are 2 Alan Graysons for every polarizer, one Alan Grayson observes the photon passing through the polarizer and the other Alan Grayson observes the photon being absorbed by the polarizer. This is because the photon, the polarizer and Alan Grayson must all obey the laws of quantum mechanics. 

> I thought you wrote that an unmeasured photon will pass through any polarizer,

If an unmeasured photon manages to make its way through a polarizer set an a random angle (and there's a 50% chance it will) then it is no longer unmeasured,  and then there is a 100% chance it will pass through a second polarizer that is set at the same angle. And if it doesn't make it through the first polarizer then there is no longer a photon that you can perform experiments on. 

Please repeat your comment about the probability being cos(theta), under what conditions. TY, AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, September 7, 2025 at 4:41:14 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Aug 30, 2025 at 6:11 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Supposedly, S's equation justifies the claim that every outcome is realized in its some world, but in the case of a single polarized photon, the equation seems out-to-lunch, that is, missing-in-action

Schrodinger's equation says that regardless of what angle you set your polarizer at, there is always a 50% chance you will observe a previously unmeasured photon make it through that polarizer and a 50% chance you will not. And Many Worlds explains how in the world this strange but true fact can possibly be true by saying the unmeasured photon is NOT in one and only one polarization angle but in every conceivable angle, and there is a polarizer for every conceivable rotational setting, and there are 2 Alan Graysons for every polarizer, one Alan Grayson observes the photon passing through the polarizer and the other Alan Grayson observes the photon being absorbed by the polarizer.

No, I don't believe in multiple copies of myself and these other worlds. Do these other Graysons have the same memory as I do, or no memories at all? This model, MMI, is a desperate attempt to make sense of QM. AG

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, September 7, 2025 at 8:35:11 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:

On Sunday, September 7, 2025 at 4:41:14 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Aug 30, 2025 at 6:11 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Supposedly, S's equation justifies the claim that every outcome is realized in its some world, but in the case of a single polarized photon, the equation seems out-to-lunch, that is, missing-in-action

Schrodinger's equation says that regardless of what angle you set your polarizer at, there is always a 50% chance you will observe a previously unmeasured photon make it through that polarizer and a 50% chance you will not. And Many Worlds explains how in the world this strange but true fact can possibly be true by saying the unmeasured photon is NOT in one and only one polarization angle but in every conceivable angle, and there is a polarizer for every conceivable rotational setting, and there are 2 Alan Graysons for every polarizer, one Alan Grayson observes the photon passing through the polarizer and the other Alan Grayson observes the photon being absorbed by the polarizer.

No, I don't believe in multiple copies of myself and these other worlds. Do these other Graysons have the same memory as I do, or no memories at all? This model, MMI, is a desperate attempt to make sense of QM. AG

So, in this "reality", there are at least a countably infinite number of Grayson pairs, one pair for each polarizer setting. Do they already "exist" even though I have never done a polarizer experiment, or must I do the experiment to conjure them into existence? And if I do the experiment a second time, does another infinite set of Grayson pairs come into existence? And what happens to them after any experiment is completed? Do they continue to exist, independent of this Grayson in this world? AG

No, I don't believe it, not simply because it utterly fails the smell test, but because I can't imagine any physical process to bring this absurdity into existence. (Nor, BTW, can I imagine, really IMAGINE, the invariance of the SoL, but at least in relativity, there are orders of magnitude fewer cognitive dissonances to deal with.) You claim it's implied by S's equation, but although you can write a wf for photon spin, which is closely related to polarization, I don't see how S's equation can be solved for spin. So, like I previously said, S's equation in this case is MIA, Missing In Action, or OTL, Out To Lunch. Ball in your court. AG

Oh, I remember the cos(theta) thing, where theta is the offset angle from the second polarizer which allows a measured photo to go through 100%. When the angle is zero degrees, since cos(0)=1, a measured photon will pass through 100% of the time, whereas if the angle is 90 degrees, since cos(90)=0 it won't pass 100%, and for in between angles, the photon will pass with a probability of cos(theta), depending on the theta. I think I knew that in another life. AG 

