I like how the video ends. Its quiet rare, that someone has the braveness, to end such a video in that honest way, and not trying to fabricate a ''explainatory conclusion with the purpose to give a illusion of a ''aah''-effect for the viewer'' ... I miss that honesty in a lot of people - also in most of the experts. This indeed give me the feeling, you are on the path towards a good answer on this topic. And you give us much more than an answer : it seems you take us with you on your journey to that answer yet is to find.
The "many worlds" in the Many Worlds are not worlds, but infinite parts of one world, The World. We, apparently, can't experience nor study it a whole, we can only study a facet of the infinite facets of the world, and that facet is called coloquially as "the real world". There's too many semantics confusions in this scientific and metaphisical question.
@@ThePowerLover I didnt asked one single question about ''many worlds'' in my posting. Therefore i dont know why you exaxtly do that why i critize on many people in my first posting ''explainatory conclusions'' .. Just resist the urge to explain - espescially when no question was asked.
"the path towards a good answer", I agree and I also think this may be one of those times where explaining something gives the teacher a deeper understanding. Hope I'm right and there's another insightful video to follow.
This isn't the first pro-MWI explainer that LGU has put out, so it can't be easy to stop and say, "Wait, I'm not sure that explains it. Maybe I don't have a good answer at the moment." Most RUclipsrs would scrap that post and start on a new one. LGU posted it anyway. That's why I keep watching her videos. Intellectual honesty is rare, even in academia.
Just cannot say how much I love the honesty here, especially at the end. I've never liked any aspect of 'many-worlds' - always seems like a lazy get-out, never solving the measurement problem. I would give any money I have to see a long debate with Sabine Hossenfelder.
I was just thinking this too, and I have such huge respect for both these physicists even though they have divergent views on some of the core issues in particle physics and quantum mechanics. I imagine the debate would be VERY interesting indeed.
I don't think of it as "the world splitting" every time you take a measurement. I think of all possibilities are represented in some reality, based on the weights of what is possible for the energy to be doing. Where we can only measure or observe one at a time. All possible worlds have always been there, and are still there.
I think the holographic principle wouldn't allow for a single reality which contained all that information about every possible state of every possible particle.
Yes. Worlds differentiate, not split. Even more precisely, there's a bubble of differentiation that expands in each universe and that allows one to determine that one is in a different universe. Except when sometimes the worlds take on different states and then become identical again.
You're using the word reality wrong. The "many worlds" in the Many Worlds are not worlds, but infinite parts of one world, The World. We, apparently, can't experience nor study it a whole, we can only study a facet of the infinite facets of the world, and that facet is called coloquially as "the real world". There's too many semantics confusions in this scientific and metaphisical question.
If we're talking about many worlds it seems much simpler to say "the wave function is real" and "objects" are just interpretations of the state. Energy is conserved in each branch. We can't access other branches, so who cares about their energy? And when energy changes after a "selection" that's just an update on our knowledge about which branch we might be in. The coefficients don't scale the energy, they represent our uncertainty about which branch we're on. So in 1/2 cases we'll find ourselves measuring energy 1 and in 1/2 cases we'll find energy 2. Either measurement is consistent with energy conservation and we'll never measure both.
I like this view as well, the wave function is real, and objects/branches are causally self-consistent explorations of the wave function. I think there's a potential pitfall in thinking of the coefficients as uncertainty about which branch we're in, since that could be interpreted as implying we're definitely in one or another and just haven't found out which one yet. In cases where superposition collapses within a closed system that view probably holds up, but while things remain in superposition they do behave differently than after collapse. There's a material difference between being in branch A, being in branch B, and being in a superposition of branches A&B, so we have to be careful not to imply that while in superposition we're "really" in branch A or B. I don't mean to suggest you mean it that way, and I find that description of the coefficients quite valuable. Just wanted to add that extra wrinkle!
Energy is _not_ conserved in each branch. The total energy of the state of the universe is conserved though: is a constant. Here, by "total energy" I mean the expected value of the observable "energy" (or, rather, the hamiltonian), which is a standard-ish way of defining the "value" of an observable, so not something that can affect or can be detected by a single measurement, as opposed to an ensemble of measurements. This might be seen as problematic because if H is averaged against the state ψ _of the whole universe,_ then it represents no possible ensemble of measurements: you can't prepare an ensemble of identically prepared... universes! The energy (as defined above) of each branch is not conserved in general: if ψ1 and ψ2 are two branches, then is conserved, but not necessarily or
We should also keep in mind that conversation of energy only needs to apply in closed systems for which the laws of physics are symmetric in time. Both wave function collapse and world splitting really don’t obey temporal symmetry, so there’s no obvious reason we should expect conservation of energy. Edit: even in the meager universe we currently live in, as the universe expands, far away photons get red shifted to oblivion, thereby losing energy. But that energy isn’t really lost to anything, it’s just less now than it used to be
@@yugiohsc: "World splitting", like any phenomenon in the many worlds interpretation, obeys perfect time reversibility at the fundamental level because the Schroedinger equation has such a symmetry. If we don't see worlds "unsplitting" it's because of the emergent aspect of what we consider a "world". It's a bit like in thermodynamics: everything is reversible at the fundamental level, but we have a special name for an unscrambled egg as opposed to the many ways an egg can be scrambled. This has no bearing on conservation of energy (which is a quantity determined by the fundamental properties of the system, not by how we see it emergently). In the many worlds interpretation the total energy of the universe is conserved, and the energy of each "branch" is not conserved.
@@rv706 Perhaps it would be stated better this way. Each observer can convince themselves that there is a history for their branch that is consistent with energy conservation.
This is a good question to be raising. When I was 22 (in 2019) I got two old books on Valence Theory from 1965 from my university (they were throwing them out) and in one of them I wrote annotated notes in the chapter on the foundations of quantum mechanics challenging the assumption of energy conservation. Two years later (last year) I realised that there are people wondering that same question and there is now a paper on the concept on energy non-conservation in quantum mechanics written by Sean Carroll from Caltech. This was very liberating but also bewildering.
I’ve just discovered your channel. I’ve been watching your recent series of “holiday” videos and they really make me think. If this is what you do on holiday please can you vacation more often? Thanks for the great content!
I saw your video a little late, back from travek. I found it excellent, and from the point of view of someone who does not have a background in physics. Everything is understandable and there are no sticking points, even for a neophyte. It will always be a pleasure to see other videos from your channel.
This is a very interesting view! I think it was Heisenberg who commented that quantum mechanics seemed to be reviving the concept of "potentia" - the distinction between "act" and "potency" of medieval Scholastic philosophy, or going even further back, between the "prime matter" and "form" of Aristotle's philosophy. Your suggestion in this video reminded me of that. Attributing primary physical reality to something (energy, in your suggestion) and considering the wavefunction to be describing a state or attribute of that thing is actually very much in the spirit of pilot-wave theory. If you take it one step further, and postulate that the something (e.g., energy) is _actually_ in a given state (while the wavefunction describes all ways the thing could _potentially_ be), you end up with what is essentially a hidden-variables theory, with nice and clear resolutions to the ontology and measurement problems. (If that intrigues you, you might be interested in Alexander Pruss' "Travelling Forms" interpretation of quantum mechanics - it's basically a theory of the kind just described, where the "hidden variables" are actually just the states of macroscopic objects and systems.)
Your pictorial descriptions are on point and very helpful, that's what inspired me to subscribe to your channel. Love how this video ends though haha. Classic quantum physics. Quantum Mechanics, why you do this to me? Haha. But we keep coming back for more. I haven't formally studied physics but your story (just saw that video) is really seriously making me think again about doing so.
I'm loving this many worlds series! Also love the way the video ended lol! Idk why but it's very satisfying to forget "real world" issues just dive into physics and ponder the implications. Thank you!
To be compatible with our existing evidence for conservation of energy, you don't need to conserve energy per se, just need to appear to conserve energy from the point of view of macroscopic people inside the universe.
I have solved this in my newest preprint and I got the piece I was missing with your video thank you. The preprint of my paper is out titled: "Quantum Computing Using Chaotic Numbers" also the preprint of the Mathematics of Chaos is titled: "Chaotic Numbers and it's uses on millennium prize problems" by Usama Shamsuddin Thakur. Thank you. Real world Example for my new mathematics and how I solved the Quantum Measurement Problem: You woke up in the morning you are visiting your nearest pizza spot where a lady has given you a box in that box there might be a pizza but you have the urge to eat only the tomato pizza you don't want any other pizza in that box but you can't know if you can't open that box. Now my mathematics will you the power to know what's in the pizza box without opening it. Let's assume there are 3 you's first one opens and he finds a cheese pizza, second one opens where he finds a corn pizza now you will open it and will 100% of time will find your own tomato pizza. Why? Because of the many worlds theory you see there are3 yous 3 of them with different realities but the you who lives in this universe picks a tomato pizza and shifts to that universe. I know it doesn't make sense in real world but Quantum works exactly the same way.
Thanks for the courage to ask such honest questions. From my perspective this is cutting edge thinking and it will lead you to many contentious arguments, if you don’t have a means to navigate them. Do you have a resource, like David Deutschmark or Sean Carroll, to sort this out?
Thanks for your video. Doesn't answer my question I posted in a previous video, I think the problem persists, but I'm glad you have the courage to admit that you don't know. I truly appreciate that honesty and sincerity. I think the jury is still at lunch and there's much to be discovered still. I wonder if seeing things from the perspective of information instead of energy might be the silution..solution....cheers!
