By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - String theory and the multiverse...the answer to Existence.

Ouroboros24 on 25 March 2013
WereKitten said:
Soleron said:

...

Parallel universes are one valid interpretation of QM, yes. But as we cannot travel to them it's not worth thinking about them.
...


In Everett's original work on relative states in QM there's nothing like the "bifurcation of world stories" as often popularized. The so called many worlds interpretation (MWI) in his original proposal is actually "just" a numerically frightening decoherence of the superposed eigenstates when entangled with macroscopic observers.

As such -at least in principle- Everett's interpretation of QM can be testable: if we ever managed to create a small, insulated, simple process of quantum measurement that we can fully reverse, then we should observe "decollapsing" of the wave packets. Or in MWI-speak: we should be able to see the "alternative worlds" originated from that single measurement interfere again in a controlled way. How that would work in practice e.g. how do you keep track of the results is not clear to me :)

To the OP: google for Tegmark's multiverse and look at his type IV multiverse idea if you want an even wilder ride :)

Good reread. 

1.  is the multerverse within our universe.  If you believe that our universe is forever expanding.  2.  Basically the same as 1, but with different physics.  3. the idea of the possibility of our universe branching into infinity.  4.  Everything and the kitchen sink.  More or less.



Around the Network
WereKitten on 25 March 2013
Ouroboros24 said:

Good reread. 

1.  is the multerverse within our universe.  If you believe that our universe is forever expanding.  2.  Basically the same as 1, but with different physics.  3. the idea of the possibility of our universe branching into infinity.  4.  Everything and the kitchen sink.  More or less.


Yep: type IV is basically a modern platonism. As in every computable mathematical structure exists, including all possible computable universes - some of which can include conscious agents like us.



"All you need in life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain

"..." - Gordon Freeman

Jay520 on 25 March 2013

If they don't exist in our universe and don't affect our universe, then they don't exist imo.



Ouroboros24 on 25 March 2013
wfz said:
I don't understand how infinite universes can exist. At any point in time, there are nearly an infinite things happening in our universe, and they can theoretically "happen differently" in an infinite number of ways. Like right now, something as mundane as my breathing - I can change my breathing pattern an an infinite number of ways this very instant. Does that mean there are an infinite number of universes where I do? And my friend does? And everyone else?

There would be far too many infinites going on for me to understand how they create new universes.

Why not?  Infinity has no end.  Even between the numbers of 1 and 2, it can be divided forever.  Between the numbers 1 and 2, can be 1.5.  1.555555555555555555555.  When you breath, the phone could have rung.  When you breath, you could have been thinking about cars.  You could be thinking about ice cream.  About cats.  About dogs.  Clearly, the action of breathing is mundane, but you can't say that the You that is breathing and thinking about trees, is the same You who is thinking about birds.  Similar, but alternate. 



SxyxS on 25 March 2013

As (i guess)one of the leading string theorists(michio kaku) said":There is 0 proove for the string theory."


The Universe gives a shit about a theory that was invented on an extremly small meaningless planet by even smaller meaningless beings.(and there is another problem with this stupid infinit everything is possible and is happening multiverse theory:
every single second can be devided untill infinity: You can split a second into trillion parts.
Every single part of a second has trillions of possibilities-this would mean that every single fraction of something that has happened(eg collision of 2 atoms)in the universe needs another special universe which needs endless universes .
that's crap.(sadly my english is too bad to explain it in a better way)

Another main problem of your beloved theory is :
You believe that it is important wether GW Bush or Al Gore won the election.
No!
believing that there is a universe where Al Gore won the election=believing that until the election of Al Gore a universe has existed that was exactly like our Universe-until GW Bush was voted.-that's impossible having two planets existing exactly the same way for billions if years until a US election.
Why should this election be the trigger??
Why should the difference start then,after billions of years of synchronicity?-you  think so, because the election was important from your point of view,That's all.
If you believe that there are infinite numbers of universes with endless possibilities you also have to acceppt the theory that there is also an infinite number of universes that are 100% exactly like our universe(imagine trillions of universes gw bush being president of the united states!Can you acceppt this?)




Around the Network
Soleron on 25 March 2013
WereKitten said:
Soleron said:

...

Parallel universes are one valid interpretation of QM, yes. But as we cannot travel to them it's not worth thinking about them.
...


