Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The Origines of Many Worlds


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#16    StarMountainKid

StarMountainKid

    Cheese

  • Member
  • 5,505 posts
  • Joined:17 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Star Mountain, Corporate States of America

  • We have problems because we stray from what is innocent and pure.

Posted 27 August 2011 - 07:46 AM

If we want to continue with this, here's an interesting article speculating how many universes have branched off our universe since the Big Bang, if the many worlds theory (or Many Worlds Interpretation, MWI )is correct.

Quote

If you assume that a particular overall Planck-volume state arrangement establishes a unique universe, then an upper bound for the total number of MWI universes that could have spun off from our Mother Universe since the beginning of time is the factorial of the number of Planck space-time globs, or 10243! (A factorial of a number, whose symbol is an exclamation point, is the multiplicand of all the counting numbers up to and including it, e.g., 10!=10 X 9 X 8 X 7...)  The total of 10243! comes out to roughly 10^296460 universes. Thatís 1 followed by 296460 zeroes. Another way of looking at it is that this is the number of all possible "shuffles" of every Planck card in the universe-wide deck.  The size of the deck includes all the Planck cards that have existed throughout the entirety of Planck-time history.

http://www.thefoggie...y_universes.htm

The acceptance of authority does not lead to intelligence.
A mind untouched by thought...the end of knowledge.
To see reality loose your opinions.

#17    EternalBlizzard

EternalBlizzard

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 239 posts
  • Joined:10 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Earth

  • If you problem is big as a ship, then think of you'r blessings as wide as the ocean

Posted 27 August 2011 - 08:04 AM

it's about the Multiverse theory that every time you do something the universe splits in half


#18    StarMountainKid

StarMountainKid

    Cheese

  • Member
  • 5,505 posts
  • Joined:17 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Star Mountain, Corporate States of America

  • We have problems because we stray from what is innocent and pure.

Posted 27 August 2011 - 08:36 AM

I'm also thinking perhaps there could be some limiting factor in the MWI to make it more manageable. A hot cup of tea creating trillions of universes would seem pretty useless and meaningless. (Although the absurdity of this possibility fits in nicely with the absurd possibility of any universes existing at all.(!))

Also, how would one single wave function collapse create an entire (or many) universe(s)?

A wave function before collapse exists in a superposition of many possible not-as-yet realized realities. It does not actually exist in any universe at all, because before collapse no reality is 'chosen' by the wave function to come into existence.

So, each collapse creates a new reality of our universe on the quantum level. Therefore, our universe is constantly being (re-)created at Planck time intervals.

It seems to me that many pre-existing universes would have to be out there already in which the other wave function collapse-produced realities that didn't happen in ours happens in theirs.

Though that would still be a lot of pre-existing universes waiting around for their turn for a new quantum-scale reality to happen within them. Of course, any pre-existing universe would be creating new quantum-scale realities in other universes as well.

I'm also wondering if entropy would play a part in all this. But I'm too confused right now to start thinking about that. Nah, I'll have a cup of hot tea instead.

Edited by StarMountainKid, 27 August 2011 - 08:38 AM.

The acceptance of authority does not lead to intelligence.
A mind untouched by thought...the end of knowledge.
To see reality loose your opinions.

#19    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,573 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Australia

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 27 August 2011 - 08:59 AM

View Postencouraged, on 27 August 2011 - 07:39 AM, said:

The observer! Got it!
No, the experiment.


#20    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,573 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Australia

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 27 August 2011 - 09:05 AM

View PostEternalBlizzard, on 27 August 2011 - 08:04 AM, said:

it's about the Multiverse theory that every time you do something the universe splits in half
/facepalm.

You haven't read a thing.


#21    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,904 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 29 August 2011 - 04:24 PM

View PostStarMountainKid, on 27 August 2011 - 08:36 AM, said:

Also, how would one single wave function collapse create an entire (or many) universe(s)?

A wave function before collapse exists in a superposition of many possible not-as-yet realized realities. It does not actually exist in any universe at all, because before collapse no reality is 'chosen' by the wave function to come into existence.

No. A wave function always represents the current reality. The collapse part occus because a measurement (or any time perturbations) may change the environment the wave function is in.

For example, consider a particle on a quantum spring (i.e. a simple harmonic oscillator). This particle may have a specific energy, that energy corresponds to the particle's wave function. Now let's say we want to identify where the particle is. There is no common "language" (i.e. no single basis set) that describes both energy values and positions for a particle on a quantum spring (i.e. the energy and the position are not orthogonal quantities).

However the particle's wave function - expressible as a single energy value - can also be expressed by an infinite sum of probability-weighted positions. If we measure the position, one of these values will be returned (i.e. the wave function willl collapse from an infinite number of potential positions to just one). This doesn't mean that before the measurement the particle didn't exist; only that it didn't have a definite position.

