From: Dr. Blake Nelson (bnelson301@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Jul 07 2003 - 06:41:53 EDT
I would be interested too in how unequivocal the tests
proposed would be for the MWH. While the first made
sense to me, the second test Glenn quoted did not seem
as definitive, but seemed an interpretation of a
result that was hypothesized as otherwise inexplicable
(obviously I am going on a limited description of the
test here). I would be interested in the take of
those whose understanding of QM is much more in-depth
than mine (not a tough standard to meet) on how
definitive such tests would be... i.e., are there
other explanations for the same results if achieved or
do the tests seem particularly good.
Burgy mentioned Tegmark's test which is yet another
way to test the MWH a few weeks or months back. Of
course, only in a few universes does the experimenter
live to tell about the confirmatory results of such
tests. ;) The rest of the multiverse would still
lack data on the existence of many worlds...
--- Don Winterstein <dfwinterstein@msn.com> wrote:
> Glenn wrote, quoting Martin Rees:
>
> >Other universes are not directly observable, but
> their conceptual status is
> on no worse a footing than superstrings (or even the
> more familiar quarks)....
>
>
> The footing for strings is indeed unsure, but
> quarks? No way. I did a quark search in cosmic ray
> air showers for my PhD thesis. Although no one any
> longer believes that quarks can exist in the free
> state, many scattering experiments have confirmed
> that hadrons have internal structure consistent with
> predicted quark constituents, so quark existence is
> on vastly surer empirical footing than that of
> either parallel universes or strings. Detailed
> quark properties, to be sure, have only a
> theoretical basis; but the theory accurately
> predicts or accommodates lots of real stuff.
>
> As for the "MWH experimental test," whether or not
> it ever actually tests for MWs is always going to be
> someone's opinion. Theorists tend to be very smart
> but very flexible. Collectively they can explain
> anything in N different ways, where N can be a
> fairly large number. And on rare occasions they can
> be stumped. Nothing they say is ever worth losing
> sleep over unless it can be directly tested, and my
> gut tells me no one is ever going to figure out how
> to test directly for multiple worlds. So I regard
> discussions of MWs as a form of entertainment.
>
> Don
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 06:42:24 EDT