How closely does the 'Flash' series' portrayal of the multiverse align with the complex and theoretical concepts of parallel universes proposed in scientific theories?

[divisionbyzero]

This is where Brady marches his team straight down the field and throws the winning TD just before time runs out…

Bell's Theorem is a fundamental result in quantum mechanics that addresses the nature of reality and the relationship between particles. It shows that if certain conditions (local realism) are true, then the predictions of quantum mechanics about the behavior of particles should not hold. In simpler terms, Bell's Theorem suggests that if two particles are entangled, their properties can be correlated in ways that cannot be explained by classical physics or local hidden variables.

So…

1.Local Realism: This is the idea that objects have definite properties (like position or momentum) before they are measured, and that no information can travel faster than light (locality).

2. Entangled Particles: When two particles are entangled, measuring the state of one immediately affects the state of the other, no matter how far apart they are.

3. Predictions: Bell's Theorem leads to predictions about the results of experiments that can be tested. Experiments have shown that the results align with quantum mechanics, contradicting local realism. The Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI), proposed by Hugh Everett III, suggests that every time a quantum event occurs, the universe splits into multiple branches with each possible outcome realized in its own world. This interpretation provides a way to understand quantum mechanics without the need for wave function collapse.

Conclusion

1. No Collapse of the Wave Function.  In Many Worlds, the wave function never collapses; all outcomes exist simultaneously in separate worlds. This differs from the assumptions in Bell's Theorem, which relies on a single outcome occurring when a measurement is made.

2. Independence of Worlds: Each branch of the universe in MWI operates independently. Since the outcomes in different worlds do not influence each other, this independence may lead to a violation of the correlations described by Bell's Theorem.

3.Lack of Local Hidden Variables: Bell's Theorem suggests that if local hidden variables exist, they should account for the correlations observed. MWI denies the existence of hidden variables altogether, which may contradict the framework of Bell's Theorem.

4. Non-Locality and Many Worlds: Bell's Theorem indicates that quantum mechanics can exhibit non-locality, meaning that changes in one particle can instantly affect another. Many Worlds does not adequately explain how such non-local correlations work across different worlds.

5.Measurement Problem: Bell's Theorem assumes a specific way measurements affect outcomes, while MWI suggests that all potential outcomes exist at once. This fundamental difference might lead to contradictions with the predictions of Bell's Theorem.

Does Many Worlds Violate Bell's Theorem?  Yes.  In my humble opinion.

Conclusion: Existence of Many Worlds?  No… in my humble opinion only

 

. 

[Genady]

1 hour ago, divisionbyzero said:

2. Entangled Particles: When two particles are entangled, measuring the state of one immediately affects the state of the other, no matter how far apart they are.

This (the bold text above) is incorrect. What is affected is the state of the pair.

[studiot]

19 minutes ago, Genady said:

This (the bold text above) is incorrect. What is affected is the state of the pair.

Again +1 for an excellent point.

 

Once again the question I asked last August

On 8/16/2024 at 9:54 PM, studiot said:

 

I'm at a complete loss to understand the point you are trying to make or what its relevance to this thread might be.

Edited October 22 by studiot

[swansont]

1 hour ago, divisionbyzero said:

2. Entangled Particles: When two particles are entangled, measuring the state of one immediately affects the state of the other, no matter how far apart they are.

Nope. The states are undetermined. You can’t say one affects the other, because it’s not in a definite state. It does not, e.g. flip a particle from spin up to spin down. There is no interaction. It simply makes the state known, which is what you expect from a measurement.

What you can say is that, because the correlation is already known, measuring the state of one particle tells you the state of both. All the information about both is in that one measurement.

[divisionbyzero]

This is where Brady marches his team straight down the field and throws the winning TD just before time runs out…

Bell's Theorem is a fundamental result in quantum mechanics that addresses the nature of reality and the relationship between particles. It shows that if certain conditions (local realism) are true, then the predictions of quantum mechanics about the behavior of particles should not hold. In simpler terms, Bell's Theorem suggests that if two particles are entangled, their properties can be correlated in ways that cannot be explained by classical physics or local hidden variables.

So…

1.Local Realism: This is the idea that objects have definite properties (like position or momentum) before they are measured, and that no information can travel faster than light (locality).

2. Entangled Particles: When two particles are entangled, measuring the state of one immediately affects the state of the other, no matter how far apart they are.

3. Predictions: Bell's Theorem leads to predictions about the results of experiments that can be tested. Experiments have shown that the results align with quantum mechanics, contradicting local realism. The Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI), proposed by Hugh Everett III, suggests that every time a quantum event occurs, the universe splits into multiple branches with each possible outcome realized in its own world. This interpretation provides a way to understand quantum mechanics without the need for wave function collapse.

Conclusion

 

Nope. The states are undetermined. You can’t say one affects the other, because it’s not in a definite state. It does not, e.g. flip a particle from spin up to spin down. There is no interaction. It simply makes the state known, which is what you expect from a measurement.

Absolutely true...  I stand corrected.  Thank you.

 

1. No Collapse of the Wave Function.  In Many Worlds, the wave function never collapses; all outcomes exist simultaneously in separate worlds. This differs from the assumptions in Bell's Theorem, which relies on a single outcome occurring when a measurement is made.

2. Independence of Worlds: Each branch of the universe in MWI operates independently. Since the outcomes in different worlds do not influence each other, this independence may lead to a violation of the correlations described by Bell's Theorem.

3.Lack of Local Hidden Variables: Bell's Theorem suggests that if local hidden variables exist, they should account for the correlations observed. MWI denies the existence of hidden variables altogether, which may contradict the framework of Bell's Theorem.

4. Non-Locality and Many Worlds: Bell's Theorem indicates that quantum mechanics can exhibit non-locality, meaning that changes in one particle can instantly affect another. Many Worlds does not adequately explain how such non-local correlations work across different worlds.

5.Measurement Problem: Bell's Theorem assumes a specific way measurements affect outcomes, while MWI suggests that all potential outcomes exist at once. This fundamental difference might lead to contradictions with the predictions of Bell's Theorem.

Does Many Worlds Violate Bell's Theorem?  Yes.  In my humble opinion.

Conclusion: Existence of Many Worlds?  No… in my humble opinion only

 

. 

[studiot]

5 minutes ago, divisionbyzero said:

There is no interaction.

Actually FYI it is perhaps better to say that there is no interaction at or subsequent to the measurement. The interaction already happened when whatever event occurred to entangle the particles.

[swansont]

17 minutes ago, divisionbyzero said:

Absolutely true...  I stand corrected.  Thank you.

And yet you reposted the statement without correction.

[divisionbyzero]

Yea...  I have very little time to backtrack.  Seems I just keep proving with every post that I'm just not ready for this.  I wish you guys all the best.  I think you help a lot of students.  Keep up the good work.