This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hugh Everett III article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can a bio have 1 stinking referrence?? This ENTIRE article should be NUKED and started from scratch...Paging Michael D. Wolok!! -- Tom 21:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
That's not a very constructive attitude; why not add the missing references? I am going to revert your changes since the one reference provided does support the deleted text. BTW I'll add some more references as well :-) -- Michael C Price 22:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I changed the date for the manuscript and the title of it. It was written in 1955, since it refers to Einstein as still alive. And indeed it wasn´t a thesis, but a manuscript that was (very) modified and later became a thesis. I'm finishing my M.A. and soon will post the reference for those.
I will begin making some minor changes about incorrects historical references. I, together with my advisors, wrote some articles concerning his interpretation, including my master thesis (in portuguese. I'll add it in the references, if it's allowed in others languages), and an article which will be published on Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. As soons as its published, I'll also add the reference in here.-- Fabiofreitas ( talk) 00:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I have made some minor changes, being the most importants: Niels Bohr was not considered THE father of quantum mechanics, but one of its founding fathers, therefore I changed the text so it could keep it's meaning while being correct. I also changed that Everett believed in quantum immortality. There's no evidence of this, not written not spoken. Somes supporters of his interpretation today, like Deustch and Tegmark, claim that it would be possible some kind of quantum immortality, but such ideas only appeared after Everett's death. Any questions outside the scope of this article, please send me a message.-- Fabiofreitas ( talk) 00:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Ps. If the reference is not in the style of Wikipedia, please do correct it, since I don't know how.
the section of the article where it says that everett believed in quantum immortality, however he never admitted it is not clear to me. How can we say that he believed in it if he never admitted it? Unfortunately, I do not feel I know enough about the subject to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.249.26 ( talk) 16:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The intro strikes me as problematic... We're using an unpublished book? That violates at least 2 guidelines: WP:V and WP:SNOW, and likely others. Also, even if we accept that Everett died in penury, that doesn't seem to contradict the idea that he made millions off his math acumen. It's perfectly possible to become a multimillionaire and die poor (eg. the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo). -- 129.49.7.125 ( talk) 18:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
the description of his education is unclear. it describes him defending his dissertation, but never mentions princeton conferring the doctorate. this is compounded by the image of the (later) cerificate, on which he is listed as 'mr.' hugh everett. did he get the ph.d.? Toyokuni3 ( talk) 17:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Claims denoted with "citation required" in the second paragraph of this section contain weasel words and are not verifiable in the references given at the end of paragraph. Specifically: it is not clear from the cited references that the talk was quite well received and who the number of physicists in the audience were who were influenced (and how?) by this talk. Similarly, David Deutsch was a graduate student at the time and not yet a physicist at the time. --Methylene Blue 14:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Methylene Blue ( talk • contribs)
It seems irrelevant and irreverent to mention that Everett believed in quantum immortality in the same sentence as his death. There is no evidence that he believed that he would live forever in this universe, just in at least one, so it is a belief related to his physics theories, not relevant to his death "in this universe". Lucifer-oxy ( talk) 03:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It is relevant if you understand Quantum Immortality. From his perspective he would have never died, because he would only experience those versions of himself that continue to live. Clearly, we are all versions where we know about his death. -- Akvadrako ( talk) 10:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
“Everett's obesity, constant chain-smoking and heavy drinking almost certainly contributed to [his untimely death].” — from the current article. This is lacking citations; I googled up his photographs, and found not a single one were he would look obese. I am adding a citation request; please feel free to remove if unappropriate. — Fregimus ( talk) 11:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
We factually know from particle accelerators that wave functions do not collapse instantaneously but "boil their statistics" for few fractions of a second. The Big Bang was the pointwise superluminal expansion of the universe. Nowadays the universe still expands superluminally but not in an absolute = pointwise manner but in a relativistic manner when we compare different distant points in space. The Big Bang was so extreme during inflation (or pre-inflation; make page: the state before the Big Bang - liquid more extreme than quark-gluon plasma according to MIT theorists) that many interactions were boiling and overlapping before their Everettian separation into many worlds/different universes).
Thus according to Everettian cosmogony (many-words cosmogony), the alternative worlds had the time to interact, because they didn't collapse but their statistical pre-collapse boiling overlapped.