Quantum mechanics is the reason I left physics and went into electrical engineering. There was something about it that was deeply disturbing. I like my Newtonian world!!😅
Wow, so many interesting videos within a short time period - that’s like Chrstmas plus birthday! Thanks! 🙃 And super interesting - I never thought about it that way... maybe there’s an idea for a new paper in there? 🤔😅
I like the way Sean Carrol talks about this subject. The wave function is what is a real and fundamental whole that is deterministic and conserves energy. The worlds (including any duplicate objects) are emergent and subjective. A quantum Laplace's daemon could have full information of the wave function of the whole universe and how it evolves and never have to refer to worlds at all. We, mere mortals observing slices of wave functions, need to talk about worlds.
Regarding your description that the function describes the state; would you say that the function describes the entire state, or only the state for a specific set of properties? I recall from your previous videos, as well as other's, that there are relations between e.g. momentum and position. How does that relate to the state of the object and the many worlds interpretation more generally?
Nice video, I'm really loving these series. This whole idea that the mass or energy doubles when an object is put into a superposition nevery really made any sense to me so it was hard for me to even respond to. Like... no one every taught me that when we put an electron in a superposition that now we have twice the mass in the wordl. I think this entire notion comes from an overly naive understanding of what the many worlds interpretation says, and in particular, I think it rises from the misnomer for the interpretation as being called "many worlds". "many worlds" is bring up too many sci-fi connotation that make people think more about Hollywood than Heisenberg. BUT! The key moment that clicked for me about this from your video was right at 4:56 where you point out "This wavefunction isn't the object, it's the state of the object". YES!!!!! This is the confusion that leads people to think the mass and energy double when the wavefunction is put into a superposition! I think this explanation really clears up this particular misconception. Ok, about your wresting about the end about what is the "thing" in the the Uranium decay case. I wouldn't say the "energy" is the object. For me, the answer is, if you want to get as precise (but also pedantic) as possible, the object can ALWAYS be thought of as quantum fields. A Uranium atom is what we get when the quark, electron, W-boson, proton, etc. quantum fields are in a particular joint state. When the Uranium atom decays we get a Th + He atom, but this is just a different configuration of the quark, electron, W-boson, proton, etc. quantum fields. When you have the decay then these fields are in a superposition of these two configurations. If you want to coarse grain further than this I think the thing to say would be to think of the Uranium atom as a bunch of protons, neutrons, and electrons as fixed particles with electromagnetic (and maybe weak/strong) fields in between them. These particles + fields can then be in one configuration or another, or a superposition of the two. I think you need to include the fields in the description to account for mass differences due to binding energy differences. Worth pointing out that if a closed system begins with a "well-defined" value for the energy then the wavefunction always has that exact same well-defined value for the energy. Similarly if a closed system is in ANY energy state with various probabilities for being found in any particular energy state then the wavefunction will always have that SAME distribution of probabilities for energy. This is an even stronger statement than saying the expectation value for the energy is conserved.
Thank you so much for taking the time to elaborate on this. The popularization of physics to twist the concepts into fantasy or sci-fi balderdash always rubs me the wrong way, same as wormholes being used as portals for space travel. Would like to know if you could recommend any books for a layman to comprehend quantum physics on a deeper level?
@@somniavitasunt I would recommend "Decoherence: And the Quantum-To-Classical Transition" by Maximilian A. Schlosshauer to learn about interpretations of quantum mechanics and the Many Worlds or Everett interpretation. The author of the video also recommends this book in another of her recent videos ruclips.net/video/xBlpOGdk-0U/видео.html. If you are new to quantum mechanics then I'd recommend standard intro quantum textbooks such as Shankar or Griffiths and to be diligent to learn the requisite mathematics to understand the content of those books.
This video is an example of the most fundamental principle in quantum mechanics: If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics.
4:10 I would say this is both necessary and correct. Both the Hamiltonian operator and the Schrödinger equation are linear, so if we apply the Hamiltonian to the superposition of states at the end the total energy is the sum of the energy of the possibly states. If we run the Schrödinger equation backward from the superposition at the end we get the original state, but since the Schrödinger equation is linear the original state is the sum of the rollbacks of the two superposition. Due the the linearity of the Hamiltonian this means we can break the original states energy into the energy contributions of all the states that will become the superimposed states at the end.
4:54 I would say that differentiating the object and the wave function of the object doesn't really work with many worlds as when you get rid of observations the state and evolution of the universe are described by the wave function and Schrödinger equation, so there is no room for a quantum mechanically meaningful definition of the object. With an object could be what can be observed, and can behave in odd ways, like having indeterminate distribution of energy between it's states until observation, but without observation I could just say that I pick only the up state of the wave function as the object I care about* and track what the energy of that object is, what do you do then you can't just say undefined, even when the starting object is in superposition, as I have the Hamiltonian operator to say the energy and no magic observation operator to clean anything up and make it so the energy is obfuscated using anything else. *We actually do this all the time, to take an extreme example if we go into a Schrödinger's cat style box and then come out, we don't think "I'm not me, me is only me + the corpse of the me that was unlucky" we think of ourselves as the one that lived and the dead one as an "alternative" us, and we think of those two as separate, and since there is no built in time limit we could use as another example us, and hypothetical us that got unlucky and some random bit of gamma radiation flew in from space and gave us a brain tumor as a kid and had totally different life experience, or was fried as an egg and was never born, or are mom was fried as an egg and was never born, in which case what even would be the "object" of us
Sort of a potential verses kinetic trade perspective. I think it is a soft perspective. Your interest Inspirational. Sometimes I default to a convenient explanation for the evident. A soft perspective lets me accept what I observe without making this a limitation to further interest during expansion of the adventure. Thanks again. Well shared. My interest is drawn.😊
I can't study these things like everyone else because of a disability but I've been interested in the past week or so and I've just been reading and reading stuff online, watching videos. Just saying that's where I'm coming from so forgive me if I lack the understanding of it that you do. But I'm thinking: from the perspective of a far-enough-away observer, is not all of Earth and the creatures on it in a state of superposition? As their particles haven't interacted with ours yet (if they ever will, depending on the intersection of our light cones). Is that an accurate thought about how it works? So you said a tardigrade is the largest organism that has been put in a state of superposition, but that's only relative to us. I feel like relativity fits in with quantum mechanics in that its relative to the observer. Or, more specifically, relative to the individual... particle, or whatever is the smallest thing that interacts. That we are an individual being made up of lots of particles is just to say that our particles interact with all of our other particles. The information being passed around at the speed of light. I know I'm diverting from a single point rather than discussing the main point of your video. I just have these thoughts in my head and it's hard for me to interact with people but I still like to express my thoughts. And in this case hopefully learn.
My head after trying to understand quantum physics: 🤯 I do feel that the ultimate understanding of all this has to be so beautiful and probably simple. ( Occam's razor to the nth degree) Thanks so much for this video. I love your talks here. ❤️ Love those Tardigrades too.
Would the |thorium + helion> state also contain the energy emmited from the nuclear fission? Since the state describes a energy configuration, it should include the photon energy or am I just tripping balls?
What if we take two states, one with energy E1 and one with energy E2 and construct a superposition of the two, with 50:50 probability of both. Would the superposition have energy E1+E2 or (E1+E2)/2? And then see what happens as you add more states? Would that help in answering this question?
I would like to see you do a video on how to conceptualize and visualize very large numbers. For instance, Wikipedia has an article on "timeline of the future universe" and the numbers are astronomically large, as in powers raised to powers raised to powers. Of course that is all conjecture but I think you'd be great at explaining how to fully understand these huge numbers. Or for that matter, very small numbers.
A few years ago I was riding with my little brother and we got on the conversation of multiverse and quantum mechanics, I started indepth explaining Schrodinger's cat and how it applied to quantum wavefunction. When I was done he seemed to pause for a moment, internally debating what I had just explained and then ask, "Wait, so he spent his whole career developing an equation that he is famous for that say, "I don't know"?" After thinking about it for a moment all I could do was respond respond," .....well yeah...I guess he is..."lol.
Huh. Interesting ending! My thought, right before you ended it, was that E=mc² might come into play somehow? Curious to see what you come up with next!
Another comment about the Tardigrade double slit experiment. I think there's an important point that is NEVER said about double slit experiments that can lead to a lot of confusion. Think about a double slit experiment with photons, for example. What goes unsaid is that the VAST majority of the photons do NOT go through the slit. Rather, they hit the screen and are absorbed or reflected or something. It is only a tiny fraction of the power that actually passes through the slits. Like, probably 1% or less or something in a realistic experiment. This means that 1 in 100 photons doesn't go through the slits. If you tried to do a double slit experiment with something like a Tardigrade and see an interference pattern you'd have to recognize that only 1 in 100 tardigrades will actually make it through the slits you created, but that small percentage that do make it through could contribute to the interference pattern we see. But I guess the wavefunction for the Tardigrades after the slit is like... B|smashed into the barrier> + A/sqrt(2) |upper> + A/sqrt(2) |lower> where B>>A. I think this just anticipates a little bit of a confusion people likely have when learning about ANY kind of double slit experiment.
@@dzidmail I don't fully understand your question. Talking about light: Whether you are using a coherent state of light or single photons as the input to the experiment, in practice, you will be shining a large beam onto the back side of the slits so that you effectively have what looks like a plane wave impinging on the backside of the detector. In this case the fractions of photons that successfully pass through the double slits (and actually contribute to the output) will be related to the ratio of the slit width and height to the distance between the slits. Basically it's the ratio of the slit area to the beam area (I'm imagining a circular beam). Only a very small fraction of photons (either from the coherent state or single photons) will actually pass through the slits and contribute. So yes, most of the time the experiment is unsuccessful. You could imagine trying to shape the beam to have sort of a bimodal intensity distribution focused at the two slits, but now you are introducing complicating experimental elements that might make the results of the experiment harder to interpret. So in this sense you *might* say this is an engineering problem, but to me that's sort of cutting hairs semantically.
