October 29th, 2009, 04:32 PM
It is facinating that for every choice and move in space and time, that each choice or movement is played out infinitely, according to cause and effect and that infinity is just a loop of the past and present manifested in the future by a feedback loop?
Although I think that this should have been posted in Pseudoscience, I will give my opinion on the matter. From your description, it seems like you are talking about parallel universes right? Well, as you said, every decision we make is like a branch on a tree, and so in the end it would make sense that there is some kind of alternate universe in which other decisions were made instead of the ones that we made.
Just a theory that a few friends and I have been working on in class, but this idea of a parallel universe correlates to the finding of dark matter (According to this theory that we have been working on with our teacher). Think about it- we know that this indescribable matter in which we cannot view but know is there, lies within our universe in other areas of clumped matter. Just like visible matter, atoms attract to one another and form objects (i.e. planets,stars, etc). Why would dark matter not do the same thing if in fact in that universe, it is the black matter which is visible, and our visible matter were the "dark matter". Just a theory we have been working on. Let me know if you have suggestions and comments, but be nice! We are only in the beginning stages of supporting this theory!
Another theory:
Supposedly, the wave functions of particles collapses when "observed", which you might call the "choice". They might not actually collapse, but all possibilities coexist in a universe-wide probability cloud. We exist in subclouds, but are in each point only aware of one manifestation of our consciousness (which is also part of the probability cloud). Hence why we have the impression of the wave functions collapsing.
This is not falsifiable and thus not very scientific. It also wouldn't explain dark matter, since the material in all points (each point is the complete spacetime continuum of one series of "choices") of the probability cloud, is actually the exact same material, so it can't influence itself more than once.
How the universes split is very similiar to bacterial reproduction, isn't it?
Well, maybe each universe is one bacterium in a world of universes of one bacterium, etc...
There is no reason why other universes might not exist but they would be separated from us by unimaginable distances and nothing to do with our universe.
DC Comics dealt with other universes in the sixties, separated by a slight vibration from our universe, which is of course nonsense since a whole universe is not one set vibration of any kind. The Crisis on Infinite Earths saga put paid to this though.
October 30th, 2009, 03:42 PM
Three iss no evidence whatever for the existence of multiple universes.Originally Posted by quantumintel
The multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics, the result of the PhD thesis of Hugh Everett under John Archibald Wheeler, is just that, an interpretation. It produces exactly the same predictions as the more conventional Copenhagen interpretation.
these Ideas stem from the lack of ability to make good observation of the particle in question.
Becuase we assume that the speed of light is the universe speed limit we also assume that all particles can only travel this fast. What we can't see is particle to particle interaction so we use predictive models to determine where a particle maybe.
Becuase these models have errors we start trying to explain those errors or mispositions by saying that the particle can exist in 2 places simultaneously or there are different universes.
Its a observational problem so most of it is simply wild conjecture based on a mathmatical system that does not rule out the possiablility of the existence of parrellel or alternate universe within our universe.
Its just plain bad science.
Science is making guesses then showing they're mostly right or definitely wrong.
gibberish
Prove string theory then oh great onegibberish
There is no need to. The idea of "multiple universes" contradicts the principles of sufficient reason, as if the universe can work in one universe than there would be no need for superfluous others. The tensor fields which we refer to as space, the geometry of objects, the trigonometry of angles, the abstraction and cohesion of algebra and calculus with reality all work in a system such that a slight change in one field in terms of laws would result in a completely different universe. If it were the case that there were multiple universes, than they would work in such a durastically different format than our own than the idea of a universe in general could very well be skewed. Therefore, it is certainly not the the burden of Dr. Rocket to prove string theory, but much greater for you to provide some evidence of the extreme improbability of there being several universes.Prove string theory then oh great onegibberish
Not that I'm agreeing with ParticleHater, but can you define "the principals of sufficient reason"?
It is entirely possiable that out universe exists in a megaverse of universes. That I can accept as the same structure of galaxys,solar system and planets can be observed in our universe. What I refuse to accept becuase it is entirely built on flawed mathmatics is that our universe has slightly misaligned alternative universes in infinate numbers due to prbobalistic break in the continuity of time. This is simply proposterous.
Are you basing this on any evidence or any math, or are you just using your intuition?
more gibberishgibberish
Prove string theory then oh great one
Prove that parellel universes exist or that they even should.
Its the old adage about Achams Razor or something along those lines.
Prove that parellel universes exist or that they even should.
Its the old adage about Achams Razor or something along those lines.
And still more gibberish.
It is quie clear that you have no idea what you are talking about and desperately need to read a physics book, or even a good popularization.
You might try
popularization -- The Character of Physical Law by Richard Feynman
real physics (elementary) -- The Feynman Lectures on Physics by Feynman, Leighton and Sands
Occam's razor says "All other things being equal, the simplest explanation should be preferred." Which is why I prefer to interpret QM as being non-deterministic. It's easier for me to believe that something can be truly random than it is for me to believe that every fraction of a fraction of a microsecond that universe splits into trillions of new universes that can never have an effect on this universe.Prove that parellel universes exist or that they even should.
Its the old adage about Achams Razor or something along those lines.
Besides that, you might want to review the scientific method. You can't prove anything. You can only repeatedly fail at disproving it.
