真理などという反証不可能なものを見つけるのが科学の目的ではありませんよ 科学の現代的目的は反証可能な形で我々の実験的経験を可能な限り効率的にシミュレーションする方法を見つけることですよ 0612ご冗談でしょう？名無しさん2021/08/28(土) 23:49:59.24ID:LLJ386hM>>607 ひとつの本や文献で理解できるとは思えません 可能な限り多くの文献を読んで、いろいろな人々の考え方や説明の仕方を知るうちに、なにが本質的な ことなのか徐々にわかってきます 学問ってそういうものです 0613ご冗談でしょう？名無しさん2021/08/28(土) 23:52:09.91ID:LLJ386hM 多世界解釈の問題点 https://togetter.com/li/2514900614ご冗談でしょう？名無しさん2021/08/28(土) 23:55:30.13ID:LLJ386hM Did Feynman believe in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics? https://www.quora.com/Did-Feynman-believe-in-the-many-worlds-interpretation-of-quantum-mechanics
No, Feynman ? who was a student of John Wheeler, much like Hugh Everett ? didn’t believe that it made sense to think that the wave function was “universal” and/or that there were many worlds. In fact, Feynman was arguably the first person in the world who pointed out that Everett’s strange ideas meant that there were “many worlds”. According to Feynman, this was a source of “serious conceptual difficulties” of the whole Everett program. Everett’s ideas were wrong because they led to the many worlds!
You may find these brief comments in the minutes from the 1957 gravitational conference in Chapel Hill, “The Role of Gravitation In Physics”, page 270, see http://www.edition-open-sources.org/media/sources/5/Sources5.pdf#page=2820615ご冗談でしょう？名無しさん2021/08/28(土) 23:56:54.08ID:LLJ386hM The most relevant comments:
However, there exists the proposal that there is one “universal wave function.” This function has already been discussed by Everett, and it might be easier to look for this “universal wave function” than to look for all the propagators. FEYNMAN said that the concept of a “universal wave function” has serious conceptual difficulties. This is so since this function must contain amplitudes for all possible worlds depending on all quantum-mechanical possibilities in the past and thus one is forced to believe in the equal reality of an infinity of possible worlds. The following argument was proposed to challenge the conclusions of Deser. If one started to compute the mass correction to, say, an electron, one has two propagators multiplying one another each of which goes as 1/s^2 and are singular for any value of the g’s. Therefore, do the spatial integrations first for a fixed value of the g’s and the propagator is singular, giving δm = ∞. Then the superposition of various values of the g’s is still infinite. DESER replied that this is partly due to an unallowed interchange of limits.
ファインマンは多世界かｙ酌を批判していたんだってさｗ 0616ご冗談でしょう？名無しさん2021/08/28(土) 23:58:47.13ID:LLJ386hM>>604の捏造が明白になりましたｗ 0617ご冗談でしょう？名無しさん2021/08/29(日) 00:11:49.18ID:FkoAfY+T Feynman's Interpretation of Quantum Theory1 H. D. Zeh
Feynman said that the concept of a "universal wave function" has serious conceptual difficulties. This is so since this function must contain amplitudes for all possible worlds depending on all quantum-mechanical possibilities in the past and thus one is forced to believe in the equal reality [sic!] of an infinity of possible worlds. 0618ご冗談でしょう？名無しさん2021/08/29(日) 00:25:39.87ID:FkoAfY+T 捏造なんかしたってすぐにばれる 0619ご冗談でしょう？名無しさん2021/08/29(日) 01:16:46.10ID:FkoAfY+T What is the difference between the “many worlds” interpretation of reality and Richard Feynman’s “sum over histories”?
Feynman, however, didn’t quite like the many-worlds interpretation. In 1981 he wrote:
“Somebody mumbled something about a many-world picture, and that many-world picture says that the wave function [psi] is what's real, and damn the torpedos if there are so many variables, ... All these different worlds and every arrangement of configurations are all there just like our arrangement of configurations, we just happen to be sitting in this one. It's possible, but I'm not very happy with it”.
Feynman, Richard, “Simulating Physics with Computers.” International Journal of Theoretical Physics 21, 1982. 0620ご冗談でしょう？名無しさん2021/08/29(日) 01:21:23.04ID:FkoAfY+T 多世界解釈信者は事あるごとに世界のほとんどの物理学者が多世界解釈を信じているとか言ってますが 何の根拠もないたわごとです それを否定する根拠がないことを利用して肯定する根拠も無いことを正当化しているだけです 0621ご冗談でしょう？名無しさん2021/08/29(日) 01:32:17.16ID:FkoAfY+T 一元論にしても、結局ボルンの規則と同じ確率を出すことしかできない 一元論にしても何も解決などしていない 0622ご冗談でしょう？名無しさん2021/08/29(日) 07:03:17.49ID:???>>621 >一元論にしても、結局ボルンの規則と同じ確率を出すことしかできない バカか
