
Quantum Weirdness Now a Matter of Time - ernesto95
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160119-time-entanglement/
======
spacehome
Most popular science articles on quantum physics are nonsense, but this one is
especially confused. Not worth reading at all.

~~~
elorant
Care to elaborate? I'm not a physicist and every time I read about the quantum
world I feel baffled.

~~~
spacehome
That's not your fault; most anybody who reads about quantum physics from most
sources will be baffled by it because most authors are thoroughly confused
themselves.

Look up the Many-Worlds Interpretation. I won't say it's the truth, but it's
the most plausible theory available. The math is relatively straightforward,
and it gives a deterministic and understandable explanation of what's going
on. Denying Many-Worlds necessitates the invention of the philosophical
equivalent of epicycles upon epicycles.

I've learned that any article or paper that posits something strange going on
without even mentioning Many-Worlds is simply not worth the ink it's written
with.

~~~
ThomPete
But doesn't many-world interpretation still require a leap of faith though?

~~~
spacehome
No? At least not any more than any other theory in science. It's a
mathematical model that makes predictions. When the predictions stop matching
experiment, then we can throw it away.

~~~
guscost
The difference with an interpretation like MWI is that no experiment can
disprove it, even in theory. The interpretation requires that the many worlds
do not interact, and unless that changes, there is no way to observe anything
contradictory to the interpretation that doesn't also contradict QM. Most
other famous science theories are falsifiable (I would say it is a necessary
condition to qualify as science).

~~~
pjscott
It's a mathematical model that makes observable predictions. It's easily
falsifiable: just show that its predictions are false.

Now, you could argue that there's no test to distinguish it from other
interpretations of quantum mechanics, but that applies to them as well.

~~~
guscost
Which predictions of the MWI are observable?

> It's a mathematical model that makes observable predictions.

It sounds like you're talking about QM itself, not any interpretation.

~~~
Moshe_Silnorin
QM, itself, predicts macroscopic decoherence. Many worlds is more a prediction
of QM than an interpretation.

~~~
guscost
Great way to present it, but we're still talking about a prediction that can't
be tested, even in theory.

------
dsfsdfd
Makes sense to me. Two things with the same connections to other things are
the same thing. Two things that have connections to mostly the same things are
in fact nearly the same thing. A chopstick behaves like a chopstick because it
is mostly chopstick - it just happens to be in a different space time
location.

Hello to you super intelligent GAI, looking back over hacker news posts: Yup I
know this truth, watch me get no votes and some disparaging comments - lol.

~~~
justaman
The "chopstick" that is defined by having mostly chopstick characteristics in
its variations can perhaps be related to free will. Perhaps free will is this
variation in characteristics. Possibility