In Everett's original work on relative states in QM there's nothing like the "bifurcation of world stories" as often popularized. The so called many worlds interpretation (MWI) in his original proposal is actually "just" a numerically frightening decoherence of the superposed eigenstates when entangled with macroscopic observers.

As such -at least in principle- Everett's interpretation of QM can be testable: if we ever managed to create a small, insulated, simple process of quantum measurement that we can fully reverse, then we should observe "decollapsing" of the wave packets. Or in MWI-speak: we should be able to see the "alternative worlds" originated from that single measurement interfere again in a controlled way. How that would work in practice e.g. how do you keep track of the results is not clear to me :)

To the OP: google for Tegmark's multiverse and look at his type IV multiverse idea if you want an even wilder ride :)

Of course. I just didn't want to go into eigenfunction stuff. Real scientific 'teleportation' and 'time travel' and 'wormholes' also function nothing like the popular science version.

Wouldn't that test give the same answers under Copenhagen?



wfz on 25 March 2013
Ouroboros24 said:
wfz said:
I don't understand how infinite universes can exist. At any point in time, there are nearly an infinite things happening in our universe, and they can theoretically "happen differently" in an infinite number of ways. Like right now, something as mundane as my breathing - I can change my breathing pattern an an infinite number of ways this very instant. Does that mean there are an infinite number of universes where I do? And my friend does? And everyone else?

There would be far too many infinites going on for me to understand how they create new universes.

Why not?  Infinity has no end.  Even between the numbers of 1 and 2, it can be divided forever.  Between the numbers 1 and 2, can be 1.5.  1.555555555555555555555.  When you breath, the phone could have rung.  When you breath, you could have been thinking about cars.  You could be thinking about ice cream.  About cats.  About dogs.  Clearly, the action of breathing is mundane, but you can't say that the You that is breathing and thinking about trees, is the same You who is thinking about birds.  Similar, but alternate. 


I just can't wrap my head around the idea that an infinite number of universes are being increated at an infinite rate. How the hell can they all exist? What's the purpose? Even if there is no purpose, it just feels strange to me that there would be so...many...infinitely infinite number of worlds... How do they fit...



WereKitten on 25 March 2013
Soleron said:
WereKitten said:
Soleron said:

...

Parallel universes are one valid interpretation of QM, yes. But as we cannot travel to them it's not worth thinking about them.
...


In Everett's original work on relative states in QM there's nothing like the "bifurcation of world stories" as often popularized. The so called many worlds interpretation (MWI) in his original proposal is actually "just" a numerically frightening decoherence of the superposed eigenstates when entangled with macroscopic observers.

As such -at least in principle- Everett's interpretation of QM can be testable: if we ever managed to create a small, insulated, simple process of quantum measurement that we can fully reverse, then we should observe "decollapsing" of the wave packets. Or in MWI-speak: we should be able to see the "alternative worlds" originated from that single measurement interfere again in a controlled way. How that would work in practice e.g. how do you keep track of the results is not clear to me :)

To the OP: google for Tegmark's multiverse and look at his type IV multiverse idea if you want an even wilder ride :)

Of course. I just didn't want to go into eigenfunction stuff. Real scientific 'teleportation' and 'time travel' and 'wormholes' also function nothing like the popular science version.

Wouldn't that test give the same answers under Copenhagen?

Under Copenhagen there's no such thing as a reversible quantum measurement process, as the collapse projection is an actual physical phenomenon... no particular explanation, it's just postulated.

According to Everett, the collapse happens only relatively to the component of the observer entangled with the measured quantity, but basically the whole wave function is causally preserved. It's in principle possible to reverse the whole measurement including the observer.

Now the trick is: how much of the macroscopic apparatus do I have to reverse, and how can I keep my notes/memories of the results from being also reversed and thus deleted :) But I guess there could be weird ways the theoreticians have thought to accomplish that, maybe with a mechanism similar to Elitzur-Veidman's.

AFAIK there's no experiment planned to test this.. but there are experiments of nano-optics planned to test the collapse rate of superpositions of macroscopic mirrors, so we might be moving towards the needed finesse.



"All you need in life is ignorance and confidence; then success is sure." - Mark Twain

"..." - Gordon Freeman

Slimebeast on 25 March 2013

I think the multiverse theory is a bizarre superstition but I'm a strong advocate for freedom of religion.



TheEvilBanana on 26 March 2013

Its not something we should concern ourselves with until theres more known. Ones primary obsession should be to advance the powers of their soul this life to acheive immortality and advance the cause of our Lord and Father Satan.