Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use
RSS feed | RSS help
Introduction
Terms of Use
Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.
By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT BLOG COMMENTS
Paul Reed: "Wilhemus/Jason Unless it is a completely different point, can we please..." in Hanny's Voorwerp, and...
Paul Reed: "Jason “Actually, nature behaves very differently when there is mystery” ..." in Hanny's Voorwerp, and...
Paul Reed: "John Yes, but since reality is a function of the senses, then there is a..." in On the Origins of Quantum...
Pentcho Valev: "Water Violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics II ..." in Entropy and complexity:...
T H Ray: ""It involves very simple stuff. Such as realising that we/reality are..." in The Secret History of...
Eckard Blumschein: "Pentcho, D=Q/A=K E, w=DE/2. Not even Uffink sees a mystery. I would just..." in Entropy and complexity:...
Paul Reed: "All Spatial dimension, what can it constitute? The 'dimension' referred..." in The Secret History of...
Eckard Blumschein: "Pentcho, Why is virtually nobody willing to either refute or accept..." in The Whole and Nothing But
RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles
Video Article: The Patchwork Multiverse
Classic article with new video content: Cutting spacetime into patches could help explain the size of the universe, time—and provide the first ”experimental” evidence that string theory is on the right track.
The Cosmic Family Tree
Mapping the ancestral history of spacetime in an effort to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity.
Behind the Shadows
Imagining Schrödinger’s cat peering out from behind a black hole could lead to a theory of quantum gravity.
Why Did Nature Choose Quantum Theory?
Schrödinger’s cat may help reveal while some physical theories are better at describing reality than others.
Video Article: Through a Glass Darkly
Eight-dimensional numbers could be needed to handle string-theory’s 10-dimensional physics. This classic article, with new video content, also tackles the mystery of why elementary particles come in families of three—and maybe even how spacetime emerges in 4-dimensions.
Paul Reed: "Wilhemus/Jason Unless it is a completely different point, can we please..." in Hanny's Voorwerp, and...
Paul Reed: "Jason “Actually, nature behaves very differently when there is mystery” ..." in Hanny's Voorwerp, and...
Paul Reed: "John Yes, but since reality is a function of the senses, then there is a..." in On the Origins of Quantum...
Pentcho Valev: "Water Violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics II ..." in Entropy and complexity:...
T H Ray: ""It involves very simple stuff. Such as realising that we/reality are..." in The Secret History of...
Eckard Blumschein: "Pentcho, D=Q/A=K E, w=DE/2. Not even Uffink sees a mystery. I would just..." in Entropy and complexity:...
Paul Reed: "All Spatial dimension, what can it constitute? The 'dimension' referred..." in The Secret History of...
Eckard Blumschein: "Pentcho, Why is virtually nobody willing to either refute or accept..." in The Whole and Nothing But
RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles
Video Article: The Patchwork Multiverse
Classic article with new video content: Cutting spacetime into patches could help explain the size of the universe, time—and provide the first ”experimental” evidence that string theory is on the right track.
The Cosmic Family Tree
Mapping the ancestral history of spacetime in an effort to unite quantum mechanics and general relativity.
Behind the Shadows
Imagining Schrödinger’s cat peering out from behind a black hole could lead to a theory of quantum gravity.
Why Did Nature Choose Quantum Theory?
Schrödinger’s cat may help reveal while some physical theories are better at describing reality than others.
Video Article: Through a Glass Darkly
Eight-dimensional numbers could be needed to handle string-theory’s 10-dimensional physics. This classic article, with new video content, also tackles the mystery of why elementary particles come in families of three—and maybe even how spacetime emerges in 4-dimensions.
FQXi BLOGS
February 11, 2012
Got a tough decision to make and just don't know which option to choose? Well, why not choose both options––but perform each in a different parallel universes?
Yes, in what must be one of the boldest marketing ploys yet, the website link:cheapuniverses.com/]www.cheapuniverses.com is offering two fates for the price of one. It even comes recommended by FQXi's Garrett Lisi, so I thought I’d highlight www.cheapuniverses.com it here. There’s also a universe-splitting iPhone app
If you can’t decide between two options--taking a bath or going for stroll are the examples offered on the site––log on to www.cheapuniverses.com, pay $3.95, and the organizers promise to “initiate an actual quantum event – just for you – which has two equally possible outcomes. Both outcomes will happen, but in _separate_ _universes_.”
