This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Refuting a quantum mechanics theory
There is a fairly popular theory first developed in the 1950's I believe that states that the universe in which we are all accustomed to is only one of an infinite number of parallel universes and that because of the concept of locality and the act that, due to quantum mechanics, all particles (and essentially objects) can be at 2 or more places at the same time, these "other places" are actually other universes. Meaning that there are inifinite number of you and me doing all different things at the same time.
However, due to simple cause and effect logic, it appears that such a thing is impossible. Every action (or effect) that happens in the universe is governed by a cause. Essentially, I believe that all actions by myself, other people, animals, and inanimate objects can be traced back to the Big Bang itself. If all constituents of math and physics have fixed values, meaning things like gravitational constants, then everything, including brainfunction can be completely defined by a previous cause. All functions are manipulated by the environment around it, whether physically, emotionally, psychologically, or habitually, and because of this, it appears that there is only 1 single way that the space-time can unfold, through infinite number of causes and effects.
Overall, what I am saying is that it appears logical to say that if we could re-enact a big bang with 100% precision, that universe's history would be identical to ours in every single way.
What do you think about this theory?
An example I thought of was this:
Are there any scientific experiments that truly give randomized results given very precise initial conditions? If you do an experiment 1,000,000 times with every initial condition exactly the same, should you not get the same result every single time? This concept can be applied to the big bang's initial conditions
william plowden
Why are we stuck on believing it is a permanently growing ball? Why do we think that phase difference is the same as being in multiple places at the same time, when it just may be that our universe is stretched across a boundary we can't see through? Effective symmetry doesn't have to be identical to be equivalent. The other side might have it's own influences. How could we tell? What if it wasn't actually the other side, but a continuance; with the center defined by our quantum grasp?
In this thought experiment, our universe would vary in density and energy as it changes shape, and rotational inertia develops and aligns. And it would "cool" over all, having "gained" a dimension from start to finish during the process; though it wouldn't be constant or even linear. And the lack of significant anti matter in our universe might constitute the bulk of the opposing jet. It's a "white hole" kind of thought.
This is an oversimplified use of some big tools, being my limit. Four parts classical mechanics, one part relativity, and a dash of quantum mechanics. Yet it proposes a potential (if partial) explanation of varying rates of expansion, dark matter, dark energy; and a different look at some quantum expectations.
Just imagination flying around.
Kyle McCall
Furthermore, there are many cases where precise experiments have errors, for example there was a recent claim that a new particle might have been found at Fermilab which was concluded to be a false signal based on more data. (BBC articles: The discovery: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13000253 The refutation of the find: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13722986 ).
Lastly, the main reason that quantum theory is so intriguing and confusing is that it does not follow the laws of cause and effect in a linear manner. Modern quantum mechanics is based on probability because it is impossible to know what the result of an experiment will be. Which slit does the particle travel through? It travels through both and then when it is observed its trajectory makes it clear which slit it came through. But there is no way to tell beforehand how it will react, and so quantum mechanics acts independently of traditional linear cause and effect.
Petr Frish 100+
Famous EPR "paradox" was proved to be a wrong hypothesis experimentally.
Actually, it was not disproved at all. The experiment (made by Aspect, but inspired by EPR) did exactly
what Einstein assumed it will (and what is now called entangling).
What EPR and Aspect show, did is to torpedo the notion (stated often
, e.g. here by Matt Hintzke:
"We have no way of measuring how and when this parameter comes into play which is why we are restricted to the probability formulas.." .
)
That is a 'classical thinking' - believing that there is a cause for the random results, but we just do not know it.
It is common in popular books and bad physics courses, often comingled with classical interpretation of the Heinsenberg principle.
In 'reality', there are no such parameters or hidden causes. The Uranium atom will decay or not, independently of what other atoms will do (that is, excluding real interaction, like in chain reaction..)
I apologize for perhaps spoiling the brainstorms - or at least trying to.
Mihir Joshi
If we re-enacted the big bang with 100% precision (having over come all the difficult), there would be still one catch. One Intial condition would be different..it would not be at the same time t=0 as the orignal and would have an associated history (of an observer recreating the big bang) change the equations. Hence recreating the big bang with the exact initial conditions would not be possible ( even if travelled back in time t=0 to recreate it in a different but identical dimensions). Since creation of initial condition it seems would not be possible, hence replicating the exact same result would elude us. the difference I think between this and the repeatability of the regular experiment we do lies in the R factor.. A 95% factor is good enough to prove say two falling objectsfrom same height falling together. Rest being attributed to shape, wind etc.But to bring out the exact samehigh entrphy state of the universe, from thel ow entrophy state would require an R of 100% and nothing less. and the t>0 would put a varience factor ( however infinitesimally small) which progress geometrically with time.