[John Clark]

On Sun, Sep 7, 2025 at 10:22 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Please repeat your comment about the probability being cos(theta), under what conditions. TY, AG 

This is what I said on November 10 of last year:  

If 2 billion years ago a correlated pair of photons was created, and 1 billion years later I randomly pick an axis (let's call that 0 degrees) and set my polarizing filter to that axis, then regardless of which axis I choose there is a 50% chance the photon will make it through and a 50% chance it will not, let's suppose it does not. One billion years later you arbitrarily pick an axis and you set your polarizing filter to that axis. If you just happen to pick the same axis I did, because most correlated photons are anti-correlated, there is a 100% chance the other entangled photon will make it through your filter. But if for example the axis that you picked is 30 degrees different than mine then there is only a 75% chance your photon will make it through your filter; this is because  [COS (X)]^2 =0.75 if  X = 30 DEGREES (π/6 radians).

If you use that [COS (X)]^2 rule (see above) about polarized light, which has been known for centuries, and if the strange behavior in the quantum world is caused by local hidden variables, then certain correlations are impossible; however experiments have shown that those correlations ARE possible, therefore the strange behavior of the quantum world cannot be due to local hidden variables.   

>Do these other Graysons have the same memory as I do

Certainly! All the other other Alan Graysons have the exact same memories that you have because they all share the exact same past, however they experience a different present and as a result a different future too. Sometimes the difference is tiny, sometimes the difference is huge. 

> So, in this "reality", there are at least a countably infinite number of Grayson pairs, 

Maybe, maybe not. As I've said before, on the finite versus infinite question Many Worlds is agnostic. But at the very least there are one hell of a lot of worlds, that's why it's called "Many Worlds" .  

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

3e2

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, September 7, 2025 at 12:58:48 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Sep 7, 2025 at 10:22 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Please repeat your comment about the probability being cos(theta), under what conditions. TY, AG 

This is what I said on November 10 of last year:  

In a much more recent post you didn't use correlated photons. I am not sure what that means in this context or why you're using it now. AG 

If 2 billion years ago a correlated pair of photons was created, and 1 billion years later I randomly pick an axis (let's call that 0 degrees) and set my polarizing filter to that axis, then regardless of which axis I choose there is a 50% chance the photon will make it through and a 50% chance it will not, let's suppose it does not. One billion years later you arbitrarily pick an axis and you set your polarizing filter to that axis. If you just happen to pick the same axis I did, because most correlated photons are anti-correlated, there is a 100% chance the other entangled photon will make it through your filter. But if for example the axis that you picked is 30 degrees different than mine then there is only a 75% chance your photon will make it through your filter; this is because  [COS (X)]^2 =0.75 if  X = 30 DEGREES (π/6 radians).

If you use that [COS (X)]^2 rule (see above) about polarized light, which has been known for centuries, and if the strange behavior in the quantum world is caused by local hidden variables, then certain correlations are impossible; however experiments have shown that those correlations ARE possible, therefore the strange behavior of the quantum world cannot be due to local hidden variables.   

>Do these other Graysons have the same memory as I do

Certainly! All the other other Alan Graysons have the exact same memories that you have because they all share the exact same past, however they experience a different present and as a result a different future too. Sometimes the difference is tiny, sometimes the difference is huge. 

> So, in this "reality", there are at least a countably infinite number of Grayson pairs, 

Maybe, maybe not.