So: at the beginning, the particle had a wave function |n> (to use Dirac notation as best I can on this forum). In terms of energy,

<E|n> = hw( n + 1/2 )

i.e., for a given n the energy is fixed. In terms of position (simplified here, see the wiki for full details)

<x|n> ~ expt(a^2x^2)Hn(ax)

i.e. For a given energy state (n) there is still every possible position (x). But the possible positions don't mean that the particle doesn't have a definite state (energy state, in this case) prior to measurement.


#22    StarMountainKid

StarMountainKid

    Cheese

  • Member
  • 5,505 posts
  • Joined:17 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Star Mountain, Corporate States of America

  • We have problems because we stray from what is innocent and pure.

Posted 29 August 2011 - 06:35 PM

Thanks for your reply, sepulchrave. My thinking is if a particle doesn't have a definite position, even though the wave function has a definite energy state which does exist in our universe, before wave function collapse cannot that particle be considered as a not-as-yet existence in our reality?  

I this is one way of looking at the situation.

In other words, if we don't know where a particle is even though it does exist as an infinite number of possible positions, is it really a part of our reality in that state, or does it become our reality only when our measurement causes its existence at some specific location?    

Maybe this is a philosophical view on my part.

The acceptance of authority does not lead to intelligence.
A mind untouched by thought...the end of knowledge.
To see reality loose your opinions.

#23    sepulchrave

sepulchrave

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,904 posts
  • Joined:19 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 30 August 2011 - 01:17 AM

View PostStarMountainKid, on 29 August 2011 - 06:35 PM, said:

Thanks for your reply, sepulchrave. My thinking is if a particle doesn't have a definite position, even though the wave function has a definite energy state which does exist in our universe, before wave function collapse cannot that particle be considered as a not-as-yet existence in our reality?  

I this is one way of looking at the situation.

In other words, if we don't know where a particle is even though it does exist as an infinite number of possible positions, is it really a part of our reality in that state, or does it become our reality only when our measurement causes its existence at some specific location?    

Maybe this is a philosophical view on my part.
I don't think so, because - to refer to my above example - once you measure the precise position, there is no longer a precise energy. Why should position be more "real" than momentum or energy?


#24    StarMountainKid

StarMountainKid

    Cheese

  • Member
  • 5,505 posts
  • Joined:17 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Star Mountain, Corporate States of America

  • We have problems because we stray from what is innocent and pure.

Posted 30 August 2011 - 03:25 AM

sepulchrave said:

I don't think so, because - to refer to my above example - once you measure the precise position, there is no longer a precise energy. Why should position be more "real" than momentum or energy?

How about, "is the particle part of our reality before we measure its position or momentum or energy?" :) All these aspects of the particle are potentially 'there' somewhere in our universe, but until some type of interaction occurs there is no specific physical reality for that particle. The particle is 'real' in both instances, but somehow 'more real' after measurement.

Is reality what we measure, or is reality a probability distribution? A measurement just seems to reveal reality in a more tangible way than a probability that has yet to be realized.

The acceptance of authority does not lead to intelligence.
A mind untouched by thought...the end of knowledge.
To see reality loose your opinions.

#25    encouraged

encouraged

    Astral Projection

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 749 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 31 August 2011 - 12:40 AM

View PostRlyeh, on 27 August 2011 - 06:53 AM, said:

No, I saying it takes a measurement of the quantum state. I thought that was already described in the link?
I had no idea that you guys have gone beyond the first page. And I even looked! I don't know how that came about, at all. It probably relates to Mathew's law (a derivative of Murphy's law) that states, "If everything is right, then something has got to be wrong!" Everything was right, but I never discovered it, so there was definitely something wrong.

So, I have caused such a delay!

I really do appreciate learning so much about the topics I have always enjoyed so much. I was heading towards studying this stuff at the University of Arkansas back in 1967-..., but the my injuries from a car accident redirected me to a EE degree. Ended up I had narcolepsy, too. Coasted into my Junior year from what I knew from High School and didn't go any further because all the time at the u of A I slept in class! LOL!

So, here I am at 62 getting to learn lots of new stuff in the field I love so much. Really cool. So, I do indeed appreciate it.

I have studied the link in your first entry finally--time has been hard to come by because of having to deal with some legal issues having to do with my wife 's "illegal constructive discharge". Then there was all that homework I did for Behavior Therapy class, all of which was on the wrong basis and will have to be redone. I also studied several of the links in that link's presentation.

But tomorrow I delve back into this fascinating stuff! and get caught up!

Note: I am a bit worried about the following statements in that link:

"Therefore, the essence of an object is the quantum state of its particles and not the particles themselves..."

I know what he is attempting to say, however, the difficulty of being able to say it may relate to it being of a circular or contradictory in nature (I'll have to sleep on it):

essence = quantum state, not= particles (or resolved states)...

"The only difference is that in the product there are only states of the objects perceived directly..."

Anyway...

Edited by encouraged, 31 August 2011 - 01:06 AM.


#26    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,573 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Australia

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 31 August 2011 - 07:50 AM

View Postencouraged, on 31 August 2011 - 12:40 AM, said:

"Therefore, the essence of an object is the quantum state of its particles and not the particles themselves..."