Therefore primarily, the cause and effect law stays intact but the effort to recreate an event does not.
extending this case beyond t=0, to now. I propose if you could create an R=100% for every thing that happens, it should at first flow follow that the universe must become deterministic and future predictable. However the prediction must take into ints calculation ..pre-knowledge of the first iterative future generated by the model. Thus the calculation for the second iteration would be influenced by the first (which would in most cases now be incorrect). If the second iteration should throw up a future x, it would still risk a variance (caused by the pre-knowledge consideration at every second by every sentient being possessing the model)
Zoran Terzic
My point is that nobody actually understands what a non-deterministic universe means. Usually, aspects of a phenomenon that are 'not determined' are simply not known i.e. an actual cause for x is not known, hence, x is not determined. Then, one puts theoretical considerations into play and claims that x cannot be known fundamentally. However, even this restriction to knowledge may have its peculiar cause.
And in regard to free will: free will is either free or it is will. Considerations of determinism are not necessarily connected to this question. Different playground.
Noel Tenorio
Des Greene
Chirayu Sariya 10+
To simply describe what I'm saying here, consider the universe in 4 stages. Say, at every stage an event forces the universe to 'split' into two parallel universes, each for the two possible outcomes of that event.
Now at the first stage (after the first event) we have universes u1 and u2.
At the 2nd stage, you will have universe u11,u12,u21 and u22. For both universes split further with the second event that produces two possible outcomes
This will continue till we have on the 4th stage - u1111, u1112, u1121, u1122, u1211, u1212....and so on. A total of 2^4=16 universes! Imagine the number of quantum events that must be taking place - Zillions in a single second in a very small space! Multiply that with the amount of time passed since the Big Bang and the total space in the Universe (lazily assuming uniform distribution of particles and events), you'll get an approximate number of parallel universes created since then, AND the number of possible outcomes that each of those events had. With no way to know how which outcome was "our" universe.
So, to answer your question, there is not a single way that the space-time can unfold, but a multitude of ways! This is because every cause does not have a single effect, but multiple possibilities as effects.
ANDRE SMITH
If we bow to a totally deterministic model then we must accept that there can only be an illusion of free will. OÇonnell's experiment is a vital peek at the most fundamental questions about the relationships between the brain, consciousness, free will and the 'bleed through' that may occur between a micro quantum world and the macro one we live in.
The double slit experiment and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle underlie this thinking.
Matt Hintzke
Mahesh Gokhale
When you ask " can you perform and experiment.... with same initial conditions" the answer is yes and no
yes i believe with diffraction and no because we cannot define all the initial conditions
So by what we know today through experiments and deduction / proofs is that quantum mechanics is valid
Also the things are not really random. they have a probability distribution and as you repeat the same initial conditions - the final conditions will more or less fit into a probability distribution
Also you mean that all physical phenomena must follow the rule of "implies and implied by" or rather "if a now then b has happened" is true then "if b has happened then a now" is also true.
Ben Jarvis 50+
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
Matt Hintzke
Lorenzo Sewanan
At a quantum level, since it particles are waves (wave-particle duality), there is no such thing as a perfectly-defined position or momentum for the particle. This is the origin of Heisenberg Uncertainty, and this is why it is a physical limitation, a fundamental fact.
Dwayne Ellis
Dustin Rodriguez 30+
Matt Hintzke
Erturul Karademir 30+
Matt Hintzke
Erturul Karademir 30+
Your "refutation" was considered after unveiling of quantum theory, even by Einstein (infamuos "god does nit throw dice" quote), there were people that argued there are some "hidden variables" that we don't know. We now know that these assertions are not true.
Famous EPR "paradox" was proved to be a wrong hypothesis experimentally.
Joseph McMahon
I agree with your analysis. Those who disagree would be well thought of by me if they could explain "what would cause the different outcome given the same set of initial conditions or causes". Unless of course they are implying that some events don't have a cause. If that is so please tell me about one.