The physics behind the website is, of course, the Many World’s Interpretation of quantum mechanics, proposed––as the site tells us––by the father of Mark Oliver Everett’s of Eels (or Hugh Everett III). Everett wasn’t happy with the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics that says that before observation, quantum objects don’t exist in a single state, but are described by a wavefunction containing a superposition of multiple states. This is exemplified by Schrödinger’s cat locked in a box with a radioactive atom that on decaying will trigger a mechanism that will release poison that will kill the cat. Until the box is opened, standard wisdom goes, the atom has both decayed and not decayed, and hence the cat is both alive and dead at the same time. When the box is opened, the wavefunction "collapses" and the cat snaps into one set state, life or death.
Everett’s view was, instead, that the observer becomes entangled with the superpositioned object. Due to the correlation between the observer and the object, the observer splits into multiple copies. Each quantum option is satisfied—the cat both lives and dies—just in two parallel worlds.(For more, read “The Many Lives of Hugh Everett III.”
Well, the physics is there. But in practice, why go to this website? Why not just a flip a coin to decide whether to take a bath or go for a walk? (I can’t help thinking though, if you think you need a bath, you probably should take one.) The answer is that a classical coin flip won’t give you a split universe. For that you need a quantum event, which is apparently supplied by the company idQuantique in Geneva.
The company idQuantique specializes in quantum cryptography--and their technology was used at the soccer World Cup in South Africa. I recently wrote a news article for Nature about claims that its supposedly invincible cryptographic system had been hacked, so it’s nice to blog something more cheery about them.
But does it work? Well, I should say that I haven’t (yet) tried it out. And even if I do, as cheapuniverse says itself, in small print: “Due to the separateness of the two universes, you won't be able to check in on your other self. But that other self will exist nonetheless, and will be exploring its universe just as you are yours.”
Plus, there’s a money-back guarantee: “Our universes are 100% guaranteed. If, after using our service, you find that you're not in a universe, contact us immediately. You're entitled to a complete refund, no questions asked. Of course, if you simply don't like the universe you've created, there will be no refund... but you can take some comfort in knowing that the other version of you is probably quite happy with our service.”
Worth a try? (As long as it doesn’t give Max Tegmark any more ideas about quantum suicide.)
And who says foundational physics doesn't pay?
report post as inappropriate
 |
| www.cheapuniverses.com |
If you can’t decide between two options--taking a bath or going for stroll are the examples offered on the site––log on to www.cheapuniverses.com, pay $3.95, and the organizers promise to “initiate an actual quantum event – just for you – which has two equally possible outcomes. Both outcomes will happen, but in _separate_ _universes_.”
The physics behind the website is, of course, the Many World’s Interpretation of quantum mechanics, proposed––as the site tells us––by the father of Mark Oliver Everett’s of Eels (or Hugh Everett III). Everett wasn’t happy with the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics that says that before observation, quantum objects don’t exist in a single state, but are described by a wavefunction containing a superposition of multiple states. This is exemplified by Schrödinger’s cat locked in a box with a radioactive atom that on decaying will trigger a mechanism that will release poison that will kill the cat. Until the box is opened, standard wisdom goes, the atom has both decayed and not decayed, and hence the cat is both alive and dead at the same time. When the box is opened, the wavefunction "collapses" and the cat snaps into one set state, life or death.
Everett’s view was, instead, that the observer becomes entangled with the superpositioned object. Due to the correlation between the observer and the object, the observer splits into multiple copies. Each quantum option is satisfied—the cat both lives and dies—just in two parallel worlds.(For more, read “The Many Lives of Hugh Everett III.”
Well, the physics is there. But in practice, why go to this website? Why not just a flip a coin to decide whether to take a bath or go for a walk? (I can’t help thinking though, if you think you need a bath, you probably should take one.) The answer is that a classical coin flip won’t give you a split universe. For that you need a quantum event, which is apparently supplied by the company idQuantique in Geneva.
The company idQuantique specializes in quantum cryptography--and their technology was used at the soccer World Cup in South Africa. I recently wrote a news article for Nature about claims that its supposedly invincible cryptographic system had been hacked, so it’s nice to blog something more cheery about them.
But does it work? Well, I should say that I haven’t (yet) tried it out. And even if I do, as cheapuniverse says itself, in small print: “Due to the separateness of the two universes, you won't be able to check in on your other self. But that other self will exist nonetheless, and will be exploring its universe just as you are yours.”
