If a tree falls in a forest...

Yes, but the half-life was implied due to sub-atomic decay. Can't do that without a half-life to begin with.

It's still incorrect to say that there's a 50/50 chance of it happening at one moment.

That would imply it had a half life of one moment. A fairly short lived atom.

That would imply it had a half life of one moment. A fairly short lived atom.

A nonexistent atom, you mean.

Quote from: Raist on April 23, 2009, 07:42:44 AM

That would imply it had a half life of one moment. A fairly short lived atom.

A nonexistent atom, you mean.

No, only half of them would be gone in a moment. In a second moment 3/4 of them would be gone. They would technically have longevity because not all of them could decay in 1 moment.

No, only half of them would be gone in a moment. In a second moment 3/4 of them would be gone. They would technically have longevity because not all of them could decay in 1 moment.

Add two unit compatible infinitesimals together, what do you get?

Quote from: Robosteve on April 23, 2009, 07:44:12 AM

Quote from: Raist on April 23, 2009, 07:42:44 AM

That would imply it had a half life of one moment. A fairly short lived atom.

A nonexistent atom, you mean.

No, only half of them would be gone in a moment. In a second moment 3/4 of them would be gone. They would technically have longevity because not all of them could decay in 1 moment.

What do you mean by "moment"?

Quote from: Hara Taiki on April 23, 2009, 05:37:41 AM

Yes, but the half-life was implied due to sub-atomic decay. Can't do that without a half-life to begin with.

It's still incorrect to say that there's a 50/50 chance of it happening at one moment.

No it's not, because atomic and subatomic particles don't just randomly decay, they all have specific half-lives and this is implied and understood in the argument, you just want to be pedantic and overly specific about it.

No it's not, because atomic and subatomic particles don't just randomly decay, they all have specific half-lives and this is implied and understood in the argument, you just want to be pedantic and overly specific about it.

There's a 50/50 chance of it happening by a particular time, not at a particular time. They are two very different things.

Quote from: Raist on April 23, 2009, 07:53:57 AM

Quote from: Robosteve on April 23, 2009, 07:44:12 AM

Quote from: Raist on April 23, 2009, 07:42:44 AM

That would imply it had a half life of one moment. A fairly short lived atom.

A nonexistent atom, you mean.

No, only half of them would be gone in a moment. In a second moment 3/4 of them would be gone. They would technically have longevity because not all of them could decay in 1 moment.

What do you mean by "moment"?

He said there was a fifty percent chance that it would decay at any moment. This would imply that a moment was its halflife. Correct?

He said there was a fifty percent chance that it would decay at any moment. This would imply that a moment was its halflife. Correct?

I consider a "moment" to be an infinitesimal period of time.

Quote from: Raist on April 23, 2009, 10:55:04 AM

He said there was a fifty percent chance that it would decay at any moment. This would imply that a moment was its halflife. Correct?

I consider a "moment" to be an infinitesimal period of time.

Which is an incorrect statement to be making in the first place. So you're wrong, yet again.

Which is an incorrect statement to be making in the first place. So you're wrong, yet again.

What do you consider a "moment" to be, then?

Quote from: Raist on April 23, 2009, 10:55:04 AM

He said there was a fifty percent chance that it would decay at any moment. This would imply that a moment was its halflife. Correct?

I consider a "moment" to be an infinitesimal period of time.

So, Hara used it. It's up to him. Also, that would make no sense for the halflife of an atom so you are obviously incorrect.

So, Hara used it. It's up to him. Also, that would make no sense for the halflife of an atom so you are obviously incorrect.

I know Hara used it. He didn't define what he meant by a "moment", so I inferred that he meant a single point in time by the fact that he said "at the moment" and not "during the moment".

Quote from: Raist on April 23, 2009, 11:00:01 AM

So, Hara used it. It's up to him. Also, that would make no sense for the halflife of an atom so you are obviously incorrect.

I know Hara used it. He didn't define what he meant by a "moment", so I inferred that he meant a single point in time by the fact that he said "at the moment" and not "during the moment".

A point in time would not make sense considering a half life is a duration.

A point in time would not make sense considering a half life is a duration.

Using the word "at" to describe a finite period of time does not make sense either.

