Wall for Ron Maimon

Ron, I agree that re-jiggering variables does not change physics. So I propose to change (advance new) equations rather than just to make a variable change within the same theory.

... of course I import unanswered theoretical physics questions from MO, from the string theory tag at present ...

Hi Ron,

I am from time to time importing high-level unanswered questions from MO for the following reasons:

a) They are very much on topic and make PO look more professional, in particular when the site is once again dominated by Vladimir's activities etc ...

b) Gread community members, such as Suresh1, 40227, etc like to answer this kind of questions, even if they are old and imported. So

c) These questions are capable of inspire new content that originates on PO too, and linking back to the PO answers on the source site is a good means of making people aware of the existance of PO

So please to not remove my bumping comments from high-level unanswered imported questions ... :-/

Hi Ron, about your post on my wall - sorry for the late reply, I wasn't notified about your previous post.

I have no idea what you are referring to. I have never encountered this bug. You said you have already reported it, but I can't see where.

Never mind, I meant the struggle with Lubos.

What struggle?

Ron, I see the struggle here. Just start your freaking own website.

Hi Ron,

I don't think I understand your comment regarding your changing IP. I don't remember having ever asked you about your changing IP, or even observed it in the first place (I haven't been looking at people's IPs, except that of spammers, afer you told me it could hurt people's anonimity)...

Did you misread the username of the person who asked you about your IP (which you've done before)?

Yes, that's when it was noticed again, thanks to DeWitt and Wheeler, and the interpretation of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. Everett's goal was to give an interpretation to the cosmological wavefunction. But the paper was resisted politically throughout the 1980s, and there were a string of rip-offs of Everett, mostly unintentional, by this infinite loop:

Everett -> Misinterpretation of Everett -> Rediscovery of Everett -> Misinterpretation of the rediscovery.

For example, there was "many-minds", "consistent histories", Coleman's "Quantum Mechanics in your face", and lots of other variations. Not all of these referenced Everett, and there was no consensus that Everett did the whole thing.

In the early 1990s, on usenet, one of the first thing you noticed is that there was a community of "splitters", people shouting hard about Everett, and trying to get his paper recognized as a classic. The explanations on Wikipedia in 2002 or so finished the process, there will be no more misinterpretations of Everett, his ideas are now presented fairly and appropriately in a publically available place that points to the original reference. Done.

From this point on, Everett's thesis gained stature, and now it is considered the definitive go-to for realistic quantum interpretations. It is still "far-out", but any realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics will look identical to Everett modulo philosophy, because Everett is just realistic quantum mechanics, and that's it. There's nothing much to say beyond.

There's also the issue of plagiarism of Everett in the case of the information theoretic uncertainty principle. He was ripped off left and right, because he was in the wilderness, and people felt free to poach. It's the same with David John Candlin.

@ron I thought the theory was resurrected in 1977 at a conference he attended, at least that's what's claimed in this BBC documentary:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnnA3sgMXCI&index=3&list=PL68692137DCD13084

Definitely worth watching.