Plus, there’s a money-back guarantee: “Our universes are 100% guaranteed. If, after using our service, you find that you're not in a universe, contact us immediately. You're entitled to a complete refund, no questions asked. Of course, if you simply don't like the universe you've created, there will be no refund... but you can take some comfort in knowing that the other version of you is probably quite happy with our service.”
Worth a try? (As long as it doesn’t give Max Tegmark any more ideas about quantum suicide.)
And who says foundational physics doesn't pay?
report post as inappropriate
Speaking of baths, I am reminded of something from Delmore Schwartz: "Existentialism means that no one can take a bath for you."
At the end of the day, there is just no way in principle to judge whether even the smallest particle in the universe chooses its own path or not. When fate is randomness, perfect order is assured.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
At the end of the day, there is just no way in principle to judge whether even the smallest particle in the universe chooses its own path or not. When fate is randomness, perfect order is assured.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Tom,
Sometimes we do take baths for others, otherwise they might not want to be around us.
Maybe it's not the particles which decide, but the functioning of the network that determines the path of particles.
Order is viewed from the top, but emerges from bottom up processes. Form follows function.
report post as inappropriate
Sometimes we do take baths for others, otherwise they might not want to be around us.
Maybe it's not the particles which decide, but the functioning of the network that determines the path of particles.
Order is viewed from the top, but emerges from bottom up processes. Form follows function.
report post as inappropriate
John,
One might give another a bath; i.e., cooperate in some bathing experience, but one cannot choose to take another's bath for her.
There's an alternative to vertical, hierarchical (top-down or bottom-up) organization: laterally distributed order of subsystems evolving and decohering at different rates. Then function follows form, which does not obviate the converse.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
One might give another a bath; i.e., cooperate in some bathing experience, but one cannot choose to take another's bath for her.
There's an alternative to vertical, hierarchical (top-down or bottom-up) organization: laterally distributed order of subsystems evolving and decohering at different rates. Then function follows form, which does not obviate the converse.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Tom,
That, in essence, is bottom up. It is cumulative, rather than linear. Top down is only the linear perspective of a sub-system. The theological assumption of monotheism that permeates western thinking is that there is some ultimate top down system, but any such entity exists in a larger eco-system. Even the idea of the entire universe existing as a single such entity has been breached by the concept of multiverses.
As for the bathing analogy, I was playing on your use of "a," rather then "your."
report post as inappropriate
That, in essence, is bottom up. It is cumulative, rather than linear. Top down is only the linear perspective of a sub-system. The theological assumption of monotheism that permeates western thinking is that there is some ultimate top down system, but any such entity exists in a larger eco-system. Even the idea of the entire universe existing as a single such entity has been breached by the concept of multiverses.
As for the bathing analogy, I was playing on your use of "a," rather then "your."
report post as inappropriate
This migth operate better if your iPhone has a Q-bit processor. In that way you might indeed be splitting off the universe by operating a gadget.
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Cheers LC
report post as inappropriate
Since entire universes are supposed to spring into existence from every eigenstate of a quantum system, is there any way to harness that energy into a weapon system? After all, it takes a Big Bang worth of energy to create a new universe. When a wave function collapses, all of those eigenstates have to become new universes. Is it possible to catch some of that energy? If there are 100 eigenstates in a quantum system, than measuring it should release 99 Big Bangs of energy, right? Could that be used to build a weapon powerful enough to blow up the universe?
No, I didn't think so. Could it blow up the many worlds interpretation? If it does, then where does that leave time travel?
report post as inappropriate
No, I didn't think so. Could it blow up the many worlds interpretation? If it does, then where does that leave time travel?
report post as inappropriate
>After all, it takes a Big Bang worth of energy to create a new universe.
No it doesn't.
Don't we have enough weapons in the world? It is bizarre (and somewhat disturbing) that you would go there, rather than look for new ways to get energy peacefully.
report post as inappropriate
No it doesn't.
Don't we have enough weapons in the world? It is bizarre (and somewhat disturbing) that you would go there, rather than look for new ways to get energy peacefully.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Anonymous,
I'm not seeking weapons. I'm trying to make a point. Many Worlds Interpretation by its very nature requires separate and distinct identical universes. Each new universe requires energy, E=mc2, so that the astronomy of those worlds is identical, right? That means you have to start with a Big Bang worth of energy so you can reproduce an identical copy of this universe.
That is why the MWI doesn't work. In flagrantly violates conservation of energy.
report post as inappropriate
I'm not seeking weapons. I'm trying to make a point. Many Worlds Interpretation by its very nature requires separate and distinct identical universes. Each new universe requires energy, E=mc2, so that the astronomy of those worlds is identical, right? That means you have to start with a Big Bang worth of energy so you can reproduce an identical copy of this universe.