Here's a similar one from my professor:

A distant star turns into a supernova and no one or any devices was there to record it. We cannot observe it on Earth. Did the supernova occur?

Since you stated that it happened, then yes.

The point of this mental exercise is to determine whether anything can actually occur without being observed.

The theorized smallest amount of time is Planck time.

It's the amount of time it takes light to travel one Planck length in a vacuum.



The actual smallest amount of observable time measured as of yet was 10²⁶ tP's.

Therefore, a "moment" cannot be an infinitesimal period of time.

So, going back to what I was saying; The moment I was speaking of was an implied half-life event of an atomic or subatomic particle. Therefore, without recording or observing, the status of the fallen tree having made a sound or not is undeterminable and the Universe splits off at the moment, therefore both possible outcomes occurred. Only until we observe it will we know for sure which path our Universe took. As I also said, even if you placed a audio recording device nearby, it's possible that it wouldn't make a sound (the recorder gets destroyed somehow, which would mean the Universe took the path that no sound was made as nothing was able to analyze any info from the event and the data is lost forever).

Observed by what? If it effects nothing else then we have a problem. It is theorized that a photon will not be emitted if the light will not hit anything. Which could mean that an observer does effect the event at some level.

The theorized smallest amount of time is Planck time.

It's the amount of time it takes light to travel one Planck length in a vacuum.



The actual smallest amount of observable time measured as of yet was 10²⁶ tP's.

Therefore, a "moment" cannot be an infinitesimal period of time.

He's speaking from a physics perspective. Such as a moment of intertia. It is literally at that single point in time.

The point of this mental exercise is to determine whether anything can actually occur without being observed.

And the answer is that question is self defeating, since determination would require some kind of observation.

Another thought, with the infinite universes thing, wouldn't the star be going supernova constantly? In one universe or another?

Yes at that very period of time, which also means there could one set of universes where it did not occur, and another set of universes where it turned into something else. Hence, according to many-worlds interpretation, chances are that it may not occur to us unless we observe that it did.

For anything to be known, it must be observed. You are very welcome to say that probabilistically, it made a sound. There are no definitive answers in such a scenario.

Yep. Hence, quantum superposition.

when reading this thread i get the feeling that the many worlds interpretation is sometimes regarded as truth. it's interesting but only a theory (as everything else in physics. only difference is that i know no experiment that could falsify that theory).

when reading this thread i get the feeling that the many worlds interpretation is sometimes regarded as truth. it's interesting but only a theory (as everything else in physics. only difference is that i know no experiment that could falsify that theory).

Actually, Quantum Superposition was proven if I'm not mistaken. I'm not completely sure, though, so someone might wanna check that out.

I believe it has been proven as surly as it can be theoretically proven. That being there are still a fair number of scientest that are trying to disprove it. And not just the crazy Christin kind.

I believe it has been proven as surly as it can be theoretically proven. That being there are still a fair number of scientest that are trying to disprove it. And not just the crazy Christin kind.

And with good reason. Since that's how science works, after all. Where would we be if scientists didn't check up on each others' ideas?

I know I am just saying it has not been proven. I don't even know how sure the scientific comunity is about it. I do know thou that it is the best explanation we have right now.

I know I am just saying it has not been proven. I don't even know how sure the scientific comunity is about it. I do know thou that it is the best explanation we have right now.

From what I can tell, it works very well alongside the Uncertainty Principle, if that counts towards anything.

ofc superposition has been proven in a scientific sense but the many worlds approach is only a interpretation of what happens when a wavefunction collapses as is the copenhagen interpretation or the countless other interpretations and everyone has pros and cons. which one you subscribe to is more a matter of personal taste than a question of correctness. i doubt that we will ever be able to fully understand what is really happening.
so i'm not sure if it's really worth the effort to solve such problems (at least for physicists).

interestingly it could be possible to theoretically prove the many worlds theory wrong - according to wiki:

"We cannot be sure that the universe is a quantum multiverse until we have a theory of everything and, in particular, a successful theory of quantum gravity.[31] If the final theory of everything is non-linear with respect to wavefunctions then many-worlds would be invalid."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation)

and last but nor least:

"When I hear of Schroedinger's cat I reach for my pistol."