There are countably infinite rational settings of the polarizers, hence a countably infinite number of Grayson pairs even if the universe is spatially finite. AG

[Brent Meeker]

On 9/7/2025 11:58 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Sep 7, 2025 at 10:22 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Please repeat your comment about the probability being cos(theta), under what conditions. TY, AG 

This is what I said on November 10 of last year:  

If 2 billion years ago a correlated pair of photons was created, and 1 billion years later I randomly pick an axis (let's call that 0 degrees) and set my polarizing filter to that axis, then regardless of which axis I choose there is a 50% chance the photon will make it through and a 50% chance it will not, let's suppose it does not. One billion years later you arbitrarily pick an axis and you set your polarizing filter to that axis. If you just happen to pick the same axis I did, because most correlated photons are anti-correlated, 

Most are correlated by conservation of momentum and angular momentum.  That means they go in opposite directions with the same handedness of circular polarization.  So measuring one as passing thru a vertical polarizer collapses the other to also pass thru a vertically oriented polarizer.

Brent

there is a 100% chance the other entangled photon will make it through your filter. But if for example the axis that you picked is 30 degrees different than mine then there is only a 75% chance your photon will make it through your filter; this is because  [COS (X)]^2 =0.75 if  X = 30 DEGREES (π/6 radians).

If you use that [COS (X)]^2 rule (see above) about polarized light, which has been known for centuries, and if the strange behavior in the quantum world is caused by local hidden variables, then certain correlations are impossible; however experiments have shown that those correlations ARE possible, therefore the strange behavior of the quantum world cannot be due to local hidden variables.   

>Do these other Graysons have the same memory as I do

Certainly! All the other other Alan Graysons have the exact same memories that you have because they all share the exact same past, however they experience a different present and as a result a different future too. Sometimes the difference is tiny, sometimes the difference is huge. 

> So, in this "reality", there are at least a countably infinite number of Grayson pairs, 

Maybe, maybe not. As I've said before, on the finite versus infinite question Many Worlds is agnostic. But at the very least there are one hell of a lot of worlds, that's why it's called "Many Worlds" .  

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

3e2

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3X09EOBpVAoXArHOs6Rr7t3UKAXDm7u2X65rts%3D37WYw%40mail.gmail.com.

[smitra]

The number of physically distinguishable states the entire visible part
of the universe can be in, is finite:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHEp855NS6c&t=1188s

Saibal

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion visit

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9faa2b40-2c83-409e-aefd-4fd771167434n%40googlegroups.com
> [1].
>
>
> Links:
> ------
> [1]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/9faa2b40-2c83-409e-aefd-4fd771167434n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

[John Clark]

On Sun, Sep 7, 2025 at 3:24 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> So, in this "reality", there are at least a countably infinite number of Grayson pairs, 

>>Maybe, maybe not.

> There are countably infinite rational settings of the polarizers, hence a countably infinite number of Grayson pairs even if the universe is spatially finite. AG

That depends on if Euclid, a mathematician not a physicist, was right and there are an infinite number of points in a line, or if there are only an astronomical number to an astronomical power number of them.  And nobody knows which of those two possibilities is true. 

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

4r4

[Alan Grayson]

Between zero and 90 degrees, there are an infinite number of RATIONAL polarizer settings, so the same number of possible ways to measure polarization But the real issue is where is S's equation which allegedly implies each world where each particle is polarized? I don't see it exists to make this claim. AG 

[John Clark]

On Tue, Sep 9, 2025 at 9:39 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>That depends on if Euclid, a mathematician not a physicist, was right and there are an infinite number of points in a line, or if there are only an astronomical number to an astronomical power number of them.  And nobody knows which of those two possibilities is true. 

> Between zero and 90 degrees, there are an infinite number of RATIONAL polarizer settings,

You understand that there is a difference between an abstract Euclidean circle and a real physical circle, the sort of circle that you make polarizers out of, don't you?  Nobody doubts that between any two points in a Euclidean line you can always find a point between them, but is that also true for a real physical line? Can you really keep dividing up space up into smaller and smaller pieces forever? Nobody knows.  And I could say the same thing about time. 

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

nbk

[Alan Grayson]

I agree. Now tell me what role S's equation plays in asserting the claim that all polarization occur in some world. AG