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
As I had stated earlier in the multitude of cause and effects there will be causes that have the ability to lead to more then one effect. If you have a sphere traveling directly at a wedge divider when the sphere hits perfectly in the center it has the chance to go left, right, or split and go both. In the stance you are taking you're saying that the sphere only goes one direction. It's hard for me to wrap my mind around that. What happen to the other possibilities? Why must the sphere only go in one direction, how can it? It would go in each possible direction evenly in this case.
Joseph McMahon
It is no answer to say "...oh there are many causes and thus it is therefore unpredictable"
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
Matt Hintzke
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
Mark Meyer 10+
It's really not hard with a little thought experiment. Consider the problem with predicting the decay of an atom of uranium. Nothing we know about the uranium atom that can tell us why one atom will decay and another will not. The best we can do is predict the probability that a particular atom will decay.
Now suppose your initial conditions contain a single atom or uranium and whether it decays or doesn't decay at a particular time is the point of divergence between two chains of events. If you play through once and the atom decays at the appropriate time you get one outcome. Now go back to the exact initial conditions and you'll find you are stuck with a probability not a certainty the same thing will happen. The only way out of this is to show a cause behind the decay of that particular atom at that particular time.
The easy answer is 'there MUST be a cause' but it's singularly unscientific answer that assumes knowledge we don't have. It assumes the universe works in a particular way because it's easier to understand. It misses the point and much of the mystery behind QM.
Matt Hintzke
Mark Meyer 10+
Your arguments are based on what you think the world should look like, not what we actually observe. For instance you are certain, it seems, that the radioactive decay of an atom is caused by some predictable underlying cause. That's a fine hypothesis that a lot of people have had, but until you can test it, it's just that—an assumption based on applying your observations in the macroscopic world to the subatomic world. There is enough evidence out there to cast a lot of doubt on that assumption. Until you can design a way to test, "some physical property or environmental feature on the microscopic level that denotes whether the atom will decay or not…" I think you are kind of stuck. Anything you build on this assumption will be an built on shifting sand.
So no, I don't honestly believe that, but I do believe that we don't know, which scientifically speaking, is a much better place to be.
Guy Johnson
That's an easy one to answer: The existence of the universe (or if you prefer, the initial conditions of the big bang) is without cause.
So it's not a stretch to propose that similar causes to that which initiated the big bang continue to be at work in the universe.
Genevieve Tran 50+
Here is my case for a parallel universe or the like. Our energy is constantly being engaged and often, it is misdirected in this universe. For example, unintended actions: You had planned one thing, but another thing happens. Or null actions: You act by not considering variables you should have and as a result, your consequences show only partially what could materialize. These messy, incomplete string of events leave potential energy throbbing like mad somewhere in space and time. I say that it's all mopped up in a parallel universe or leaves less probable ghosts of us hanging out somewhere else, trying to right wrongs for all of eternity. And I say all of eternity because the densest us in the here and now, actually have enough mass to direct energy effectively. (Unless I am a ghost and am only thinking I'm effectively making a point.)
Guy Johnson
William Poundstone's "The Recursive Universe" uses Conway's Game of Life (CGOL) to elucidate some things about the real world. For one thing he shows how for a particular state of the game board in CGOL, one can always know the very next state (and therefore all subsequent) exactly, but one cannot determine the previous state with any certainty. This is for the simple reason that for almost all CGOL states, there are very many possible preceding states. The key point here is that the laws of CGOL, like the laws of physics, place detailed constraints on how one state transitions to another, but this does not mean it's possible to project backwards in time to identify prior states.
Understanding this, one sees that your question presupposes something deeply impossible and is therefore flawed. It will never be possible to discover the initial state of the universe, nor to know the full extent of the current state. It's deeply unknowable, or perhaps "fundamentally irrelevant". For this reason the question (which is still a good question, I'm glad you posed it) is only a fantasy (no dis intended).
The complete universe is exactly and only self-evident. No template, no model, no knower, no parallel applies. For us, anyway.
griffin tucker 10+
this got me thinking. a lot. assuming we do, would it be possible to create a matrix in this matrix itself? if so, how so, practically?
what i'm getting at is that what if the template, model, knower, and assumption of parallels lies in an artificial reality? what is to stop the artificial reality from preventing you from not knowing such thoughts? or anything for sure?
i decided to test the theory - http://www.ted.com/conversations/2700/create_the_matrix_for_real.html - perhaps without the ability to accomplish it (ever?) - but does this disprove or prove that we live in the matrix? negative.
atleast, not yet...
griffin tucker 10+
performing the same experiment 1,000,000 times with the same _exact_ initial conditions is simply impossible to accomplish, given that it would happen at a different point in time for the 2nd, 3rd, and every other experiment after that. the different point in time would result in different results - unless you remove time from the equation.
but then, if you perform the same experiment 1,000,000 times at the same time in different places, then the spatial co-ordinates would be different. results would still be different, but atleast 1 spatial co-ordinate has been removed from the equation.
perhaps drawing a table of performing both the above experiments and correlating the data would help in making assumptions about your proposed idea. i don't think it would be easy to prove though - atleast, not with any tools i can get my hands on.
