TED Conversations

Matt Hintzke

Student, Coffman Engineers, Inc

This conversation is closed.

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

Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jun 2 2011: What you basically imply is that free will does not exist as such and that the current state of things is the result of complex interactions at the most basic phyisical level possible, no matter whether this should be strings in the 10th dimension or something else.

    I like your question and have asked myself similar things, however in the meantime I have stopped caring about it... perhaps the reason why I want to become an engineer and not a theoretical physicist. Whether we live in a hologram or a multiverse or whatever else, I can do little to change anything about it.

    As such, I would answer with another question - can we ever find an answer that is true (as opposed to only us thinking it is true)?
    • thumb
      Jun 3 2011: Free will exists, yes but not in the essence that is portrayed in media. I am saying that the person's choice of free will did actually happen, however, yet again, it was some effect of some previous event that causes that person to make that free willed decision as if the "free will" were apart of their fate in the first place because all physiological condition were at play. However, I enjoy your last statement the most, there is most likely never going to be a way to find the truth in whole
      • Jun 5 2011: Matt, this just happens to be my topic of muse of late. Here's my summary interpretation, and I'd be interested in your comments:

        Our minds are capable of positing a perspective in which determinism becomes valid or possible (as in your original post). But that we can imagine that position does not make that position real, meaningful, accessible, or relevant. In effect, the perspective from which determinism takes on meaning is the perspective of God. And I don't believe in God except as a mental construct defined in just this sort of way. The only way this God is an actor in the universe is in the way that mental construct eventually translates causally through the human will.

        In this sense, there's nothing at all real about determinism. But of course "reality" is a decidedly and unavoidably human interpretation. Unlike some others, I don't then say that reality is illusion, because what's important about reality is that we can agree on it and apply our understanding of it in ways which affect each other meaningfully. We can count on this reality when interacting with it and each other. Meaning and all the other stuff which makes up human experience derives from this reality. And that reality is enough for us by definition!

        So I'm all for exploring reality... that's what it's all about really. There are limits to reality, though, both practical and theoretical. And these limits are far deeper (more significant) than those like quantum uncertainty and trans-light speeds. Those deeper limits, ironically enough, stem from the fact that reality exists only by a sort of consensus of experience. How's that for a logical loop?!

        Drop me a line sometime, Matt. We could have some killer conversations I bet! Send me an email.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.