Edit: Oh yeah. You were talking about string theory there. I can't prove or disprove string theory, and neither can anyone else right now. It's a cool idea, but it's currently untestable.
Actually, rereading, this started with you dismissing the Heisenberg uncertainty principal, and I have no idea how you got from there to string theory. Well, the Heisenberg principle says that it is impossible to measure both the position and the momentum accurately. That's not "we can't right now", that's "the universe won't let us". Sorry, but no one's managed to disprove that one yet.
Who's to say that I haven't read it. Never mind what my level of education maybe be.Prove that parellel universes exist or that they even should.
Its the old adage about Achams Razor or something along those lines.
And still more gibberish.
It is quie clear that you have no idea what you are talking about and desperately need to read a physics book, or even a good popularization.
You might try
popularization -- The Character of Physical Law by Richard Feynman
real physics (elementary) -- The Feynman Lectures on Physics by Feynman, Leighton and Sands
when exoctic ideas about things come forward its usually becuase someone can twist the math to make themselves look correct.
Niether can any of the people suggesting that there are multiple parrellel quantumnly derived universes based on fractional spliting of the time line due to probobalistic outcomes.Occam's razor says "All other things being equal, the simplest explanation should be preferred." Which is why I prefer to interpret QM as being non-deterministic. It's easier for me to believe that something can be truly random than it is for me to believe that every fraction of a fraction of a microsecond that universe splits into trillions of new universes that can never have an effect on this universe.Prove that parellel universes exist or that they even should.
Its the old adage about Achams Razor or something along those lines.
Besides that, you might want to review the scientific method. You can't prove anything. You can only repeatedly fail at disproving it.
Edit: Oh yeah. You were talking about string theory there. I can't prove or disprove string theory, and neither can anyone else right now. It's a cool idea, but it's currently untestable.
Actually, rereading, this started with you dismissing the Heisenberg uncertainty principal, and I have no idea how you got from there to string theory. Well, the Heisenberg principle says that it is impossible to measure both the position and the momentum accurately. That's not "we can't right now", that's "the universe won't let us". Sorry, but no one's managed to disprove that one yet.
Your still to entrenched in the idea of working from the idea to the proof. sometimes if your not getting things accomplished one must totally review the idea of how things work.
Sorry, but I've lost your point... What are you trying to say again?
1. No one can say whether or not you read those physics texts, other than yourself. However, is is evident to anyone who actually understands a bit of physics that if you did read them that you did not understand them. Better read them again -- slowly this time.
2. Your last comment also demonstrates a lack of understanding of how science works and the role of mathematics. Maybe your ought to brush up on a bit of math as well.
The thing about the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics, due to Hugh Everett, is that it produces exactly the same predictions as does the usual Copenhagen interpretation. It does not do away with the stochastic nature of quantum mechanics. It merely gives an alternate, and unverifiable, interpretation of what "collapsing the wave function" means.
There is no particular reason why you need to believe the interpretation. It has no impact on anything that you will ever observe. It makes for titillating reading in the popular literature, but I personally think the emphasis on it is just plain silly.
I agree, but for pedantic purposes, this is a good application of Occam's razor, since in this case, all other things really are equal. Of course, my belief, either way, has no bearing on any science involved.
Occam's razor isn't really clear on whether or not there are multiple universes. One might say that we are more likely to exist if there are an infinite number of universes, making that the simplest explanation.
Regardless, as repeatedly stated, it won't affect us, and chances are good we'll never know. It might affect our believes, because the possibility of multiple universes makes a higher supernatural being completely superfluous, but that's it.
The importance of Occam's razor is often wildly overstated. In this particular case it is not particularly helpful.
The difficulty with quantum mechanics is that it is sufficiently "weird" that the criteria of simplicity of virtually impossible to apply. That is why there exist different "interpretations" of QM -- they provide the same predictions when one applies the mathematics, while the differences lie in the intuitive picture. None of those intuitive pictures are particularly satisfactory, but that is just the way things are, at least for the moment. Nobody has a really good intuitive picture for QM.
"There was a time when the newspapers said that only twelve men understood the theory of relativity. I do not believe that there ever was such a time. There might have been a time when only one man did, because he was the only guy who caught on, before he wrote his paper. But after people read the paper, a lot of people understood the theory of relativity in some way or other, certainly more than twelve. On the other hand, I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." – Richard P. Feynman in The Character of Physical Law
Quantum mechanics may be weird, but no-ones found any exceptions to its rules. So, we will use it unless someone finds a better alternative.
What rules exactly are you reffering to.
Are you familiar with how the early civilizations used to predict the positions of planets using elipse and other fanstastic math. It works but it was wrong. . In fact thats why trigonometery was invented. ? quantum mechanics stinks just as bad even though it works in a very narrow band of nearly useless applications.
When we find something that works better, we'll use that. In the mean time QM works and it works well. There's no sense in throwing it out if we have nothing to replace it with.
Also, if you want to give up all the technology that benefits from an understanding of QM, you can start by getting rid of your computer. While it's true that the basic technology behind computers don't depend on QM, modern processors are getting to the point where small enough that they require an understanding of QM to prevent quantum effects from causing errors. More info here.
Yeah, nearly useless. Like
1) the invention of transistors, integrated circuits and all other solid-state electronic devices
2) the invention of the laser
| « Efficient electric heating | What level of Math Should I Know for Physics 151? » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