Joe Delsen 20+
(http://bit.ly/QuantumTeleportation) (http://bit.ly/BrainEntanglement) http://www.ted.com/conversations/3337/how_is_it_possible_to_sometime.html
Christophe Cop 500+
- The theory is founded on a small part of our ignorance of the exact workings of certain parts of our cells (the micro-tubuli).
- Our current models don't need to assume such unexplained things to explain what we know. (violation of occam's razor)
- so far, no verifiable predictions have been made for this theory.
- the developers of those theories don't understand QM at all. (they aren't even physicists)
I highly recommend everyone to refrain thinking that quantum-spirituality has any sound scientific basis.
Deaven Morris
Guy Johnson
Can you tell me more about just what would be meant by "at the speed of light is a sort of equilibrium of time"?
It's plausible to me that the "ambiguity of state" of a given "particle" is somehow proportional to its speed. I mean, how fast does an electron travel? Is its location equally ambiguous?
What Aaron's talk suggests too, though, is that getting the energy of something near 0 (very slow?) also makes it become ambiguous. (?)
Perhaps what both directions are suggesting is that the more unobservable something is, due to it's being too fast or too dark and quiet, its state becomes more ambiguous. But isn't that just stating the obvious?
Christophe Cop 500+
infinite possibilities does not mean that everything is possible. (see Cantor for example)
As for causality and the arrow of time: violations of causality following the arrow of time doesn't mean causality should not hold...
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
Christophe Cop 500+
The number of lines in a plain are an infinite sets of an infinite number of points, while only one of all possible plains in a space...
"everything" (possible and impossible) is not easy capture-able in sets of infinity....
Austin R 20+
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
and Aaron has shon that large objects actually exist in two states at once
exactly as predicted from qunatum pysics and consistent with M-theory and parallel
both of wihichalmost unify what we understsod bout physics as of einstein and what we came to know when we could examine the behavior fo sub atomic particles..
doesn't Aaron's work make it apparent that oir weddedness to cause and efect may have kepus from seeing or at least looking in the right direction for how it all really works?
Isn't it actually more logical to assume, as Aaron did, that what we observe for the components we are made of (sub atomoc paricles)must apply to things made of them > Does it even make sense to assume that aggregating sub atomic particles into larger objects would changes their behvior?
We don't get it..yet..
but there it is
and I love at least that it's consistent
that what is true of sub atomic particles is true of objects which are aggtegation sof sub atomic paricles.
and don;t you just love the part that it had to be no one was looking.....
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
Ken brown 30+
thats just me replying to my own thoughts
you know i thought a black hole was just that,a black hole, nothing escapes?then why is it that theres numerous observations of energy jets coming from proposed singularities?
http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/is_physics_changing/illustrations/jet_emerging_from_m87-by_HST.jpg
it's taken from hubble
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
Ken brown 30+
Ken brown 30+
forgive me if this is a joke
I always thought it took intelligence that created possibility.
Matt Hintzke
Ken brown 30+
Do you think there is a dimension of choice?
now to be honest its totally off topic and probaly still humorous and full of......
i just read everything and yep way off target
griffin tucker 10+
to create another dimension itself would require a single step through time - considering that only 1 split can occur during each step through time, this would result in a finite amount of space and finite amount of time.
this would prove your theory true, but still have multiple dimensions, would this be a paradox of having two or more states of truth that conflict with each other? or do they just cancel each other out?
if they cancel each other out, then having 2 _logically_ built computers with the same time on the clock and fed the same data would result in generating the _same_ random numbers...but is this a valid test?
