greenfred

No need to be like that about it. Unconstructively nasty isn’t the same as clever. I don't think that my interpretation is an unjustified overly philosophical one, but if it is, why not explain to me why? Also, what's the point of this forum if not to answer/debate questions that you can't find in ya bog-standard text book. Hmmmm? I did ask a question. My question is 'what's your interpretation of the Many Worlds theory'?

Hello. I put this in Quantum Theory instead of Speculations, which I hope is okay. I think it's plausible enough to belong here - but I bet all the nutters think that about their threads, don't they? Anyway, I asked a question about something or other concerning aspects of the MWI, and no-one seemed to know what the hell I was going on about, which I'm sure must be a failure of understanding on my part. (http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/55414-antimatter-in-the-multiverse/) So here I invite you to tell me what your understanding of it is, as briefly or as fully as you'd like. Thanks.

Hello swansnot. (Good name BTW.) Okay, I'll try to explain as best I can what I mean. If it's okay, I'll start with our old friend the double slit experiment. Okay - and if you don't mind I'm going to stick with electrons for this example because its counterpart - the anti-electron (positron) is a different sort of thing (i.e. it has a +ve charge), whereas an anti-photon and a photon are the same thing entirely (and there are all sorts of issues with the directionality of time, that I don't properly understand,). So, we fire an electron through the first slit. It then somehow makes its way through the two slits on the next screen and ends up at the back at a point which is consistent with a uniform pattern of interference. In other words, the electron has acted as though something has interfered with it and has deflected it accordingly. In the MWI the 'somethings' that are interfering with the electron are other (shadow) electrons, tangible only when they are following the same path of reality. They act in the same way as the electron that we can detect, and are only evident through inference after seeing how our detectable electron behaves (i.e. as though it was being deflected by other particles with the same physical properties). My question is, does this apply to anti-electrons too (I think it probably must,) or are anti-electrons another way of explaining 'shadow' electrons, but within a different interpretation of interference phenomena? Cheers. P.S I hope it doesn't annoy everyone too much that I keep calling positrons 'anti-electrons'. It's just so that it's as clear as possible what I mean when comparing them to shadow electrons. [Edited to change a 'which' to a 'with'.]

Anyone? Is it a reasonable question, or is no one answering because it's so stupid and obvious that people feel it's beneath them? Thanks.

Thanks for answering. It probably isn't an issue actually. I think I might have just temporarily confused 'shadow' electrons with anti-electrons. Just that it isn't clear in my head and it would be nice if someone could spell it out. So for example, you have an electron, and also 'shadow' electrons that temporarily interact with *our* electron, but only when they are doing the same thing. Do you also have shadow anti-electrons that act in the same way? And if so, what's the difference between antimatter and 'shadow' matter? Sorry if this is a stupid question, I'm not a physicist.

Hello everyone. Having read many different explanations as to why the quantum universe behaves the way it does, I am most drawn to the Many Worlds interpretation. It seems to me to best answer the largest range of experimental phenomena. However, I am still a bit hazy on how antimatter fits into it. The main reason I ask is because of the recent CERN breakthrough where they managed to isolate antimatter(!) Any light on the subject would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Hello. I'm greenfred, which has been my tinternet name for a while now on various forums, but which I initially chose because of a family tradition of owning green budgies called Fred. I'm not a scientist, but have a long-standing interest in explanations of how stuff works. (One of my proudest moments was when I was called an honorary geek by one of my geekiest friends.) I subscribe to New Scientist (so much more readable than Heat magazine) - I've tried stronger flavours of science magazine - Nature and the like - but have found them slightly over-empowering. I hope that you won't find my lack of detailed knowledge too off-putting - I'm just a fan here to learn. I joined this forum to ask a specific question, but I like the feel of it, so might stick around for the Java - ah, you know what I mean. (: (How do you all feel about emoticons BTW? I used to hate them, but I've recently realised that they come in quite handy from time to time.) Hopefully see some of you up ahead. Thanks.