Re: MWI of relativistic QM

From: Stephen Paul King <stephenk1.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 13:53:32 -0400

Dear Wei,

    It seems to me that there is no need for a "relativistic" version of QM
for the simple reason that the wave function is not taken to be a field over
space-time. It exist in Hilbert space not in spacetime. One could even argue
somewhat coherently that "spacetime" is derived from the wavefunction, e.g.
each "branching path" in MWI is a trajectiory in a spacetime and we might be
able to "generate" some approximation of the spacetime of relativity by
arranging together those trajectories that have common histories (branch
points).
    Just a crazy thought. ;-)

Kindest regards,

Stephen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wei Dai" <weidai.domain.name.hidden>
To: "Bruno Marchal" <marchal.domain.name.hidden>
Cc: <everything-list.domain.name.hidden>
Sent: Friday, September 20, 2002 1:03 PM
Subject: MWI of relativistic QM


> On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 12:08:39PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > This comes from the fact that MWI is explained most of the time
> > in the context of non relativistic QM (which assumes time and space).
> > But this problem disappear once you take into account the
> > space time structure of relativistic QM, where roughly speaking
> > moment of time are handled by "parallel" universes (see Deutsch FOR).
>
> I got Deutsch's book, but it doesn't mention relativistic QM at all. Can
> you elaborate on what the MWI of relativistic QM is, or point me to
> another paper or book, or give me a page number in FOR that deals with
> this?
>
> > With quantum *general* relativity, where the universe differentiate
> > at the level of the space-time structure aswell, we get the
> > all topological approach transforming the search of natural law
> > into the search of knot invariant. I urge everyone interested
> > in TOES to read the pedagogical chef d'oeuvre "KNOTS and PHYSICS"
> > by Louis H Kaufmann. It is a shortcut to "standard TOES" (like
> > quantum gravity approach) and the link with the self-reference
> > logic approach is just a matter of ... time ;)
>
> I assume you're still working on the promised English paper/book. Can you
> give us a complete list of prerequisites now for understanding it, so we
> can get started on them now? :) I.e., what books must a person read before
> reading your upcoming paper/book?
>
>
Received on Fri Sep 20 2002 - 10:55:03 PDT