That is why the MWI doesn't work. In flagrantly violates conservation of energy.
report post as inappropriate
Dear Jason Wolfe
Conservation of energy is not violated since the energy of each branch has to be weighted by its probability, according to the standard formula for the conservation of energy in quantum theory. This results in the total energy of the multiverse being conserved
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Comm
on_objections_and_misconceptions
report post as inappropriate
Conservation of energy is not violated since the energy of each branch has to be weighted by its probability, according to the standard formula for the conservation of energy in quantum theory. This results in the total energy of the multiverse being conserved
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Comm
on_objections_and_misconceptions
report post as inappropriate
A coin throw would work just as well. Despite this being classical, it would have a similar effect. Classical just means that the probabilities behave in a classical way (no interference, no violations of Bell's inequalities etc.), not that quantum mechancis does not apply and that clasical physics is exactly correct. In fact, macroscopic objects behave in a classical way, pecisely because of decoherence, i.e. entanglement of the object with the environmental degees of freedom.
Now, what mnatters here is what happens if we apply the exact time evolution operator to the state of the universe in which I have just decided to throw a coin. Note that I have yet to select a coin from my wallet, and then throw it.
The general final state can be written as:
A |head) + B|tail)
where |head) and |tail) denote the states of the universe in which the outcome was head and tail, respectively. But does anyone here really believe that either A = 0 or B = 0 if we run the exact time evolution operator starting from the moment I make the decision to throw the coin?
report post as inappropriate
Now, what mnatters here is what happens if we apply the exact time evolution operator to the state of the universe in which I have just decided to throw a coin. Note that I have yet to select a coin from my wallet, and then throw it.
The general final state can be written as:
A |head) + B|tail)
where |head) and |tail) denote the states of the universe in which the outcome was head and tail, respectively. But does anyone here really believe that either A = 0 or B = 0 if we run the exact time evolution operator starting from the moment I make the decision to throw the coin?
report post as inappropriate
I don't know. However, IF the zero solution is allowed, it implies a third option, i.e., a negative term. One could not allow BOTH zero and positive solutions without a negative solution as well. This, because zero removes the problem from the Cartesian to the complex plane.
Tom
report post as inappropriate
Tom
report post as inappropriate
I think what Saibal means is that if one probability is zero, then the other probability is 100%.
report post as inappropriate
report post as inappropriate
I'm not sure I fully understand the question. However isn't the coin both heads up and tails up as it falls through the air, spinning as it does so? So both possibilities of outcome exist. Neither A nor B is zero probability.
Although it is both heads up and tails up, it can not be both in the same 3D spatial position. As it is both falling through 3D space and absolute space the two different states do not exist in the same space. So thats OK. It is only when the coin drops to the floor in heads up or tails up or is caught and observed, which state it possesses will be called out. There is a material interaction at a particular spatial position, that halts the change of state and the existence of the other possibility. The observation alters it from a probability only, in the human mind ( or mathematics), into an experienced determined state. The state it has adopted already preexists the observation but is unknown until the detection has been made processed and recognized as what it is. That is formed into a subjective or inter-subjective reality.
An object remaining within a local space such as the coin spinning on the table would still be changing absolute spatial position so once again the two different possibilities do not occupy the same space. There is no need for an extra universe.
There is also the slight possibility that the coin will fall into a crack and be suspended between the two possibilities allowed for. Then both A and B would be zero.
report post as inappropriate
Although it is both heads up and tails up, it can not be both in the same 3D spatial position. As it is both falling through 3D space and absolute space the two different states do not exist in the same space. So thats OK. It is only when the coin drops to the floor in heads up or tails up or is caught and observed, which state it possesses will be called out. There is a material interaction at a particular spatial position, that halts the change of state and the existence of the other possibility. The observation alters it from a probability only, in the human mind ( or mathematics), into an experienced determined state. The state it has adopted already preexists the observation but is unknown until the detection has been made processed and recognized as what it is. That is formed into a subjective or inter-subjective reality.
An object remaining within a local space such as the coin spinning on the table would still be changing absolute spatial position so once again the two different possibilities do not occupy the same space. There is no need for an extra universe.
There is also the slight possibility that the coin will fall into a crack and be suspended between the two possibilities allowed for. Then both A and B would be zero.
report post as inappropriate
Well put Georgina.