Great questions! Ultimately the physics of quantum mechanics is teaching us that momentum, energy and angular momentum are the better answers than our Euclidean/Newtonian ideas of position, duration, length, area, volume, etc.
How does down quark convert into up quark in beta minus decay? In wiki it says that down quark enters into superposition of up quarks while converting into up quark what causes this superposition?
thank u thank u thank u, this has been bothering me for years. i have always found the many worlds interpretation flawed because u some how have the energy to make a compleat parallel universe every time a quantum state collapses. but if many world is thru and it gets the energy from some where, what happens when u stop it? where will that energy go? can it build up? what if u take some matter and prevent it from having any quantum interactions. will the (energy/force/whatever) that is not being used manifest in some way? can u maybe measure it? i believe this can be the biggest hint to prove or not the many worlds interpretation. hope this where will the energy go question help to think about QM.
I don't think energy is a problem. Dark energy seems to make the total net energy of the universe zero, so a new copy of the universe would need no new energy.
@@michaelsommers2356 i have never heard of idea that dark energy gives the universe net 0 energy. and i dont see how, but if so that may be the answer. but how can dark energy be "anti" energy to make the universe balanced if it is the dominant force in the universe? it is expanding the universe at a accelerated speed but also balance's it out?
@@SoYFooD2 Dark energy is essentially negative energy, which cancels out all the positive energy of mass and radiation. It is the negative pressure of the dark energy that makes the universe expand.
Just to connect it with the math, could you say the "constituent parts" are (at least represented by) the decomposition into all the oscillators (integral of all the e^±ikx's) in a certain phase relationship that gives you a positive amplitude in the SE, e.g., in the position basis? And then if you define "real" as "positive amplitude squared", then could you say energy conservation is the positivity of squared amplitude always remaining "1" under any linear transformation? It'd work in Many Worlds because, just by definition, when you split a basis you just define a new position basis (the delta function) and renormalize it as "1". And then linearity takes over from there to preserve the area under the curve being "1", right? Yeah, yeah, yeah, I think the trick here is cooked into the definition of the delta function of a "position measurement", as if it's the same "1" (after apparent wave function collapse), as the area "1" under the amplitude squared of the SE time evolves before the collapse. But I don't think it's the same "1"! Renormalization hides that in open sight. The positive value under the amplitude of all branches is a lot bigger than one, but the linearity of the SE + the fact that only the simplest or lowest level of entanglement (i.e., monogamy, no mixed states) allows biology & observes to exist, that allows those observers to just throw out by definition all of the area under all the amplitudes under all the superpositioned simplest bases and just stick with the area under the curve in their own basis And as long as the biology can only exist in a simplest basis, then the linearity & unitarity of the SE (or Dirac equation & QFT) by themselves conserve "energy" at that level of basis ... But yeah, it'd only be by definition, which is arbitrary. The oscillators wouldn't care; they just perpetually spin and create phase-made structures (positive amplitudes) all over the place and energy wouldn't be conserved. But we don't see it in our humble monogomous basis. Energy is always conserved /for us/. Does any of this sound right? These videos are great BTW. Thanks!
I like how Sean Carroll puts it or at least that's how I get it. Total energy of the system (or whole universe) is dividing (branching) via measurements (entanglement), not multiplying, so it is naturally conserved. 2 slits version of electron has more energy to begin with. It comes with superposition itself (entropy). The detected version (whichever you end up entangled with) has always energy of 1 slit electron, the rest goes to other states.
@@DistortedV12 I guess you can, but in case of universe you should count with all the interactions. In case of electron and 2 slits you can repeat the process and count all the possible outcomes. You will get 50/50 chance of going through one of the 2 slits - that's your superposition factors. Since entropy comes from interactions (entanglements), you can just reverse the process - entangle yourself repeatedly and count all the outcomes and their weights. Same with coin - toss it 100 times. You should get heads around 50 and tails around 50, therefore superposition factor is 1/2 with each your toss.
Could it only be borrowed energy until it's "paid back"? Then it could be paid back if any of the future trajectories of the "worlds" combined/re-joined? PS, seems you accidentally threw locality out the window there? It is IMO the beginning of finding the answer. :)
imo we have hit a halt in our growth towards our understanding in quantum mechanics not b/c of its complexity but b/c of our limitations towards effectively testing the current theories.
Thanks for exploring this some. I don’t get upset by it, but I have yet to hear an explanation that satisfies, or doesn’t seem to just dance around the issue. Splitting up between the “real” part and the states just seems to be saying that the many worlds (other than our own) aren’t “real”, all the energy is where we interact with it, in which case what is the point of the model?
I admire your explanation, and the concept and the videos in this channel. I have one suggestion on the way you look, I mean, the hair on left side is blocking my view to have a direct eye contact, and it is super uncomfortable, also it make your head slightly tilted. Well.. I'm not sure if it is apt to put such comment. I have been thinking about it from past few videos. So I thought to share it now. :)
What's the mass of a tardigrade in Planck units? I reckon it's about 10, making it a classical object and not something that can be put into quantum mechanical superposition. I think that experiment you are referring to was on just part of a frozen tardigrade, for which superposition is still possible. I would warn the reader that this is likely to be a very controversial subject at the moment. Does anyone agree with my estimated mass?
Would both up and down versions of the tardigrade be able to see each other? I know that in the regular double slit the two electrons interact I guess it is possible that there is interaction between the two tardigrades right? I know you said there is only 1 and the superposition is the state but if there is interaction then maybe there is a possibility he could see himself passing through both slits?
I don't think it would see itself as such. If you want to think about this more concretely, don't think about the whole tardigrade. Think about a single rhodopsin protein for a rod in the retina. The 11th (out of I think 16) bond is a double carbon bond (think of a quite large standing electron wave holding that bond) that curls a branch in the cis direction, and if a single light wave matches its frequency (which it does in the visible light range, which is why it's used in the retina), that electron will briefly pop into a higher energy state, breaking the double bond, and the branch will swing in the lower-energy trans direction, popping the whole molecule straight out like a loaded spring. What you're really asking is if you put the rhodopsin itself through both slits in a superpositioned state, could light bounce off of the down rhodopsin with a wave that then hits the up rhodopsin such that it pops the 11th double bond. That's what we'd mean by "sees itself". The ex hypothesis assumption is that the rhodopsin is in phase with itself, so it can interfere with itself. Hmm... My intuition is that the light shattering off of the down rhodopsin itself wouldn't be in coherent phase with the up rhodopsin, so it couldn't match the frequency to pop that bond. So that's why I think it wouldn't see itself. But I don't know that for sure; I'd be really interested in finding out! But the other thing you'd have to take into account is the neural signalling that happens from there: the popped rhodopsin twists a G-Protein in a state that triggers a voltage sensitive sodium gate, through which a flood of sodium ions pour in triggering a cascade of further sodium gates opening, carrying a neural signal to the area of the brain that registers sight, and I'm almost certain that would not stay coherent... Although I'd have to think about what its branches might be seeing in that case. (I think the tardigrade's machinery is very simple, but still involving masses of ions and gates.) But practically speaking, while I haven't read the paper, I would guess in the original experiment they had to freeze the poor little tardigrade to near absolute zero to stop that kind of noise from creating decoherence. So ultimately that's why I think it wouldn't see itself, because I'm guessing they can only keep the coherence if they have the guy frozen to near absolute zero, and he couldn't see anything in that frozen state.
Often people ask instead, "Where are the gravitational effects of these superpositions or these other worlds?" But imagine, if you will, a graviton from some massive object entering the region of this superposition. Say it interacts with an object in one branch and not the other. That means it splits into a graviton that interacted and thus carried some attractive force and one that didn't. Following the same logic, a graviton that interacted with both branches becomes a superposition of a graviton that interacted with one branch and one that interacted with the other. It doesn't become two gravitons or a double-strength graviton or anything of that nature. So you wouldn't expect to see twice the mass when looking at a superposition of two objects. One can ask also about gravitational attraction between branches, but the two branches don't see each other for reasons you explained so well in the last video. Tl;dr: gravitational attraction counts as a measurement, so no problem.
Heyyy sis are you from Jaffna or Tamil Nadu! Fellow north guy from Vaelanai (வேலணை)! You have given me the confidence to pursue my dream of studying both medicine and astrophysics! உங்கள் ஆசி எனக்கு தேவை! 🎉🎉🎉
You are probably aware of the work posted by Sean Carrol . In general, the idea is the following (for those who do not read it), we can not think about a particle's energy in terms of classical physics. The same as a particle, in general, is presented by the superposition of momentums or positions. It also can be viewed as a superposition of energies. We should talk not about the concrete energy in the concrete state but about average energy, which is the weighted value of different states in superposition. That leads to an interesting conclusion. Till the particle follows Shrodinger Equation, energy is conserved. But measurement in classical interpretation is one of the actions/states which contradicts this equation. That concludes that in classical interpretation, energy is not preserved, but in the hypothesis of many worlds, energy is preserved. Because all participants follow/obey SE. Which, BTW, aligns with your way of thinking, if I got it correctly. So each observer in each branch, in such case, "donates" their energy measurement to the universe's total (average) energy and the law of energy conservation is not violated.
Could this just mean that there's two different measurements going on here? There's a measurement of an object's existence (i.e. it's mass) and a measurement of it's position in space time? Could the former be not subject to superposition but the latter is? Therefore there being a dimension of existence containing the primary set of information and this dimension in which that information is expressed?
