TED Conversations

Matt Hintzke

Student, Coffman Engineers, Inc

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

Related Talks:
Topics: big bang history parallel universe physics
+1
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Deaven Morris

    • 0
    Jun 4 2011: I think what you are speaking of is more of an interpretation than a theory in the truest sense of the word. There is another more modern interpretation where the most minute of particles can be at 2 places at the same time because time doesn't exist for things moving at the speed of light. I think this should be a familiar concept, that if you somehow went faster than the speed of light you would go back in time. so slower is in our direction, faster is in the opposite direction and at the speed of light is a sort of equilibrium of time.Therefore if you were right on the edge of the speed of light time would seem to stretch and therefore 2 particles aren't really in the same place at the same "time", they just seem that way to us because we are far left on this kind of "number line" representing the speed of light, and the experiences at these speeds.

    • Guy Johnson

      • 0
      Jun 5 2011: I'm cool with this interpretation except for one part: A position is taken about going faster than light, ie. that time would go backward under those conditions. Leave that faster than light stuff out of it, and I see something worth exploring here.

      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?

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.