The Origines of Many Worlds

[encouraged]

My wife and I used to joke as we went from nation to nation that all you had to do was flip a coin on any one decision for a society and there would be one like that. Driving on the left or right of the road, eating properly with the fork prongs pointing up or down, etc.

Many Worlds developed from quantum states. Is that the only source that it could advance from?

If we were a society that played Farkle all the time and the best players made good money and it was challenging enough to be the game all the smart guys wanted to play, would the Many Worlds have been developed from a study of the many other combinations of dice combinations each being another set of worlds?

Or is there a reason it would only come about through quantum states? If so what is the explanation for that?

[Rlyeh]

Its an interpretation of quantum mechanics, it attempts to explain the unpredictability and randomness in quantum experiments.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/

[encouraged]

Its an interpretation of quantum mechanics, it attempts to explain the unpredictability and randomness in quantum experiments.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/

Hmmm, but that isn't what I'm after--kinda been there, done that. Can the Many Worlds only be derived from quantum mechanics. Could it be derived just as accurately from Farkle? or Jacks? or shuffling a deck of cards?

Edited August 24, 2011 by encouraged

[StarMountainKid]

Then every time I flip a coin I create another universe? What would be the mechanism for this? The probabilities themselves? There would have to be some law built in to the meta-universe that if two or more possibilities were available in the evolution of a single event, and that event occurred, then all possibilities would evolve by the instantaneous creation of completely identical universes where all these possibilities would occur.

How many events have only one possible outcome? Do all events have only one possible outcome, the one that actually occurred? If I drop a pencil onto the floor, its trajectory and final resting place is the only possible outcome of this particular event. This probability is 100% because it happened.

If I drop it again, its trajectory and final resting place may be different, but for this drop this is the only possible outcome, as well. There may seem to be an infinite possibilities of trajectories and landing places, but for each drop its particular probability is 100% and all other probabilities are 0%.

So, if in our macro-world when some event happens, all other possibilities of it having happened differently are 0. If all other possibilities are 0, and they do not exist in this universe, where do the other possibilities exist to create other universes for them to exist in?

[encouraged]

Then every time I flip a coin I create another universe? ... where do the other possibilities exist to create other universes for them to exist in?

So, if I throw the six dice of Farkle, the way the dice land is contained in my universe. And each other possible combination of landings is represented in other universes, one combination per universe, for as many as are needed, in already existing universes? And in at least one other universe, I decided not to play Farkle.

And when 15 of my friends and I get together to play bridge we represent all the possible ways of dealing the cards at my table and also at three more tables, as well as, all of that once again for every possible combination of table seating arrangements plus at least one more in which the bridge night didn't occur.

I think I understand why the adult Aborigine asked his son to stop dragging the stick on the ground behind him. There is already enough to be custodian of without adding another Boolean branch or digit to it.

Did I get this right or wrong? Is that how Multiple Worlds works?

That was good in working this out I had to analyze things more and then reread your previous entry and I now understand what you were saying. Likewise above there are singular events. That means we don't need multi words to make them exist!

Okay then, what about the wave collapse is that two events simultaneous or the same reasoning of one event?

Edited August 24, 2011 by encouraged

[sepulchrave]

Did I get this right or wrong? Is that how Multiple Worlds works?

No. When you throw the dice classically, if you had complete knowledge of the initial speed, height, spin, shape, etc. of the die and also knowledge of the air currents, etc. then you could theoretically predict the outcome of the die roll exactly.

In quantum mechanics, even if you have theoretically complete knowledge of an object's state you cannot exactly predict the outcome of single measurements.

Okay then, what about the wave collapse is that two events simultaneous or the same reasoning of one event?

No, that is a singular event.

[encouraged]

No. When you throw the dice classically, if you had complete knowledge of the initial speed, height, spin, shape, etc. of the die and also knowledge of the air currents, etc. then you could theoretically predict the outcome of the die roll exactly.

In quantum mechanics, even if you have theoretically complete knowledge of an object's state you cannot exactly predict the outcome of single measurements.

No, that is a singular event.

Got it! Thanks!

[Rlyeh]

Hmmm, but that isn't what I'm after--kinda been there, done that. Can the Many Worlds only be derived from quantum mechanics. Could it be derived just as accurately from Farkle? or Jacks? or shuffling a deck of cards?

Coin flipping, card shuffling, dice rolling, etc, are chaotic, various factors determine the outcome. If you could do the same action perfectly over again, the result would be the same.

[encouraged]

============

Okay, I'm going to try something out with the Many-Worlds Theory (in an attempt to disprove it or at least make its likelihood so improbable that it may as well be disproven):

I am a point who has decided to go for a walk in spherical space. My next move could result in being:

. a horizontal (x) move in any direction within the infinite choices contained by a 360 degree circle

. a vertical (y) move in any direction within the infinite choices contained by a 360 degree circle

. a move in depth (z) in any direction within the infinite choices contained by a 360 degree circle

. any distance (d) along a line of infinite other points

. taken at any moment (t) in infinite time in which I choose

I am only one point of an infinite number of Cartesian points that are making the same decision of which next step I should take. And doing so in a Multi-Universe of points having to do the same.

