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
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
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+