Matt Hintzke
griffin tucker 10+
let me try to understand mathematically, where 1 dimension is x, another dimension is y, another dimension is z, and another is time, this would be 4 dimensions.
if there were to be another dimension on top of this we can see it mathematically but not conceptualise it visually, so i'll use an example mathematically:
assuming the big bang theory is correct, if a point is chosen where:
x = 0, y = 0, z = 0, time = 1 (1 being the beginning)
when time = 20, can x, y, or z = 30? can anything travel faster than time? this is my reasoning behind space being finite.
if yet _another_ dimension was added, the rules behind my reasoning can work, for example:
when x = 50, y = 1000, z = 200, time = 1,000,000 (the millionth step through time), p = 2
where p is the 'yet-another-dimension' - allowing for where p = 1 to have some mutually inclusive elements of p = 2 - explaining a lot of quantum physic anomalies.
Matt Hintzke
dingle mcringleberry
Can you confidently say that time applies to these other universes just as it applies to ours?
Speculations can be made, but history will tell us that usually we are wrong when we make speculation.
This concept will hopefully be grasped by humanity one day, and we will look back and laugh at what we had previously thought.
griffin tucker 10+
i haven't read much into quantum physics, only brief articles in science magazines - a few if that.
if i am to understand correctly - if time is infinite, how is it possible that the big bang occurs, wouldn't this mean that time is ever-expanding on both ends, before and after this moment? the big bang theory says that time has a beginning point - leading me to believe that there is a solid state of time - whether or not overlapping universes exist depends solely on if another dimension on top of time _and_ the spatial co-ordinates of x, y, and '3-dimensional' z.
i believe time can be measured just as a spatial co-ordinate, such as through step after step of the big bang. this leads me to believe that up to the present moment, time is finite.
if you were to say that time is not finite, then you can't say that there is only pre-determined cause-and-effect. it simply doesn't make sense to me.
i believe it's either time is finite, and we have free-will, or time is infinite, and we are simply acting out cause-and-effect. i'm leaning to the former.
dingle mcringleberry
How can time all of a sudden just start, and how can anything precede time? All of these terms used to disprove the infinite concept of time are terms of infinite time.
Are you saying that in our universe, effects need no cause?
We know nothing of the big bang, and we know nothing of time.
We will know someday.
But we do know there is no free will.
It's ridiculous to say that we have free will.
Helen Hupe 30+
griffin tucker 10+
when i say that either time is finite, and we have free-will, or time is infinite, and we are simply acting out cause-and-effect, i mean that both statements are true (which makes them both false.)
when i say i lean toward time being finite and that we have free-will, i mean that my belief is at a finite point on an axis of approaching infinite. an unreal scale, if you will.
i hope this clears things up (i doubt it will).
Guy Johnson
Helen Hupe 30+
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
Budimir Zdravkovic 20+
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
Matt Hintzke
Factual: Infinite number of causes, like you state (directions and forces of throwing a ball), equals infinite number of outcomes (the ball going in infinite number places)
My contradiction to parallel universes: Parallel universes imply that one single cause can create a multitude (infinitely many) of effects.
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
Matt Hintzke
carole lyc
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
Matt Hintzke
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
dingle mcringleberry
The present is only a preview of the future, the timeline is technically predetermined, that is why we are incapable of determining the future.
If there are multiple possible effects to a cause, than this would imply that free will exists within atoms.
Even if atoms are capable of thought, they would not be capable of randomly defining the future, because even human thought is predetermined.
Thomas Pisarchick 10+
dingle mcringleberry
The future is predetermined, therefore it is impossible to predict it.
If I told you exactly what you're about to do, then you would not do exactly as you were about to do. Because the conditions of the situation have changed.
Mihir Joshi
Tony Sanchez
Regardless, I find this fascinating. But if we are three dimensional beings, the fourth being time, how could we possibly comprehend anything beyond what we are? Surely we can have theories. But then, why wouldn't a plumber theory be as valid as the ones published by scientists? In the end, they are just as impossible to prove or disprove, aren't they? I said don't yell...
Matt Hintzke
Dimensions on the other hand are completely real entities that have been proven by science. We have mathematical equations in string theory that need other dimensions to exist and I believe, at the top of my head, that we have guessed that there are around 27 dimensions in our universe. Comprehending them is another story. Brian Greene has a famous analogy for this, saying that if you look at a cable supporting a telephone pole from a distance, it appears to be merely a 2D line, correct? However, a closer look at the cable shows that it is crawling with ants, and these ants can move in all 3 dimensions. They can go up and down, left and right, forward and back. This is because the ant's perspective is so small and ours is so big. This can apply to dimensions we do not see, we are too big to see them, yet they are there. If we can look close enough one day, we may be able to physically see them in working order.