The Many-Worlds Theory, as I understand it, provides a new world for each possibility of this single decision of which way I might decide to go and since, as a point, I could be doing this forever, the magnitude of infinities is unfathomable just for little ole me.

============

If I, John, make a decision to do my homework or to enjoy U-M longer that is a decision that causes a split and the creation of two new worlds, one for each decision. Being a being with some intelligence and the will to decide, I choose to stay on U-M. Now before I had to make that decision for the sake of this posting, I already knew which decision I would make, since I don't desire to leave this posting incomplete. (I could not see an intelligent being deciding to pursue a proof and then abandon it in the middle of attempting to prove it. Nor can I see a universe with a John doing the same thing as I, however typing any different key than that which constructs the words I need to make in order to make these points.)

The two new worlds would have to be created prior to the decision, else I would decide and remember deciding both the decisions that caused the creation of two worlds, and I only remember making one decision. So, the world, galaxy, universe and multi-verse in which I live does not split because of making a decision, but still could split in preparation to a decision. But like StarMountainKid has taught me, the decision to continue in U-M is a 100% likelihood decision, and the decision to do homework is a 0% decision, i.e. no new world necessary!

As well, all those worlds would have to share in some of the responses one of those worlds made, else we are the immortal branch of the decision tree, which would be so exceedingly unlikely in the mega-infinities that have gone before us, that it can't occur. And as one of those worlds with other-world-like responses, I don't see people at work deciding not to complete their work--in the volumes required by such a theory--which in the Many-Worlds Theory is a valid choice, but contradicts why anyone would begin such a work. Who would desire to leave it incomplete?

To me these are sufficient reasons to prove the Many-Worlds Theory as having impossible to achieve properties.

============

I rather enjoyed that little study. So, tell me where I goofed, because anyone could have thought those through, although I haven't heard that they have.

Edited August 25, 2011 by encouraged

[Rlyeh]

I don't think it works that way.

[sepulchrave]

I don't think it works that way.

As I understand it, encouraged is correct. With the basic type of Many-Worlds Theory just the random thermal motion of a cup of water would produce trillions and trillions of essentially identical alternat Universes. There is no way of rigorously identifying a "significant" decision at the Quantum level, so every wave function collapse would produce one or more alternate Universes.

This is one of the reasons why the Many-Worlds Theory is not considered viable by most physicists today.

[Rlyeh]

As I understand it, encouraged is correct. With the basic type of Many-Worlds Theory just the random thermal motion of a cup of water would produce trillions and trillions of essentially identical alternat Universes. There is no way of rigorously identifying a "significant" decision at the Quantum level, so every wave function collapse would produce one or more alternate Universes.

This is one of the reasons why the Many-Worlds Theory is not considered viable by most physicists today.

By "I don't think it works that way" I was refering to his idea that mental decisions cause the worlds to split. Edited August 26, 2011 by Rlyeh

[encouraged]

By "I don't think it works that way" I was referring to his idea that mental decisions cause the worlds to split.

Ah, so, you are saying it is actually taking the action that causes the slit! I like that better! I fact I think I thought of that but was unable to keep up with myself--slow hunt and peck--because I had thought out the decision comes before the action therefore the person prior to the slit would have to decide both ways and when split both of them would remember deciding on both ways.

Thanks for pointing that out--a bit of a speed bump when I got to the typing it in part. I have got to install that Dragon 11 voice software so my typing keeps up.

In fact as I think further on it the creation of a Universe is an action that would create every combination of possible universes. So, the least little decision has the same huge magnitudes of infinities and a big decision.

And each creation of one other universe will create another infinite set of universes, infinitum!

Guys, I just can't see our world fitting into this model.

Edited August 26, 2011 by encouraged

[Rlyeh]

Ah, so, you are saying it is actually taking the action that causes the slit!

No, I saying it takes a measurement of the quantum state. I thought that was already described in the link? Edited August 27, 2011 by Rlyeh

[encouraged]

No, I saying it takes a measurement of the quantum state. I thought that was already described in the link?

The observer! Got it!

[StarMountainKid]

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.

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. That’s 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.thefoggiestnotion.com/how_many_universes.htm

[EternalBlizzard]

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

[StarMountainKid]

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 August 27, 2011 by StarMountainKid

[Rlyeh]

The observer! Got it!

No, the experiment.

[Rlyeh]

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

/facepalm.

You haven't read a thing.

[sepulchrave]

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.

[StarMountainKid]

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.

[sepulchrave]

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?

[StarMountainKid]

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.

[encouraged]

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 August 31, 2011 by encouraged