I know what he is attempting to say, however, the difficulty of being able to say it may relate to it being of a circular or contradictory in nature (I'll have to sleep on it):

essence = quantum state, not= particles (or resolved states)...
Huh?

I think he is saying an object is the quantum state of its particles, and not the particles on their own.


#27    encouraged

encouraged

    Astral Projection

  • Closed
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 749 posts
  • Joined:30 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 06 September 2011 - 12:11 AM

Well, I think I have digested this long enough to produce something, even if they are questions.

First let me say that is one heak of a factorial! LOL

So, I can be the creator¹ of an entire universe simply by forcing a quantum state to resolve into a position through the mechanism of measurement?²

______________________
Creation creating creations

It seems to me that something amazingly important has gone unobserved here. Wouldn't that creation of an entire universe also trigger an additional creation of an entire universe? It seems to me that some quantum particle would somewhere, somehow, resolve into some position. Otherwise all of the 0^+ quantum particles will have to be remain in suspension until they are measured by some means.³ What means of measuring could there be. Do we have quantum particles that resolve by some means other than by our attempt to measure their location?

If there ARE NO quantum particles finding their way into one of an infinite positions by some means other than man attempting to measure them, then we have another something amazingly important that has gone unobserved, the quantum property is not a property of a particle, but a property of the man attempting to work with a particle. Yes, now we are getting mystic in the middle of physics. God forbid! What is man adding to it? Or what is man deducting from it?

If there ARE YES quantum particles finding their way into one of an infinite positions by some means other than man attempting to measure them, then we are back to the penultimate paragraph above this one. Thereby, any one measure triggers a huge factorial number of universes, each of which does the same once again, each of which does so again, as if in an infinite FORTRAN "do" loop. And that was only the one measurement.

________________________________________
A finite wave collapse energizes infinite universes

I have a problems with:
. a finite (single) property initializing infinite potential
. a single wave collapse controlling the release of almost infinite energy,
   i.e. as if it were the portal of a white hole
. an experiment being the only way to produce an observable property,
   i.e. it otherwise does not exist naturally

I have no problem with:
. a finite (single) property initializing a different single potential
. a single wave collapse controlling a particle moving at near the speed of light
. a reproducible experiment being conducted by people at the edge of a threshold
   that bring about unexplainable observations because if the person interference with nature

__________________
Aren't we overweight?

How can we assign weighted probabilities to an infinite number of possibilities without running low on weights?

____ ؂ ____ off-topic footnote(s)____ ؂ ____
1 Man learned nothing as a result of the Tower of Babel.
2 So, if a god decides what position it will end up in, has he not impacted our universe?
3 Wouldn't that mean that the measurement is a result of intention either right then or when that physics law came into being? Wouldn't intention thereby be a result of consciousness and proof of some kind of intelligence?

Edited by encouraged, 06 September 2011 - 12:15 AM.


#28    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,573 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Australia

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 06 September 2011 - 02:48 PM

I would hope man has learnt that the Tower of Babel is fiction.


#29    StarMountainKid

StarMountainKid

    Cheese

  • Member
  • 5,505 posts
  • Joined:17 Feb 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Star Mountain, Corporate States of America

  • We have problems because we stray from what is innocent and pure.

Posted 06 September 2011 - 05:03 PM

It's hard to consider that every quantum event creates an entirely new universe unless there already exists an infinite number of universes sitting around waiting their turn for some random wave function collapse to occur in them. (!)

Perhaps only different histories are created instead of different universes. It's all the same universe but the configurations of histories are different. All the universes with different histories exist simultaneously in the same location, only their histories differ. A little hard to picture, but with practice one gets used to the idea.

In this way the probability distribution of a wave function is the probabilities of different potential histories of a system.

Also, if the mind is separate from a quantum event, how can an observer cause an event to evolve in a certain way? Perhaps when a wave function collapse occurs choosing one specific outcome from many possible outcomes, this chosen outcome occurs in the mind of the observer. Instead of many worlds being created, all the other possible outcomes occur in all possible states of mind of the observer.

'Your' specific consciousness observes one outcome, and your consciousness itself is split into separate consciousnesses each observing all other possible outcomes.

All these theories sound crazy, but it is the crazy-ness of quantum mechanics that infer all these crazy sounding theories.

The acceptance of authority does not lead to intelligence.
A mind untouched by thought...the end of knowledge.
To see reality loose your opinions.

#30    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,573 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Australia

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 06 September 2011 - 06:14 PM

View PostStarMountainKid, on 06 September 2011 - 05:03 PM, said:

Also, if the mind is separate from a quantum event, how can an observer cause an event to evolve in a certain way? Perhaps when a wave function collapse occurs choosing one specific outcome from many possible outcomes, this chosen outcome occurs in the mind of the observer. Instead of many worlds being created, all the other possible outcomes occur in all possible states of mind of the observer.

'Your' specific consciousness observes one outcome, and your consciousness itself is split into separate consciousnesses each observing all other possible outcomes.
Where would these consciousness reside if no worlds are split?





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users