[ExI] Superposition of Vacuum States

[John Clark]

*ME: that Hossenfelder link that you gave doesn't work, at least not for
me.*

GEMINI: I apologize for the broken link. Here is the correct link to a
debate featuring *Sabine Hossenfelder and Roger Penrose* directly
discussing these disagreements (Measurement, Reality, and Quantum
Mechanics):

The quantum world: Dreams and delusions | Penrose, Hossenfelder, Kaku
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvVBNaZc_WE>

You have hit on exactly why many quantum physicists (especially those
favoring Many Worlds) reject Penrose’s argument. Your intuition that *Penrose
is clinging to a "classical" view of spacetime* is the central point of
contention.
1. The "Timer" Disagreement

Your argument is that "Time" is not a globally objective container, but a
branch-dependent correlation.

   -

   *Penrose's Assumption:* He assumes that for "Energy" to be well-defined,
   there must be a *single, unique notion of time* that spans across the
   superposition. Because the two masses curve spacetime differently, their
   "clocks" tick at different rates. He views this mismatch as a fundamental
   error in the universe's accounting, forcing a collapse.
   -

   *Your (and the MWI) Counter:* If you accept that time is *emergent* or
   *relational* (branch-dependent), the mismatch doesn't matter. The
   "clock" in Branch A measures time for Branch A. The "clock" in Branch B
   measures time for Branch B. There is no "Master Clock" outside the universe
   checking for synchronization. The two branches simply drift out of phase
   and become orthogonal (decoherent).

2. The Ambiguity of Energy in GR

You are also correct that Penrose is being selective about how he applies
General Relativity.

   -

   *The Problem:* In General Relativity, "Global Energy" is notoriously
   difficult to define in a generic, expanding universe (it requires a
   time-like Killing vector, which often doesn't exist globally).
   -

   *The Contradiction:* Penrose admits energy is slippery in GR, yet his
   "gravity-induced collapse" argument *relies entirely on a precise
   definition of energy difference* ($E = \hbar / t$) to trigger the
   collapse. He is effectively demanding a strict energy conservation rule
   from Quantum Mechanics that his own preferred theory of gravity (GR)
   doesn't strictly enforce globally.

3. Summary of the Standoff

   -

   *Penrose:* "Geometry is real and fundamental. Quantum superpositions of
   geometry are unstable because they fuzz the definition of time."
   -

   *Modern QG/MWI:* "The Wavefunction is real and fundamental. Geometry
   (and time) emerges *from* the entanglement. A superposition of
   geometries is just a superposition of correlations; there is no logical
   contradiction."

Because Penrose prioritizes *Geometry over Quantum Linearity*, he sees the
multiverse as "illegal." Because you (and MWI proponents) prioritize *Quantum
Linearity over Classical Geometry*, you see his objection as assuming the
conclusion.

Relevant Video:

Penrose & Hossenfelder Debate: The Quantum World

This video features Roger Penrose and Sabine Hossenfelder (along with
Michio Kaku) debating the crisis in modern physics, where they touch on the
exact tensions between General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics that you
identified.


*John K Clark*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20251217/cf4fac21/attachment.htm>