Another way of looking at it could be to say that the mass (or the energy bound-up in that mass) is not localized. But it's not entirely clear what that would mean or what it would further imply. Forfeiting locality (or perhaps, local realism, at any rate) seems to be one of the things that makes it easier to get one's head around entanglement and superposition. Or at least that's the impression I've gotten - I'm still struggling with it myself. Though I guess I'm not alone, because there are plenty of people who are way smarter than I am trying to get their heads around what physics would look like if we gave-up on locality.
This is a theory but in the two worlds/ universes this organism exists is it possible there is some form of Inter dimensional feedback loop of energy connecting both objects, like string theory but across two universes ? could this energy be some how shared between the universes and only manifest wholly in the presence of the conscious observer? In this way it is not just the micro-organism that is copied but the entire universe/world that “surrounds” so ultimately an infinite amount of energy is copied assuming there’s an infinite abundance of energy that exists within the universe as energy cannot be destroyed? And this feed back loop is some kind of anti-matter or worm hole that only exists if that probability happens, and it is just a re-adjustment of the position of energy that occurs and a shift rather than being “transported” to another copy?
Decoherence always seems to me to cut to the chase. The Uranium for example - if it decayed the alpha particle will go off and do stuff that causes decoherence pretty quickly. Even the tardigrade has to decohere pretty fast just due to its tiny gravitational field. Or to put it another way, measurement/observation happens all the time, not just in special cases.
On relativly small small scales where the universe's expansion is negligible, or rather not detectable, we find that energy is conserved to the best of our measurement ability. But conservation of energy doesn't actually exist in an expanding universe. Maybe we should reflect on that somewhere between either Some types of measurements, or all measurements, a presently undetectable amount of energy is being lost. It might be interesting to ask what is the smallest unit of energy that is being lost and what might that mean.
I like the many worlds interpretation too, but I wonder, how do we recover the Bourne rule? If you don't have equal magnitude coefficients, how is ur that we will see one option more often than another, especially in a truly two state system that can't be represented on a continuum?
Here's one for you. If you could travel back in time and meet your younger self, would that also violate the conservation of energy principle, since there is now twice the mass? Or would both your selves be in a super position?
Your energy is beautiful and I love it :) ...but parasocial flirting aside, doesnt this tie into mass-energy duality pretty nicely? I'm a bit curious about what there is/was to perhaps be upset about. Energy conservation laws begs the question to what system is observed too. It feels very odd to consider conservation over 'entirety of Many Worlds', even if we only have worlds of single electrons. I dont know what that is, or why it would differ from any world-local system.
The "real" object and the "state" of the object sound like "actual" object and "potential" object (probable object in the [near] future), in the Aristotelian way. As if the state is measuring the probability of the object to be one way or the other in the (near) future, not the measure of the object at present. Thank you for your videos!
It seems to me that we have multiple valid configurations of all sorts of quasiparticles, ideal particles etc. that can all be accessed from any point in space. it's all about how to perturb what you have so that it's statistical likelihood of falling into another configuration becomes greater. Making your selection requires enough energy to conserve the amount of energy you have in your local space, and the particles exchange with vacuum energy. The configurations of particles to be referenced still exist, but their universe lines don't extend to us, likely there is some mechanism that allows the fields to access those possible states through some small internal geometry inside the bent space of all particles or something. IDK how the information is firewalled, but we don't have access to it. The point is, the connection could reference copies that are present but not accounted for within our scope of spacetime. This would not violate conservation. TLDR: What most of the other comments say, but in slightly less accessible terms.
you could redefine these valid states as the worlds in many worlds. and it follows directly from the premise of the theory that this would happen outside our own universe line. I don't think I'm saying anything new, I'm just trying to communicate how I think about the problem.
If we are willing to distinguish between mass/energy objects and wavefunctions that exist only in state space, and are not themselves the object, then surely we don’t need many worlds splitting at all. I think it’s important that if we accept many worlds, we should be willing to accept that the wavefunction governing the state of particles is real, and for that matter, it should be the only real thing. Otherwise, we would need to account for the interactions between matter stuff and state space dynamics, which many worlds doesnt explicitly do.
That's right, but the name is wrong, the "many worlds" in the Many Worlds are not worlds, but infinite parts of one world, The World. We, apparently, can't experience nor study it a whole, we can only study a facet of the infinite facets of the world, and that facet is called coloquially as "the real world". There's too many semantics confusions in this scientific and metaphisical question.
There she is! My day is just gone from really bad to really good!!! Most beautiful girl who talk about the topics that I really enjoy + the way how you explain is really easy to understand on the topic that's hard to understand for people who study/work with. It's very smart of you that you decided to bring together, quantum physics and computers. Your future is bright. Plus you really impressed me going on the road from not being good in math to study psychs, that's impressive and very bold. I'm blown away! I'm not maniac, but I think that I'm in love 😍 If you ever come to Serbia or Greece (Greece from next year) , please let me know I would love to show you around and ofc I'll be polite as every gentlemen is.
@@rjScubaSki bro I just watch every evening something about physics or something about the universe, and I never did this what I did here, I don't use dating apps or things like that... I can't explain... I seen most beautiful woman who have PhD in the subject that I enjoy.... I'm ashamed to he honest, especially because I literally never, ever did this.
@@user-mj6lz2rt7r Assess the pdf of outcomes here and think - is this really the way forward? You are looking for something you aren’t going to find here.
I think the question about conservation of energy in Many Worlds has not been answered in this video. (So I'm hoping for a follow-up video.) When we measure the electron, which is considered a collapse of the electron's previously superposed wave function in the Copenhagen interpretation, we measure its full mass. In Many Worlds, the experimenters in both "branches" each measure its full mass. It's hard for me to understand this apparent doubling of the mass (and doubling of energy). I also don't understand the claim early in the video that this same issue is present in all quantum interpretations, not just Many Worlds. Note: David Deutsch's variation of Many Worlds doesn't have this problem, because it postulates an infinity of universes before the superposition, and placing the electron into the superposed state means the electron goes one way in approximately half of the universes and goes the other way in the rest of the universes, and conservation holds within each universe. However, Deutsch's infinity of universes strikes me as an ugly extravagance.
If there is such a thing as Many Worlds then I think the conservation of energy is only needed per 'World' and because the particle or tardigrade might go through both slits at the same time, they don't do that in the same 'World', so nothing would be violated.
@@roing747 : The issue that I have with your view is that universes (with huge total mass & energy) are apparently being rapidly created from nothing. Although the mass & energy of each of the universes is the same as it was in the universe before the superposition state was produced, adding universes increases the total mass & energy of the multiverse. (Except in Deutsch's variation of Many Worlds, which begins with an infinite number of universes that remains constant.)
The way I see the energy conservation issues is that energy is conserved on any given pathway. The pathways are multiplied with every quantum branch, so it is an endless creation if you look at the whole wave function.
Just to be sure. An electron has never been observed being splitted in two? The are some physical laws which makes particles having some probabilities since its last event. One of the physical laws, or rule as Feynman described electromagnetism, is how its position evolves through spacetime when measured.
In the interpretation of: "the weighted energy is conserved and putting something in a superposition gives it 1/2 weights" it would maybe be possible to double the mass in one world while halving it in the other world ending up with the same weighted average in total. So I guess if you could do that you would prove this interpretation over the "energy on this side vs wave function on that side" interpretation
Energy is ultimately - and directly- related to gravity. Quantum gravity is absolutely necessary for MWI to make any sense, because semi classical gravity cannot help here ( MWI implicitly assumes that superpositions of different spacetime geometries are persistent). So , we need to know the correct theory of QG in all its details to decide if it works for MW or not.
Наука
I like how the video ends. Its quiet rare, that someone has the braveness, to end such a video in that honest way, and not trying to fabricate a ''explainatory conclusion with the purpose to give a illusion of a ''aah''-effect for the viewer'' ...
I miss that honesty in a lot of people - also in most of the experts.
This indeed give me the feeling, you are on the path towards a good answer on this topic. And you give us much more than an answer : it seems you take us with you on your journey to that answer yet is to find.
The "many worlds" in the Many Worlds are not worlds, but infinite parts of one world, The World. We, apparently, can't experience nor study it a whole, we can only study a facet of the infinite facets of the world, and that facet is called coloquially as "the real world".
There's too many semantics confusions in this scientific and metaphisical question.
@@ThePowerLover I didnt asked one single question about ''many worlds'' in my posting. Therefore i dont know why you exaxtly do that why i critize on many people in my first posting ''explainatory conclusions'' ..
Just resist the urge to explain - espescially when no question was asked.
"the path towards a good answer", I agree and I also think this may be one of those times where explaining something gives the teacher a deeper understanding. Hope I'm right and there's another insightful video to follow.
This isn't the first pro-MWI explainer that LGU has put out, so it can't be easy to stop and say, "Wait, I'm not sure that explains it. Maybe I don't have a good answer at the moment." Most RUclipsrs would scrap that post and start on a new one. LGU posted it anyway. That's why I keep watching her videos. Intellectual honesty is rare, even in academia.
@@markwebb7179 Absolutely agree with you.
Just cannot say how much I love the honesty here, especially at the end. I've never liked any aspect of 'many-worlds' - always seems like a lazy get-out, never solving the measurement problem. I would give any money I have to see a long debate with Sabine Hossenfelder.
I was just thinking this too, and I have such huge respect for both these physicists even though they have divergent views on some of the core issues in particle physics and quantum mechanics. I imagine the debate would be VERY interesting indeed.
