John Clark wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> The trouble with Quantum mechanics isn't that it has no interpretation it's
> that it has too many and they all work. Everett's many world interpretation is
> consistent with all experimental results performed up to now, the same is true
> of John Cramer's Transactional Interpretation, or David Bohm's Pilot Wave
> Interpretation or Niels Boor's Copenhagen Interpretation. Which one is right?
> All of them? None of them?
> Just for fun in the 1980's L David Raub polled 71 physicists if they thought in their
> gut the Many World's interpretation was true, 59% said yes, 18% no, 13% said maybe,
> Feynman said yes and so did Richard Hawking, Penrose said no ; not that this is
> something a vote can decide.
My only question to those who simultaneously believe in many worlds, while also believing in conservation of mass and energy: Where does all of the mass and energy come from? Many Worlds talks about whole new universes splitting off all the time. Where is the mass and energy for these universes coming from? That there is no apparent source for this, then either conservation is maintained and Many Worlds is bunk, or it isn't and there should be measurable phenomena which we can observe which show where the mass and energy is coming from outside the universe or out of the zero point field (in which case over-unity energy sources should be possible). Many Worlds is nice and fanciful, and I like it myself, but that doesn't make it true.