What happened then? The answer is NOT that these different worlds interacted as separate units in an equation. That is a mistake. We should study how light behaves when it enters inside a different medium or how Bose–Einstein condensates behave. The overall protocosmic condensate is just that; a condensate and not merely separated wave functions which interact.
for more ask Caltech physicists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4106:402:FDC4:D3FE:1FCB:17F5 ( talk) 19:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
It's not the common multiverse.
Everettverse = many-worlds interpretation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4117:34E9:401A:226F:47D1:50B8 ( talk) 22:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hugh Everett III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hugh Everett III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The latest changes make it sound a like MWI and RSI are different interpretations. They are not. MWI is merely a popularised version of RSI. Content the same. And RSI was Wheeler's imposed moniker, not Everett's choice. cheers, Michael C. Price talk 19:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I reapplied this reverted change: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hugh_Everett_III&oldid=prev&diff=1176001365
I added a reference as well.
The edit summary on the revert was "Revert. Need to talk all these change out. MWI's is not Dewitt's interpretation as opposed to Everett's. A false dichotomy." However the change was unrelated to MWI or Dewitt and no Talk topic was raised.
The change concerns the model that Everett's work was set in opposition to. Everett's publication and his thesis point to von Neumann's model. It was von neumann's model that formalized the collapse postulate. Collapse is not even part of Copenhagen and Bohr never talks about it. See for example https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/ It was an idea the Heisenberg proposed and von Neumann is the best "interpretation" level thing to reference. Johnjbarton ( talk) 22:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
@ Michael C Price reverted my edit, using the summary "equally real".
My text was: Everett's theory assumes "the general validity of pure wave mechanics...for all physical systems, including observers" and references Everett's quote to his long thesis.
That text was reverted this original research version: Everett's theory has no wavefunction collapse and holds that all the possibilities in a quantum superposition are equally real.
There is no reference for either of these claims. The second one is disputed, see 5.1. A unitary model of the world page 107 in the "Heresy" reference. Discussing other references in the body of the article that support equally real together with the discussion in Heresy would be Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, but this claim should not be in the lede because it is disputed. Johnjbarton ( talk) 15:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
e.g. daughter's suicide note which mentions many worlds. This is not trivia. Please restore. Same with Keith Lynch's recollections. cheers, Michael C. Price talk 13:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Everett believed in quantum immortality.We don't actually know what he believed, so we shouldn't write anything on the topic.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Hugh Everett III article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Can a bio have 1 stinking referrence?? This ENTIRE article should be NUKED and started from scratch...Paging Michael D. Wolok!! -- Tom 21:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
That's not a very constructive attitude; why not add the missing references? I am going to revert your changes since the one reference provided does support the deleted text. BTW I'll add some more references as well :-) -- Michael C Price 22:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I changed the date for the manuscript and the title of it. It was written in 1955, since it refers to Einstein as still alive. And indeed it wasn´t a thesis, but a manuscript that was (very) modified and later became a thesis. I'm finishing my M.A. and soon will post the reference for those.
I will begin making some minor changes about incorrects historical references. I, together with my advisors, wrote some articles concerning his interpretation, including my master thesis (in portuguese. I'll add it in the references, if it's allowed in others languages), and an article which will be published on Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. As soons as its published, I'll also add the reference in here.-- Fabiofreitas ( talk) 00:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I have made some minor changes, being the most importants: Niels Bohr was not considered THE father of quantum mechanics, but one of its founding fathers, therefore I changed the text so it could keep it's meaning while being correct. I also changed that Everett believed in quantum immortality. There's no evidence of this, not written not spoken. Somes supporters of his interpretation today, like Deustch and Tegmark, claim that it would be possible some kind of quantum immortality, but such ideas only appeared after Everett's death. Any questions outside the scope of this article, please send me a message.-- Fabiofreitas ( talk) 00:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Ps. If the reference is not in the style of Wikipedia, please do correct it, since I don't know how.