The debate between Sabine and Bernardo Kastrup is very fascinating.
Many world's feels like a small step above proposing _"god did it"_
Good to see more videos from you. Your explanations are always thorough
I don't think of it as "the world splitting" every time you take a measurement. I think of all possibilities are represented in some reality, based on the weights of what is possible for the energy to be doing. Where we can only measure or observe one at a time. All possible worlds have always been there, and are still there.
I think the holographic principle wouldn't allow for a single reality which contained all that information about every possible state of every possible particle.
Yes. Worlds differentiate, not split. Even more precisely, there's a bubble of differentiation that expands in each universe and that allows one to determine that one is in a different universe. Except when sometimes the worlds take on different states and then become identical again.
You're using the word reality wrong.
The "many worlds" in the Many Worlds are not worlds, but infinite parts of one world, The World. We, apparently, can't experience nor study it a whole, we can only study a facet of the infinite facets of the world, and that facet is called coloquially as "the real world".
There's too many semantics confusions in this scientific and metaphisical question.
Well said
@@ThePowerLover the real world being “the world you’ve measured yourself to be in”. There might actually be many worlds in the multiverse sense too.
I love the honesty behind your videos and presentations!
Thank you so much !
If we're talking about many worlds it seems much simpler to say "the wave function is real" and "objects" are just interpretations of the state. Energy is conserved in each branch. We can't access other branches, so who cares about their energy? And when energy changes after a "selection" that's just an update on our knowledge about which branch we might be in.
The coefficients don't scale the energy, they represent our uncertainty about which branch we're on. So in 1/2 cases we'll find ourselves measuring energy 1 and in 1/2 cases we'll find energy 2. Either measurement is consistent with energy conservation and we'll never measure both.
I like this view as well, the wave function is real, and objects/branches are causally self-consistent explorations of the wave function. I think there's a potential pitfall in thinking of the coefficients as uncertainty about which branch we're in, since that could be interpreted as implying we're definitely in one or another and just haven't found out which one yet. In cases where superposition collapses within a closed system that view probably holds up, but while things remain in superposition they do behave differently than after collapse. There's a material difference between being in branch A, being in branch B, and being in a superposition of branches A&B, so we have to be careful not to imply that while in superposition we're "really" in branch A or B. I don't mean to suggest you mean it that way, and I find that description of the coefficients quite valuable. Just wanted to add that extra wrinkle!
Energy is _not_ conserved in each branch. The total energy of the state of the universe is conserved though: is a constant. Here, by "total energy" I mean the expected value of the observable "energy" (or, rather, the hamiltonian), which is a standard-ish way of defining the "value" of an observable, so not something that can affect or can be detected by a single measurement, as opposed to an ensemble of measurements. This might be seen as problematic because if H is averaged against the state ψ _of the whole universe,_ then it represents no possible ensemble of measurements: you can't prepare an ensemble of identically prepared... universes!
The energy (as defined above) of each branch is not conserved in general: if ψ1 and ψ2 are two branches, then is conserved, but not necessarily or
We should also keep in mind that conversation of energy only needs to apply in closed systems for which the laws of physics are symmetric in time. Both wave function collapse and world splitting really don’t obey temporal symmetry, so there’s no obvious reason we should expect conservation of energy. Edit: even in the meager universe we currently live in, as the universe expands, far away photons get red shifted to oblivion, thereby losing energy. But that energy isn’t really lost to anything, it’s just less now than it used to be
@@yugiohsc: "World splitting", like any phenomenon in the many worlds interpretation, obeys perfect time reversibility at the fundamental level because the Schroedinger equation has such a symmetry. If we don't see worlds "unsplitting" it's because of the emergent aspect of what we consider a "world". It's a bit like in thermodynamics: everything is reversible at the fundamental level, but we have a special name for an unscrambled egg as opposed to the many ways an egg can be scrambled. This has no bearing on conservation of energy (which is a quantity determined by the fundamental properties of the system, not by how we see it emergently).
In the many worlds interpretation the total energy of the universe is conserved, and the energy of each "branch" is not conserved.
@@rv706 Perhaps it would be stated better this way. Each observer can convince themselves that there is a history for their branch that is consistent with energy conservation.
love to see more frequent updates on this channel!
This is a good question to be raising. When I was 22 (in 2019) I got two old books on Valence Theory from 1965 from my university (they were throwing them out) and in one of them I wrote annotated notes in the chapter on the foundations of quantum mechanics challenging the assumption of energy conservation. Two years later (last year) I realised that there are people wondering that same question and there is now a paper on the concept on energy non-conservation in quantum mechanics written by Sean Carroll from Caltech. This was very liberating but also bewildering.
I’ve just discovered your channel. I’ve been watching your recent series of “holiday” videos and they really make me think. If this is what you do on holiday please can you vacation more often? Thanks for the great content!
I saw your video a little late, back from travek. I found it excellent, and from the point of view of someone who does not have a background in physics. Everything is understandable and there are no sticking points, even for a neophyte.
It will always be a pleasure to see other videos from your channel.
This is a very interesting view! I think it was Heisenberg who commented that quantum mechanics seemed to be reviving the concept of "potentia" - the distinction between "act" and "potency" of medieval Scholastic philosophy, or going even further back, between the "prime matter" and "form" of Aristotle's philosophy. Your suggestion in this video reminded me of that.
Attributing primary physical reality to something (energy, in your suggestion) and considering the wavefunction to be describing a state or attribute of that thing is actually very much in the spirit of pilot-wave theory. If you take it one step further, and postulate that the something (e.g., energy) is _actually_ in a given state (while the wavefunction describes all ways the thing could _potentially_ be), you end up with what is essentially a hidden-variables theory, with nice and clear resolutions to the ontology and measurement problems.
(If that intrigues you, you might be interested in Alexander Pruss' "Travelling Forms" interpretation of quantum mechanics - it's basically a theory of the kind just described, where the "hidden variables" are actually just the states of macroscopic objects and systems.)
If this creature's Feynman Diagram showed it travelling backwards and forwards in time, perhaps we should call it a TARDISgrade.
groan @ftumschk
I always get Feynman type vibes watching your videos. Making complex situations understandable for us mere mortals 😂. Great video
That’s far too kind!
I really like the honesty of uploading an answer video that's essentially just, "I don't know, man, it makes no sense to anyone."
Your pictorial descriptions are on point and very helpful, that's what inspired me to subscribe to your channel. Love how this video ends though haha. Classic quantum physics. Quantum Mechanics, why you do this to me? Haha. But we keep coming back for more. I haven't formally studied physics but your story (just saw that video) is really seriously making me think again about doing so.
Don't think we wouldn't notice you flexing on us with that expensive new camera stand
I'm loving this many worlds series! Also love the way the video ended lol! Idk why but it's very satisfying to forget "real world" issues just dive into physics and ponder the implications. Thank you!
Love the high tech down facing camera set up :-)
To be compatible with our existing evidence for conservation of energy, you don't need to conserve energy per se, just need to appear to conserve energy from the point of view of macroscopic people inside the universe.
... Or it conserves energy by somehow borrowing energy from our relam. And that's how we end up with antimatter. ;)
I have solved this in my newest preprint and I got the piece I was missing with your video thank you. The preprint of my paper is out titled: "Quantum Computing Using Chaotic Numbers" also the preprint of the Mathematics of Chaos is titled: "Chaotic Numbers and it's uses on millennium prize problems" by Usama Shamsuddin Thakur. Thank you.
Real world Example for my new mathematics and how I solved the Quantum Measurement Problem:
You woke up in the morning you are visiting your nearest pizza spot where a lady has given you a box in that box there might be a pizza but you have the urge to eat only the tomato pizza you don't want any other pizza in that box but you can't know if you can't open that box. Now my mathematics will you the power to know what's in the pizza box without opening it. Let's assume there are 3 you's first one opens and he finds a cheese pizza, second one opens where he finds a corn pizza now you will open it and will 100% of time will find your own tomato pizza. Why? Because of the many worlds theory you see there are3 yous 3 of them with different realities but the you who lives in this universe picks a tomato pizza and shifts to that universe. I know it doesn't make sense in real world but Quantum works exactly the same way.
This is really interesting. Thanks!
Could you recommend any book about high school math?i mean before you get into the college ,what math knowledge secondary school student really need?
Very thought provoking, and indeed, mildly unsettling!
I absolutely love this video!
Its awesome you're making more videos
Thanks for the courage to ask such honest questions. From my perspective this is cutting edge thinking and it will lead you to many contentious arguments, if you don’t have a means to navigate them. Do you have a resource, like David Deutschmark or Sean Carroll, to sort this out?
The end of this video really resonated with me.
Thanks for your video. Doesn't answer my question I posted in a previous video, I think the problem persists, but I'm glad you have the courage to admit that you don't know. I truly appreciate that honesty and sincerity. I think the jury is still at lunch and there's much to be discovered still. I wonder if seeing things from the perspective of information instead of energy might be the silution..solution....cheers!
Quantum mechanics is the reason I left physics and went into electrical engineering. There was something about it that was deeply disturbing. I like my Newtonian world!!😅
u r amazin! thanks
Wow, so many interesting videos within a short time period - that’s like Chrstmas plus birthday! Thanks! 🙃 And super interesting - I never thought about it that way... maybe there’s an idea for a new paper in there? 🤔😅
good videos!! thx!
I like the way Sean Carrol talks about this subject. The wave function is what is a real and fundamental whole that is deterministic and conserves energy. The worlds (including any duplicate objects) are emergent and subjective. A quantum Laplace's daemon could have full information of the wave function of the whole universe and how it evolves and never have to refer to worlds at all. We, mere mortals observing slices of wave functions, need to talk about worlds.