Ths was considered by the father of probability Christiaan Huygens. If we take any point on the circumference of the coin and track it's path we find it describes a wave.
When the coin transforms into another inertial frame, i.e. it collides with a table or hand (Huygens also originated collision theory) Energy is released proportional to the relative frame velocities. This is propagated into the new medium (wood or flesh) as a new wave, travelling at a new velocity with respect to the refractive index (n) and velocity of the new medium. The apparent velocities, frequencies and wavelengths will vary subject to which inertial frame they're observed from. i.e. they are relative to the observer.
The change in speed is evidenced by the Doppler shift (Christian Dopplers Formula approach for this originally eminating from guess who!).
This is all very important as it establishes and explains the Huygens-Fresnel Priciple, the basis of Fourier Optics etc. This says any point on an EM wave will condense a photon when perturbated by a change of inertial frame (any medium in relative motion) and the energy will be conserved by sending the signal on as new waves, travelling at 'c' (or cn if different) with respect to the new medium.
This is fundamental, and something Lorentz and Einstein didn't notice or consider the implications of when considering a solution to CSL.
There are both quntum and classic proofs, simply;
Electrons at the edge of a new medium (including of the same n but in relative motion) absorb photons and re emit them into the new medium at the new 'c' of the electron.
or; As the Ewald-Oseen Extinction Theorum proves, (if you like integro- differential equations!) waves propagate into a new medium (in relative motion) at 'c' wrt the new medium.
All logic and experimental evidence from Sagnac and Fizeau to Wang confirms the results of these processes, explaining not only duality but CSL, within the postulates of the STR but also using a simple quantum mechanism.
Signs of intelligent life are ethereal and purely relative. Is everyone still too limited in mental dexterity or steeped in preconception to be able to understand it and see the consequences? I still have great hopes of you Georgina.
Best regards
Peter
(PS. I hope you find it as simple as it is, but not too naieve).
report post as inappropriate
Ths was considered by the father of probability Christiaan Huygens. If we take any point on the circumference of the coin and track it's path we find it describes a wave.
When the coin transforms into another inertial frame, i.e. it collides with a table or hand (Huygens also originated collision theory) Energy is released proportional to the relative frame velocities. This is propagated into the new medium (wood or flesh) as a new wave, travelling at a new velocity with respect to the refractive index (n) and velocity of the new medium. The apparent velocities, frequencies and wavelengths will vary subject to which inertial frame they're observed from. i.e. they are relative to the observer.
The change in speed is evidenced by the Doppler shift (Christian Dopplers Formula approach for this originally eminating from guess who!).
This is all very important as it establishes and explains the Huygens-Fresnel Priciple, the basis of Fourier Optics etc. This says any point on an EM wave will condense a photon when perturbated by a change of inertial frame (any medium in relative motion) and the energy will be conserved by sending the signal on as new waves, travelling at 'c' (or cn if different) with respect to the new medium.
This is fundamental, and something Lorentz and Einstein didn't notice or consider the implications of when considering a solution to CSL.
There are both quntum and classic proofs, simply;
Electrons at the edge of a new medium (including of the same n but in relative motion) absorb photons and re emit them into the new medium at the new 'c' of the electron.
or; As the Ewald-Oseen Extinction Theorum proves, (if you like integro- differential equations!) waves propagate into a new medium (in relative motion) at 'c' wrt the new medium.
All logic and experimental evidence from Sagnac and Fizeau to Wang confirms the results of these processes, explaining not only duality but CSL, within the postulates of the STR but also using a simple quantum mechanism.
Signs of intelligent life are ethereal and purely relative. Is everyone still too limited in mental dexterity or steeped in preconception to be able to understand it and see the consequences? I still have great hopes of you Georgina.
Best regards
Peter
(PS. I hope you find it as simple as it is, but not too naieve).
report post as inappropriate
Hi Georgina
Have you researched Ewald-Oseen Extinction? A nice Silberstein link I've just posted elsewhere for Jason is http://www.wbabin. net/historical/ silberstein2. pdf> recent Eclipse Results and Stokes-Planck Aether
I hope you're still about here as I do like the way you think.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Have you researched Ewald-Oseen Extinction? A nice Silberstein link I've just posted elsewhere for Jason is http://www.wbabin. net/historical/ silberstein2. pdf> recent Eclipse Results and Stokes-Planck Aether
I hope you're still about here as I do like the way you think.
Peter
report post as inappropriate
Add a New Post