What types of parallel universe do you find most plausible?

[pulstar]

10^500 number comes from string theory

Yes

No interpretation is on par with Copenhagen and she doesn't say that. Copenhagen is not interpretation like others are. Copenhagen is more like set of rules. We already have definite interpretation of physics which can solve all problems. It is called the Quantum field theory.

She said something like that similar problem with measurement is present in both interpretations, alongside with few other things.

The very problem in those views is in those very sentences ... the word particle. When we deal with low-energy physics or non-relativistic one we deal with particles. Such view is just a special case of a more general theory called quantum field theory which is a high energy physics or relativistic one. When you combine special theory and quantum mechanics fields comes out naturally.

That's from "Introduction to Quantum Mechanics" by David J. Griffiths.

[Insuperable]

Yes

Red Pill is correct that it is connected with inflation. However, that number comes specifically from one type of String Theory. I think that it would be there even without any concept of inflation and would still have to do with number of universes, within the context of String Theory. It is just that somebody found a way to incorporate eternal inflation within the context of the String Theory and within other theories as well.

There is a standard model of inflation which tries to explains some aspects of the standard model of (Big Bang) cosmology and there are various other inflation models. One hypothesis based on another hypothesis which is based on another hypothesis. I think string theories and such have trolled physics community for many years. While ST, supersymmetry and such may be QFTs they are a piece of shit theories for different reasons you can read on about on the Internet.

She said something like that similar problem with measurement is present in both interpretations, alongside with few other things.

That says nothing about any of them being on par with Copenhagen. Copenhagen interpretation doesn't even try to solve various paradoxes. It is more like a set of rules.

[Methuselah]

I write this while drinking a big stein of Heineken:

You guys are all dumb, using big mumbo jumbo that you clearly do not understand in attempt to look "smart".
Why get specific on such a topic that is so speculative at best? String theory has only been scratched and we hardly know 10% of the implications of quantum mechanics.

It does point that multiverses exist and that's enough. Narrowing it down beyond that is absurd.

Quantum physics hits a giant brick wall where only Buddhist philosophy will fill the gaps.

If our universe happens to be curved then many of these multiverse models will die. But i don't see how these speculative models (or even CCC-model Penrose is talking about) will answer our deepest questions (why our universe started or seems to be fine tuned) unless these models will 1. have no beginning and 2. be proved by proper science.

[pulstar]

Red Pill is correct that it is connected with inflation. However, that number comes specifically from one type of String Theory. I think that it would be there even without any concept of inflation and would still have to do with number of universes, within the context of String Theory. It is just that somebody found a way to incorporate eternal inflation within the context of the String Theory and within other theories as well.

There is a standard model of inflation which tries to explains some aspects of the standard model of (Big Bang) cosmology and there are various other inflation models. One hypothesis based on another hypothesis which is based on another hypothesis. I think string theories and such have trolled physics community for many years. While ST, supersymmetry and such may be QFTs they are a piece of shit theories for different reasons you can read on about on the Internet.

Its connected to the number of shapes for additional dimensions in string theory (when you account for all combination of fluxes).

That says nothing about any of them being on par with Copenhagen. Copenhagen interpretation doesn't even try to solve various paradoxes. It is more like a set of rules.

I think I understood what she tried to say.

[Cleitus]

The universe (Latin: universus) is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy.

So the definition of Universe is pretty much "all their is" now you could say that this is also a very vague/limited definition (which i agree with), but how do you envision multiples of literally everything ?
Wouldnt this kind of violate the concept of a "Universe" ?

[Hasien]

Everything of what you have wrote confirms nothing. Just theories, as a civilization we are pretty darn stupid we haven't even reach type 1 but borderline/close to It.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

[Insuperable]

I think I understood what she tried to say.

What you said she said doesn't mean it is on par with Copenhagen. She also implicitly says several times that Copenhagen is not really an interpretation like other interpretations are, for the reasons we have been discussing or not.

And btw MWI is an unscientific piece of shit of a theory.

[pulstar]

What you said she said doesn't mean it is on par with Copenhagen. She also implicitly says several times that Copenhagen is not really an interpretation like other interpretations are, for the reasons we have been discussing or not.

And btw MWI is an unscientific piece of shit of a theory.

I meant they both suffer from measurement problem. Continuation from previous video:

[Insuperable]

I meant they both suffer from measurement problem. Continuation from previous video:

Because they both suffer from it doesn't put MWI on par with the Copenhagen. MWI is sort of a fringe theory, at least it was until some time. CI doesn't even want to solve the measurement problem. Measurement problem can be solved within the context of QFT. You do low-energy physics you will at least for now do it according to the practical rules of CI. If you want to know why you will get your answer from QFT. However, we don't get many papers on QFT and paradoxes associated with quantum mechanics.

[Hamilcar]

Talking about interpretation a new one appeared recently what do you guys think : "A new interpretation of quantum mechanics suggests that reality does not depend on the person measuring it" https://phys.org/news/2020-10-quantu...ty-person.html

https://www.mdpi.com/2073-8994/12/9/1533