What a cliff hanger!! I am left in a quantum state of suspense as to what happens to the tartagrade!!
It looks likely that most of them get squashed.
Regarding your description that the function describes the state; would you say that the function describes the entire state, or only the state for a specific set of properties? I recall from your previous videos, as well as other's, that there are relations between e.g. momentum and position. How does that relate to the state of the object and the many worlds interpretation more generally?
... oh, and in this example, would we see an interference pattern of tardigrades behind the slits? 😅
Nice video, I'm really loving these series. This whole idea that the mass or energy doubles when an object is put into a superposition nevery really made any sense to me so it was hard for me to even respond to. Like... no one every taught me that when we put an electron in a superposition that now we have twice the mass in the wordl. I think this entire notion comes from an overly naive understanding of what the many worlds interpretation says, and in particular, I think it rises from the misnomer for the interpretation as being called "many worlds". "many worlds" is bring up too many sci-fi connotation that make people think more about Hollywood than Heisenberg.
BUT! The key moment that clicked for me about this from your video was right at 4:56 where you point out "This wavefunction isn't the object, it's the state of the object". YES!!!!! This is the confusion that leads people to think the mass and energy double when the wavefunction is put into a superposition! I think this explanation really clears up this particular misconception.
Ok, about your wresting about the end about what is the "thing" in the the Uranium decay case. I wouldn't say the "energy" is the object. For me, the answer is, if you want to get as precise (but also pedantic) as possible, the object can ALWAYS be thought of as quantum fields. A Uranium atom is what we get when the quark, electron, W-boson, proton, etc. quantum fields are in a particular joint state. When the Uranium atom decays we get a Th + He atom, but this is just a different configuration of the quark, electron, W-boson, proton, etc. quantum fields. When you have the decay then these fields are in a superposition of these two configurations.
If you want to coarse grain further than this I think the thing to say would be to think of the Uranium atom as a bunch of protons, neutrons, and electrons as fixed particles with electromagnetic (and maybe weak/strong) fields in between them. These particles + fields can then be in one configuration or another, or a superposition of the two. I think you need to include the fields in the description to account for mass differences due to binding energy differences.
Worth pointing out that if a closed system begins with a "well-defined" value for the energy then the wavefunction always has that exact same well-defined value for the energy. Similarly if a closed system is in ANY energy state with various probabilities for being found in any particular energy state then the wavefunction will always have that SAME distribution of probabilities for energy. This is an even stronger statement than saying the expectation value for the energy is conserved.
Thank you so much for taking the time to elaborate on this.
The popularization of physics to twist the concepts into fantasy or sci-fi balderdash always rubs me the wrong way, same as wormholes being used as portals for space travel.
Would like to know if you could recommend any books for a layman to comprehend quantum physics on a deeper level?
@@somniavitasunt I would recommend "Decoherence: And the Quantum-To-Classical Transition" by Maximilian A. Schlosshauer to learn about interpretations of quantum mechanics and the Many Worlds or Everett interpretation. The author of the video also recommends this book in another of her recent videos ruclips.net/video/xBlpOGdk-0U/видео.html. If you are new to quantum mechanics then I'd recommend standard intro quantum textbooks such as Shankar or Griffiths and to be diligent to learn the requisite mathematics to understand the content of those books.
@@justingerber9531 Thank you for taking the time to reply. Now I got some reading/work to do.
At 1:59, would not the direction in which we throw our object at the wall determine if it were to grow through the uper slit or otherwise?
Very nicely expounded…
This video is an example of the most fundamental principle in quantum mechanics: If you think you understand quantum mechanics, then you don't understand quantum mechanics.
4:10 I would say this is both necessary and correct. Both the Hamiltonian operator and the Schrödinger equation are linear, so if we apply the Hamiltonian to the superposition of states at the end the total energy is the sum of the energy of the possibly states. If we run the Schrödinger equation backward from the superposition at the end we get the original state, but since the Schrödinger equation is linear the original state is the sum of the rollbacks of the two superposition. Due the the linearity of the Hamiltonian this means we can break the original states energy into the energy contributions of all the states that will become the superimposed states at the end.
4:54 I would say that differentiating the object and the wave function of the object doesn't really work with many worlds as when you get rid of observations the state and evolution of the universe are described by the wave function and Schrödinger equation, so there is no room for a quantum mechanically meaningful definition of the object. With an object could be what can be observed, and can behave in odd ways, like having indeterminate distribution of energy between it's states until observation, but without observation I could just say that I pick only the up state of the wave function as the object I care about* and track what the energy of that object is, what do you do then you can't just say undefined, even when the starting object is in superposition, as I have the Hamiltonian operator to say the energy and no magic observation operator to clean anything up and make it so the energy is obfuscated using anything else.
*We actually do this all the time, to take an extreme example if we go into a Schrödinger's cat style box and then come out, we don't think "I'm not me, me is only me + the corpse of the me that was unlucky" we think of ourselves as the one that lived and the dead one as an "alternative" us, and we think of those two as separate, and since there is no built in time limit we could use as another example us, and hypothetical us that got unlucky and some random bit of gamma radiation flew in from space and gave us a brain tumor as a kid and had totally different life experience, or was fried as an egg and was never born, or are mom was fried as an egg and was never born, in which case what even would be the "object" of us
Sort of a potential verses kinetic trade perspective. I think it is a soft perspective. Your interest Inspirational. Sometimes I default to a convenient explanation for the evident. A soft perspective lets me accept what I observe without making this a limitation to further interest during expansion of the adventure. Thanks again. Well shared. My interest is drawn.😊
I can't study these things like everyone else because of a disability but I've been interested in the past week or so and I've just been reading and reading stuff online, watching videos.
Just saying that's where I'm coming from so forgive me if I lack the understanding of it that you do.
But I'm thinking: from the perspective of a far-enough-away observer, is not all of Earth and the creatures on it in a state of superposition? As their particles haven't interacted with ours yet (if they ever will, depending on the intersection of our light cones).
Is that an accurate thought about how it works?
So you said a tardigrade is the largest organism that has been put in a state of superposition, but that's only relative to us.
I feel like relativity fits in with quantum mechanics in that its relative to the observer. Or, more specifically, relative to the individual... particle, or whatever is the smallest thing that interacts. That we are an individual being made up of lots of particles is just to say that our particles interact with all of our other particles. The information being passed around at the speed of light.
I know I'm diverting from a single point rather than discussing the main point of your video. I just have these thoughts in my head and it's hard for me to interact with people but I still like to express my thoughts. And in this case hopefully learn.
My head after trying to understand quantum physics: 🤯 I do feel that the ultimate understanding of all this has to be so beautiful and probably simple. ( Occam's razor to the nth degree) Thanks so much for this video. I love your talks here. ❤️ Love those Tardigrades too.
Would the |thorium + helion> state also contain the energy emmited from the nuclear fission? Since the state describes a energy configuration, it should include the photon energy or am I just tripping balls?
I am so happy you’re here to explain this without over-simplifying! Thank you 😊
What if we take two states, one with energy E1 and one with energy E2 and construct a superposition of the two, with 50:50 probability of both. Would the superposition have energy E1+E2 or (E1+E2)/2? And then see what happens as you add more states? Would that help in answering this question?
I would like to see you do a video on how to conceptualize and visualize very large numbers. For instance, Wikipedia has an article on "timeline of the future universe" and the numbers are astronomically large, as in powers raised to powers raised to powers. Of course that is all conjecture but I think you'd be great at explaining how to fully understand these huge numbers. Or for that matter, very small numbers.
More succinctly :) If your wave has finite energy, how does it encode infinite complexity?
Do you have a link to the tardigrade experiment paper?
A few years ago I was riding with my little brother and we got on the conversation of multiverse and quantum mechanics, I started indepth explaining Schrodinger's cat and how it applied to quantum wavefunction. When I was done he seemed to pause for a moment, internally debating what I had just explained and then ask, "Wait, so he spent his whole career developing an equation that he is famous for that say, "I don't know"?" After thinking about it for a moment all I could do was respond respond," .....well yeah...I guess he is..."lol.
Huh. Interesting ending! My thought, right before you ended it, was that E=mc² might come into play somehow?
Curious to see what you come up with next!
Does anyone have the link to the paper, or the DOI Number of it, where they put tardigrades into superposition?
I really enjoyed this video. Yet I still can't wrap my brain around this.
Another comment about the Tardigrade double slit experiment. I think there's an important point that is NEVER said about double slit experiments that can lead to a lot of confusion. Think about a double slit experiment with photons, for example. What goes unsaid is that the VAST majority of the photons do NOT go through the slit. Rather, they hit the screen and are absorbed or reflected or something. It is only a tiny fraction of the power that actually passes through the slits. Like, probably 1% or less or something in a realistic experiment. This means that 1 in 100 photons doesn't go through the slits. If you tried to do a double slit experiment with something like a Tardigrade and see an interference pattern you'd have to recognize that only 1 in 100 tardigrades will actually make it through the slits you created, but that small percentage that do make it through could contribute to the interference pattern we see. But I guess the wavefunction for the Tardigrades after the slit is like... B|smashed into the barrier> + A/sqrt(2) |upper> + A/sqrt(2) |lower> where B>>A.
I think this just anticipates a little bit of a confusion people likely have when learning about ANY kind of double slit experiment.
Is this engineering problem?
What about firing single photon - is the experiment "unsuccessful" most of the times?
