[ExI] Google’s Willow Quantum Chip: Proof of the Multiverse?

Tue Oct 14 21:13:00 UTC 2025

> On Tue, Oct 14, 2025 at 12:00 PM spike jones via extropy-chat 
> <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org> On
>     Behalf Of Ben Zaiboc via extropy-chat
>     Subject: Re: [ExI] Google’s Willow Quantum Chip: Proof of the
>     Multiverse?
>
>     On 14/10/2025 04:31, Adrian Tymes wrote:
>     >>... The AI explanation failed to address the question. Under
>     MWI, the
>     > worlds are separate after splitting...
>
>     >...I don't claim to really understand this whole thing, but I was
>     wondering about how a half-silvered mirror can create two photons
>     without violating at least one conservation law...Not that I've
>     ever understood what 'entanglement' actually means anyway...
>     Another thing that makes no sense to me is ...
>     --
>     Ben
>
>     _______________________________________________
>
>
>     Ben, it has long been known that struggling too hard to make sense
>     of quantum mechanics can cause brain injuries.  That's why we
>     engineers leave that to the physicists: trained mental athletes
>     they are.  They do their mental stunts with a sincere warning
>     Don't try this at home, engineers.  We're trained experts.
>
>     Well OK then.  We engineers learn how to use the equations to make
>     stuff out of a phenomenon we don't understand, the physicists will
>     struggle to understand something they aren't making stuff outta,
>     and all is well.
>
>     But do let me leave you with a fun thought experiment please,
>     knowing it comes from a feller who doesn't understand QM after a
>     lifetime of puzzling about it.
>
>     Imagine the 3D projection of the multidimensional manifold which
>     is spacetime, indulging me on this being as I am a 3D critter, so
>     cut me some 3D slack analogous to how the sphere was indulgent
>     with A Square in Flatland.
>
>     Imagine all the everything is at a point, 
>

Well, that always puzzled me. If the smallest volume that can exist is a 
cubic planck length, how can everything be at a point? It would have to 
be in a volume of at least one cubic planck length. Somehow. If every 
single bit of 'everything' was superimposed on every single other bit of 
it. Which I understood to be impossible for a number of reasons. At 
least a couple of reasons (Exclusion principle and Uncertainty 
principle). Yeah, now I suppose that, after learning that conservation 
laws are a lie, we will find out that the exclusion and uncertainty 
principles are not true as well.

>     and for some unknown reason it exploded and the stuff on the
>     surface of the resulting 3D sphere was moving at the speed of
>     light.  This is the engineer's 3D view (kinda) of the Big Bang and
>     ja we know it really doesn't work that way, but Sphere me please
>     for this thought experiment.
>
>     Now imagine the universe is closed (because anything else is just
>     too sad) and the expansion of the universe gradually slows under
>     its own gravity, still the speed of light out there but it
>     gradually slows and stops, then starts contracting again (Shane! 
>     Come back, Shane!) and ja I know the photons didn't actually stop,
>     they turned (somehow) in 4D space) but thought experiment: imagine
>     some radius, say 33 GLY if you like the latest number I see tossed
>     about with these guys teasing us that the universe is closed.
>
>     Now... imagine away all quantum states except position. Look only
>     at position in 3 space since we are going to imagine motion and
>     time are illusions that we lowly 3D things experience, so just
>     imagine a 3D sphere with a bunch of particles in it with a radius
>     of 33 gigglies.
>
>     How many different configurations of particles are there?
>

I'd say that depends on how many different types of particles.
If there was just one (electrons, say) there will only be one 
configuration, because they are all identical. Swap two electrons and 
the configuration remains the same.
If there are two or more, it will depend on their proportion as well as 
the total numbers of particles.
I'm sure there's some formula that can give the total number of 
configurations when you give it the total number of different types of 
particles and their proportions, as well as the things you've mentioned.

>
>     Assumptions: every particle must occupy a cubic (or spherical
>     diameter if you prefer) Planck length (diameter or side length
>     1.6E-35 m) in a sphere radius 33 GLY.
>

I think that assumption has to be wrong. Do we know of any particles 
that small? Electrons, if they are not dimensionless points (in which 
case the assumption is meaningless), or have an effective diameter of 
about 2.8E-15 m, but it varies with the energy they have.

>
>     How many configurations possible.
>

There's not enough information to tell.
How many particles are there?

>
>     Doing the calcs to one sig fig gives me about (10^180)!/(10^80)!
>
>     Somewhere around there.  OK you fellers who are hot with your
>     gamma functions, I will settle for an estimate of that number to a
>     few orders of magnitude between friends (John are you up to speed
>     on that?  Other math/physics jockeys? (Help us Zaiboc Ben Kenobi,
>     you're our only hope (or one of about five only hopes.))  John,
>     Ben, others, please estimate that expression (using gamma or your
>     favorite math trick) or offer your own model.
>

Ha, I think you have me confused with someone who can do maths. I'm a 
total duffer at maths, it makes no sense to me. To be honest, I don't 
really even understand division, and negative numbers make my head hurt. 
I suspect I may have the numeric equivalent of dyslexia.
I can usually cope with addition and multiplication, and that's about 
it. (And if you're thinking I forgot about subtraction, I didn't). So 
I'm afraid you only have about four only hopes. (Sorry about removing 
the only Ben in that list, it kind of spoils your plea for help).

>
>     There is a fun part 2 with this thought experiment which I will
>     cheerfully offer but I want your estimates of (10^180)!/(10^80)!
>     first please, or offer a counter-suggestion on how to estimate the
>     number of possible configurations possible in a stationary 3D
>     sphere of 33 GLY radius, of the approximate number of cubic
>     Plancks which will fit inside that 3D sphere.
>
>     This line of thought gets way cool from there, possibly
>     brain-injuring cool.
>

My brain is already injured, but I presume part 2 will tell us what the 
point of all this is, and what it has to do with quantum mechanics.

-- 
Ben
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20251014/3df71961/attachment.htm>