the section of the article where it says that everett believed in quantum immortality, however he never admitted it is not clear to me. How can we say that he believed in it if he never admitted it? Unfortunately, I do not feel I know enough about the subject to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.100.249.26 ( talk) 16:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 09:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The intro strikes me as problematic... We're using an unpublished book? That violates at least 2 guidelines: WP:V and WP:SNOW, and likely others. Also, even if we accept that Everett died in penury, that doesn't seem to contradict the idea that he made millions off his math acumen. It's perfectly possible to become a multimillionaire and die poor (eg. the man who broke the bank at Monte Carlo). -- 129.49.7.125 ( talk) 18:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
the description of his education is unclear. it describes him defending his dissertation, but never mentions princeton conferring the doctorate. this is compounded by the image of the (later) cerificate, on which he is listed as 'mr.' hugh everett. did he get the ph.d.? Toyokuni3 ( talk) 17:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Claims denoted with "citation required" in the second paragraph of this section contain weasel words and are not verifiable in the references given at the end of paragraph. Specifically: it is not clear from the cited references that the talk was quite well received and who the number of physicists in the audience were who were influenced (and how?) by this talk. Similarly, David Deutsch was a graduate student at the time and not yet a physicist at the time. --Methylene Blue 14:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Methylene Blue ( talk • contribs)
It seems irrelevant and irreverent to mention that Everett believed in quantum immortality in the same sentence as his death. There is no evidence that he believed that he would live forever in this universe, just in at least one, so it is a belief related to his physics theories, not relevant to his death "in this universe". Lucifer-oxy ( talk) 03:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It is relevant if you understand Quantum Immortality. From his perspective he would have never died, because he would only experience those versions of himself that continue to live. Clearly, we are all versions where we know about his death. -- Akvadrako ( talk) 10:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
“Everett's obesity, constant chain-smoking and heavy drinking almost certainly contributed to [his untimely death].” — from the current article. This is lacking citations; I googled up his photographs, and found not a single one were he would look obese. I am adding a citation request; please feel free to remove if unappropriate. — Fregimus ( talk) 11:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
We factually know from particle accelerators that wave functions do not collapse instantaneously but "boil their statistics" for few fractions of a second. The Big Bang was the pointwise superluminal expansion of the universe. Nowadays the universe still expands superluminally but not in an absolute = pointwise manner but in a relativistic manner when we compare different distant points in space. The Big Bang was so extreme during inflation (or pre-inflation; make page: the state before the Big Bang - liquid more extreme than quark-gluon plasma according to MIT theorists) that many interactions were boiling and overlapping before their Everettian separation into many worlds/different universes).
Thus according to Everettian cosmogony (many-words cosmogony), the alternative worlds had the time to interact, because they didn't collapse but their statistical pre-collapse boiling overlapped.
What happened then? The answer is NOT that these different worlds interacted as separate units in an equation. That is a mistake. We should study how light behaves when it enters inside a different medium or how Bose–Einstein condensates behave. The overall protocosmic condensate is just that; a condensate and not merely separated wave functions which interact.
for more ask Caltech physicists — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4106:402:FDC4:D3FE:1FCB:17F5 ( talk) 19:57, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
It's not the common multiverse.
Everettverse = many-worlds interpretation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4117:34E9:401A:226F:47D1:50B8 ( talk) 22:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hugh Everett III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Hugh Everett III. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The latest changes make it sound a like MWI and RSI are different interpretations. They are not. MWI is merely a popularised version of RSI. Content the same. And RSI was Wheeler's imposed moniker, not Everett's choice. cheers, Michael C. Price talk 19:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I reapplied this reverted change: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Hugh_Everett_III&oldid=prev&diff=1176001365
I added a reference as well.
The edit summary on the revert was "Revert. Need to talk all these change out. MWI's is not Dewitt's interpretation as opposed to Everett's. A false dichotomy." However the change was unrelated to MWI or Dewitt and no Talk topic was raised.
The change concerns the model that Everett's work was set in opposition to. Everett's publication and his thesis point to von Neumann's model. It was von neumann's model that formalized the collapse postulate. Collapse is not even part of Copenhagen and Bohr never talks about it. See for example https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/ It was an idea the Heisenberg proposed and von Neumann is the best "interpretation" level thing to reference. Johnjbarton ( talk) 22:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
@ Michael C Price reverted my edit, using the summary "equally real".
My text was: Everett's theory assumes "the general validity of pure wave mechanics...for all physical systems, including observers" and references Everett's quote to his long thesis.
That text was reverted this original research version: Everett's theory has no wavefunction collapse and holds that all the possibilities in a quantum superposition are equally real.
There is no reference for either of these claims. The second one is disputed, see 5.1. A unitary model of the world page 107 in the "Heresy" reference. Discussing other references in the body of the article that support equally real together with the discussion in Heresy would be Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, but this claim should not be in the lede because it is disputed. Johnjbarton ( talk) 15:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
e.g. daughter's suicide note which mentions many worlds. This is not trivia. Please restore. Same with Keith Lynch's recollections. cheers, Michael C. Price talk 13:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Everett believed in quantum immortality.We don't actually know what he believed, so we shouldn't write anything on the topic.