@@dzidmail I don't fully understand your question. Talking about light: Whether you are using a coherent state of light or single photons as the input to the experiment, in practice, you will be shining a large beam onto the back side of the slits so that you effectively have what looks like a plane wave impinging on the backside of the detector. In this case the fractions of photons that successfully pass through the double slits (and actually contribute to the output) will be related to the ratio of the slit width and height to the distance between the slits. Basically it's the ratio of the slit area to the beam area (I'm imagining a circular beam). Only a very small fraction of photons (either from the coherent state or single photons) will actually pass through the slits and contribute.
So yes, most of the time the experiment is unsuccessful.
You could imagine trying to shape the beam to have sort of a bimodal intensity distribution focused at the two slits, but now you are introducing complicating experimental elements that might make the results of the experiment harder to interpret. So in this sense you *might* say this is an engineering problem, but to me that's sort of cutting hairs semantically.
Nice
Great questions! Ultimately the physics of quantum mechanics is teaching us that momentum, energy and angular momentum are the better answers than our Euclidean/Newtonian ideas of position, duration, length, area, volume, etc.
Keep on rockin ka
How does down quark convert into up quark in beta minus decay? In wiki it says that down quark enters into superposition of up quarks while converting into up quark what causes this superposition?
thank u thank u thank u, this has been bothering me for years.
i have always found the many worlds interpretation flawed because u some how have the energy to make a compleat parallel universe every time a quantum state collapses.
but if many world is thru and it gets the energy from some where, what happens when u stop it?
where will that energy go?
can it build up?
what if u take some matter and prevent it from having any quantum interactions.
will the (energy/force/whatever) that is not being used manifest in some way?
can u maybe measure it?
i believe this can be the biggest hint to prove or not the many worlds interpretation.
hope this where will the energy go question help to think about QM.
I don't think energy is a problem. Dark energy seems to make the total net energy of the universe zero, so a new copy of the universe would need no new energy.
@@michaelsommers2356 i have never heard of idea that dark energy gives the universe net 0 energy.
and i dont see how, but if so that may be the answer.
but how can dark energy be "anti" energy to make the universe balanced if it is the dominant force in the universe?
it is expanding the universe at a accelerated speed but also balance's it out?
@@SoYFooD2 Dark energy is essentially negative energy, which cancels out all the positive energy of mass and radiation. It is the negative pressure of the dark energy that makes the universe expand.
Got a great laugh at the end. All those analytics ending up in: Now I'm upset, end of story.
Just to connect it with the math, could you say the "constituent parts" are (at least represented by) the decomposition into all the oscillators (integral of all the e^±ikx's) in a certain phase relationship that gives you a positive amplitude in the SE, e.g., in the position basis?
And then if you define "real" as "positive amplitude squared", then could you say energy conservation is the positivity of squared amplitude always remaining "1" under any linear transformation? It'd work in Many Worlds because, just by definition, when you split a basis you just define a new position basis (the delta function) and renormalize it as "1". And then linearity takes over from there to preserve the area under the curve being "1", right?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I think the trick here is cooked into the definition of the delta function of a "position measurement", as if it's the same "1" (after apparent wave function collapse), as the area "1" under the amplitude squared of the SE time evolves before the collapse. But I don't think it's the same "1"! Renormalization hides that in open sight. The positive value under the amplitude of all branches is a lot bigger than one, but the linearity of the SE + the fact that only the simplest or lowest level of entanglement (i.e., monogamy, no mixed states) allows biology & observes to exist, that allows those observers to just throw out by definition all of the area under all the amplitudes under all the superpositioned simplest bases and just stick with the area under the curve in their own basis And as long as the biology can only exist in a simplest basis, then the linearity & unitarity of the SE (or Dirac equation & QFT) by themselves conserve "energy" at that level of basis ...
But yeah, it'd only be by definition, which is arbitrary. The oscillators wouldn't care; they just perpetually spin and create phase-made structures (positive amplitudes) all over the place and energy wouldn't be conserved. But we don't see it in our humble monogomous basis. Energy is always conserved /for us/. Does any of this sound right?
These videos are great BTW. Thanks!
I like how Sean Carroll puts it or at least that's how I get it. Total energy of the system (or whole universe) is dividing (branching) via measurements (entanglement), not multiplying, so it is naturally conserved. 2 slits version of electron has more energy to begin with. It comes with superposition itself (entropy). The detected version (whichever you end up entangled with) has always energy of 1 slit electron, the rest goes to other states.
We don't know about the number of states this makes, but since it is conserved shouldn't one be able to?
@@DistortedV12 I guess you can, but in case of universe you should count with all the interactions. In case of electron and 2 slits you can repeat the process and count all the possible outcomes. You will get 50/50 chance of going through one of the 2 slits - that's your superposition factors. Since entropy comes from interactions (entanglements), you can just reverse the process - entangle yourself repeatedly and count all the outcomes and their weights. Same with coin - toss it 100 times. You should get heads around 50 and tails around 50, therefore superposition factor is 1/2 with each your toss.
Could it only be borrowed energy until it's "paid back"? Then it could be paid back if any of the future trajectories of the "worlds" combined/re-joined?
PS, seems you accidentally threw locality out the window there? It is IMO the beginning of finding the answer. :)
That was so funny at the end. When philosophy decides to drop a rose on ya, and you have to go, "hmmmmm."
imo we have hit a halt in our growth towards our understanding in quantum mechanics not b/c of its complexity but b/c of our limitations towards effectively testing the current theories.
Do you know David Deutschs books “The Fabric of reality” and “The Beginning of infinity “?
Thanks for exploring this some. I don’t get upset by it, but I have yet to hear an explanation that satisfies, or doesn’t seem to just dance around the issue. Splitting up between the “real” part and the states just seems to be saying that the many worlds (other than our own) aren’t “real”, all the energy is where we interact with it, in which case what is the point of the model?
I admire your explanation, and the concept and the videos in this channel. I have one suggestion on the way you look, I mean, the hair on left side is blocking my view to have a direct eye contact, and it is super uncomfortable, also it make your head slightly tilted. Well.. I'm not sure if it is apt to put such comment. I have been thinking about it from past few videos. So I thought to share it now. :)
What's the mass of a tardigrade in Planck units? I reckon it's about 10, making it a classical object and not something that can be put into quantum mechanical superposition. I think that experiment you are referring to was on just part of a frozen tardigrade, for which superposition is still possible. I would warn the reader that this is likely to be a very controversial subject at the moment. Does anyone agree with my estimated mass?
I love that conclusion lol! Could you help me understand why the nature of the world being energy in superposition would be upsetting?
Would both up and down versions of the tardigrade be able to see each other? I know that in the regular double slit the two electrons interact I guess it is possible that there is interaction between the two tardigrades right? I know you said there is only 1 and the superposition is the state but if there is interaction then maybe there is a possibility he could see himself passing through both slits?
I don't think it would see itself as such.
If you want to think about this more concretely, don't think about the whole tardigrade. Think about a single rhodopsin protein for a rod in the retina. The 11th (out of I think 16) bond is a double carbon bond (think of a quite large standing electron wave holding that bond) that curls a branch in the cis direction, and if a single light wave matches its frequency (which it does in the visible light range, which is why it's used in the retina), that electron will briefly pop into a higher energy state, breaking the double bond, and the branch will swing in the lower-energy trans direction, popping the whole molecule straight out like a loaded spring.
What you're really asking is if you put the rhodopsin itself through both slits in a superpositioned state, could light bounce off of the down rhodopsin with a wave that then hits the up rhodopsin such that it pops the 11th double bond. That's what we'd mean by "sees itself". The ex hypothesis assumption is that the rhodopsin is in phase with itself, so it can interfere with itself. Hmm... My intuition is that the light shattering off of the down rhodopsin itself wouldn't be in coherent phase with the up rhodopsin, so it couldn't match the frequency to pop that bond. So that's why I think it wouldn't see itself. But I don't know that for sure; I'd be really interested in finding out!
But the other thing you'd have to take into account is the neural signalling that happens from there: the popped rhodopsin twists a G-Protein in a state that triggers a voltage sensitive sodium gate, through which a flood of sodium ions pour in triggering a cascade of further sodium gates opening, carrying a neural signal to the area of the brain that registers sight, and I'm almost certain that would not stay coherent... Although I'd have to think about what its branches might be seeing in that case. (I think the tardigrade's machinery is very simple, but still involving masses of ions and gates.) But practically speaking, while I haven't read the paper, I would guess in the original experiment they had to freeze the poor little tardigrade to near absolute zero to stop that kind of noise from creating decoherence.
So ultimately that's why I think it wouldn't see itself, because I'm guessing they can only keep the coherence if they have the guy frozen to near absolute zero, and he couldn't see anything in that frozen state.
Often people ask instead, "Where are the gravitational effects of these superpositions or these other worlds?"
But imagine, if you will, a graviton from some massive object entering the region of this superposition. Say it interacts with an object in one branch and not the other. That means it splits into a graviton that interacted and thus carried some attractive force and one that didn't. Following the same logic, a graviton that interacted with both branches becomes a superposition of a graviton that interacted with one branch and one that interacted with the other. It doesn't become two gravitons or a double-strength graviton or anything of that nature. So you wouldn't expect to see twice the mass when looking at a superposition of two objects.
One can ask also about gravitational attraction between branches, but the two branches don't see each other for reasons you explained so well in the last video.
Tl;dr: gravitational attraction counts as a measurement, so no problem.
Heyyy sis are you from Jaffna or Tamil Nadu! Fellow north guy from Vaelanai (வேலணை)! You have given me the confidence to pursue my dream of studying both medicine and astrophysics! உங்கள் ஆசி எனக்கு தேவை! 🎉🎉🎉
You are probably aware of the work posted by Sean Carrol . In general, the idea is the following (for those who do not read it), we can not think about a particle's energy in terms of classical physics. The same as a particle, in general, is presented by the superposition of momentums or positions. It also can be viewed as a superposition of energies. We should talk not about the concrete energy in the concrete state but about average energy, which is the weighted value of different states in superposition. That leads to an interesting conclusion. Till the particle follows Shrodinger Equation, energy is conserved. But measurement in classical interpretation is one of the actions/states which contradicts this equation. That concludes that in classical interpretation, energy is not preserved, but in the hypothesis of many worlds, energy is preserved. Because all participants follow/obey SE. Which, BTW, aligns with your way of thinking, if I got it correctly. So each observer in each branch, in such case, "donates" their energy measurement to the universe's total (average) energy and the law of energy conservation is not violated.
Could this just mean that there's two different measurements going on here? There's a measurement of an object's existence (i.e. it's mass) and a measurement of it's position in space time? Could the former be not subject to superposition but the latter is? Therefore there being a dimension of existence containing the primary set of information and this dimension in which that information is expressed?
Please make video on mechanics book list
if be interested to see what Noether's theorem has to say about this paradox. is there some clever symmetry violation that can save the day?
Another way of looking at it could be to say that the mass (or the energy bound-up in that mass) is not localized. But it's not entirely clear what that would mean or what it would further imply.
Forfeiting locality (or perhaps, local realism, at any rate) seems to be one of the things that makes it easier to get one's head around entanglement and superposition. Or at least that's the impression I've gotten - I'm still struggling with it myself. Though I guess I'm not alone, because there are plenty of people who are way smarter than I am trying to get their heads around what physics would look like if we gave-up on locality.
This is a theory but in the two worlds/ universes this organism exists is it possible there is some form of Inter dimensional feedback loop of energy connecting both objects, like string theory but across two universes ? could this energy be some how shared between the universes and only manifest wholly in the presence of the conscious observer? In this way it is not just the micro-organism that is copied but the entire universe/world that “surrounds” so ultimately an infinite amount of energy is copied assuming there’s an infinite abundance of energy that exists within the universe as energy cannot be destroyed? And this feed back loop is some kind of anti-matter or worm hole that only exists if that probability happens, and it is just a re-adjustment of the position of energy that occurs and a shift rather than being “transported” to another copy?
Decoherence always seems to me to cut to the chase. The Uranium for example - if it decayed the alpha particle will go off and do stuff that causes decoherence pretty quickly. Even the tardigrade has to decohere pretty fast just due to its tiny gravitational field. Or to put it another way, measurement/observation happens all the time, not just in special cases.
On relativly small small scales where the universe's expansion is negligible, or rather not detectable, we find that energy is conserved to the best of our measurement ability. But conservation of energy doesn't actually exist in an expanding universe. Maybe we should reflect on that somewhere between either Some types of measurements, or all measurements, a presently undetectable amount of energy is being lost.
It might be interesting to ask what is the smallest unit of energy that is being lost and what might that mean.
I was wondering if she was going to mention this. Thanks for bringing this idea up
If the laws of physics are time-invariant (i.e., don't change), energy is preserved, and vice versa. Whether that is the case, I don't know.
I like the many worlds interpretation too, but I wonder, how do we recover the Bourne rule? If you don't have equal magnitude coefficients, how is ur that we will see one option more often than another, especially in a truly two state system that can't be represented on a continuum?
Very good question!
Here's one for you. If you could travel back in time and meet your younger self, would that also violate the conservation of energy principle, since there is now twice the mass? Or would both your selves be in a super position?
Your energy is beautiful and I love it :) ...but parasocial flirting aside, doesnt this tie into mass-energy duality pretty nicely? I'm a bit curious about what there is/was to perhaps be upset about.
Energy conservation laws begs the question to what system is observed too. It feels very odd to consider conservation over 'entirety of Many Worlds', even if we only have worlds of single electrons. I dont know what that is, or why it would differ from any world-local system.
Energy being the fundamental conserved quantity is kinda cool
The "real" object and the "state" of the object sound like "actual" object and "potential" object (probable object in the [near] future), in the Aristotelian way. As if the state is measuring the probability of the object to be one way or the other in the (near) future, not the measure of the object at present. Thank you for your videos!
That's some weird stuff. But thanks for sharing.
It seems to me that we have multiple valid configurations of all sorts of quasiparticles, ideal particles etc. that can all be accessed from any point in space. it's all about how to perturb what you have so that it's statistical likelihood of falling into another configuration becomes greater. Making your selection requires enough energy to conserve the amount of energy you have in your local space, and the particles exchange with vacuum energy. The configurations of particles to be referenced still exist, but their universe lines don't extend to us, likely there is some mechanism that allows the fields to access those possible states through some small internal geometry inside the bent space of all particles or something. IDK how the information is firewalled, but we don't have access to it. The point is, the connection could reference copies that are present but not accounted for within our scope of spacetime. This would not violate conservation. TLDR: What most of the other comments say, but in slightly less accessible terms.
you could redefine these valid states as the worlds in many worlds. and it follows directly from the premise of the theory that this would happen outside our own universe line. I don't think I'm saying anything new, I'm just trying to communicate how I think about the problem.
Although not agreed but a nice idea to think on
If we are willing to distinguish between mass/energy objects and wavefunctions that exist only in state space, and are not themselves the object, then surely we don’t need many worlds splitting at all. I think it’s important that if we accept many worlds, we should be willing to accept that the wavefunction governing the state of particles is real, and for that matter, it should be the only real thing. Otherwise, we would need to account for the interactions between matter stuff and state space dynamics, which many worlds doesnt explicitly do.
That's right, but the name is wrong, the "many worlds" in the Many Worlds are not worlds, but infinite parts of one world, The World. We, apparently, can't experience nor study it a whole, we can only study a facet of the infinite facets of the world, and that facet is called coloquially as "the real world".
There's too many semantics confusions in this scientific and metaphisical question.
Why can’t pilot wave and many worlds get along?
There she is! My day is just gone from really bad to really good!!!
Most beautiful girl who talk about the topics that I really enjoy + the way how you explain is really easy to understand on the topic that's hard to understand for people who study/work with.
It's very smart of you that you decided to bring together, quantum physics and computers. Your future is bright.
Plus you really impressed me going on the road from not being good in math to study psychs, that's impressive and very bold.
I'm blown away!
I'm not maniac, but I think that I'm in love 😍
If you ever come to Serbia or Greece (Greece from next year) , please let me know I would love to show you around and ofc I'll be polite as every gentlemen is.
Bro… get off RUclips for a while
@@rjScubaSki bro I just watch every evening something about physics or something about the universe, and I never did this what I did here, I don't use dating apps or things like that... I can't explain... I seen most beautiful woman who have PhD in the subject that I enjoy.... I'm ashamed to he honest, especially because I literally never, ever did this.
@@user-mj6lz2rt7r Assess the pdf of outcomes here and think - is this really the way forward? You are looking for something you aren’t going to find here.
I think the question about conservation of energy in Many Worlds has not been answered in this video. (So I'm hoping for a follow-up video.) When we measure the electron, which is considered a collapse of the electron's previously superposed wave function in the Copenhagen interpretation, we measure its full mass. In Many Worlds, the experimenters in both "branches" each measure its full mass. It's hard for me to understand this apparent doubling of the mass (and doubling of energy). I also don't understand the claim early in the video that this same issue is present in all quantum interpretations, not just Many Worlds. Note: David Deutsch's variation of Many Worlds doesn't have this problem, because it postulates an infinity of universes before the superposition, and placing the electron into the superposed state means the electron goes one way in approximately half of the universes and goes the other way in the rest of the universes, and conservation holds within each universe. However, Deutsch's infinity of universes strikes me as an ugly extravagance.
If there is such a thing as Many Worlds then I think the conservation of energy is only needed per 'World' and because the particle or tardigrade might go through both slits at the same time, they don't do that in the same 'World', so nothing would be violated.
@@roing747 : The issue that I have with your view is that universes (with huge total mass & energy) are apparently being rapidly created from nothing. Although the mass & energy of each of the universes is the same as it was in the universe before the superposition state was produced, adding universes increases the total mass & energy of the multiverse. (Except in Deutsch's variation of Many Worlds, which begins with an infinite number of universes that remains constant.)
The way I see the energy conservation issues is that energy is conserved on any given pathway. The pathways are multiplied with every quantum branch, so it is an endless creation if you look at the whole wave function.
Just to be sure. An electron has never been observed being splitted in two?
The are some physical laws which makes particles having some probabilities since its last event. One of the physical laws, or rule as Feynman described electromagnetism, is how its position evolves through spacetime when measured.
In the interpretation of: "the weighted energy is conserved and putting something in a superposition gives it 1/2 weights" it would maybe be possible to double the mass in one world while halving it in the other world ending up with the same weighted average in total. So I guess if you could do that you would prove this interpretation over the "energy on this side vs wave function on that side" interpretation
Does Noethers Theorem say anything about this question?
It sounds like you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too.
She will make some scientist really happy 😁
Great, now I am thinking of Tardigrades that get shot through a double slit and land on a screen in a wave-like pattern :D
Energy is ultimately - and directly- related to gravity.
Quantum gravity is absolutely necessary for MWI to make any sense, because semi classical gravity cannot help here ( MWI implicitly assumes that superpositions of different spacetime geometries are persistent).
So , we need to know the correct theory of QG in all its details to decide if it works for MW or not.