A Mathematical Answer To the Parallel Universe Question 566
diewlasing writes to mention that Oxford scientists have proffered a mathematical answer to the parallel universe question that is gaining some support in the scientific community. "According to quantum mechanics, unobserved particles are described by 'wave functions' representing a set of multiple 'probable' states. When an observer makes a measurement, the particle then settles down into one of these multiple options. The Oxford team, led by Dr. David Deutsch, showed mathematically that the bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes."
Yes... (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, yeah, I know it only affects physical outcomes. Laugh anyway. It's Monday.
Re:Yes... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yes... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Yes... (Score:5, Funny)
But in Bizarro World he gets ... (Score:2)
"She's got the face of an angel, the heart of a saint
-Three Dead Trolls in a Baggy
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Yes... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yes... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, yeah, I know it only affects physical outcomes. Laugh anyway. It's Monday.
Re: (Score:2)
Not in MY universe.
Re:Yes... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's always a different, random Futurama quote in an X-Fry: or X-Bender: header.
Example:
$ curl -I slashdot.org
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 05:41:42 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.37 (Unix) mod_perl/1.29
SLASH_LOG_DATA: shtml
X-Powered-By: Slash 2.005000175
X-Bender: They're tormenting me with uptempo singing and dancing!
Cache-Control: private
Pragma: private
Vary: User-Agent,Accept-Encoding
Connection: close
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's always a different, random Futurama quote in an X-Fry: or X-Bender: header.
Re:Yes... (Score:5, Funny)
I have no idea. I didn't want to change the outcome of the article by reading it...
Why is this news? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:4, Insightful)
Commenting in New Scientist magazine, Dr Andy Albrecht, a physicist at the University of California at Davis, said: "This work will go down as one of the most important developments in the history of science."
I would image something that is 'one of the most important developments in the history of science' might qualify as news. Don't you think? Even if proven not to be 'one of the most important' it certainly qualifies for recognition based on that possibility, IMHO.
]{
Re:Why is this news? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:4, Informative)
I *am* a physicist, although I don't have Dr. Albrecht's credentials in this area, so he certainly has a more informed opinion than my own. However, based on my knowledge of the subject, the importance of this finding is in fact fairly over-rated. I don't think that it confirms anything unexpected *and* the theory is, as far as I know, not falsifiable. (I've never heard of a test which would differentiate between the Many Worlds view and the competing interpretations.) So you see, showing that you can't rule Many Worlds out is important, but it does strike me as really revolutionary.
Re: (Score:2)
But no, it doesn't provide much in the way of actual information, does it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Occam's razor (Score:5, Funny)
So, which is simpler?
(1) Shit happens.
(2) Shit happens. Parallel universes are created.
Re: (Score:2)
(1) "Observation" somehow collapses the wave function and creates reality. Shit happens.
(2) Shit happens. Parallel universes are created.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We're in the only universe, which just happens to be perfectly suited and tuned to our existence.
There's an infinite number of universes, and we're in one where we're possible.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, it is worth pointing out that speculation about a creator merely pushes the question of origins back a level: where did this hypothetical creator and his/her/their universe come from?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Occam's razor (Score:5, Interesting)
(1) Shit happens.
(2) Shit happens. Parallel universes are created.
(1) (Copenhagen) The act of "observing" a particle at some point between the particle, the measuring apparatus, and your mind, somehow magically causes the particle to collapse from a wave state to a fixed one, without any other action on your part. Nobody has ever explained exactly what an observation is (we are, after all, made of particles too) nor when this happens.
(2) (Multiple worlds) Reality consists of particles in quantum waves of superimposed states. Period. When we observe a particles state, it's state becomes entangled with the state of the particles in our mind, and hence we observe the particle as collapsing to a single state "in each world".
I don't know about everybody else, but the fact that all states can exist, yet I can only perceive them separately, is no stranger to me than that all moments of time exist, yet I can only perceive each one separately.
Re:Occam's razor (Score:4, Interesting)
Many people mix those up. Our "mind" doesn't have anything to do with it.
The wave function collapses when a particle interacts with a macrosystem. When two macrosystems are separate from each other, we have to assume the other macrosystem is not coherent with us until contact.
And remember contact *includes* photons reflected off the other macrosystem, so if we see it, otherwise put "observe" it, we're already in contact.
This is why "observation" causes collapse. Not because we're smart.
Truly, what IS new about this??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Are they trying to claim that their mathematical probability tree corresponds to a "real" probability tree? If so, on what basis do they make that claim?
To them, I say: "Show me evidence, and I will believe. Until then, stop bothering me with old idea
Obligatory ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obligatory ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but can it answer the question... (Score:2)
This is confusing (Score:2)
the answer? (Score:3, Funny)
Ummm . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes and no.
Re:Ummm . . . (Score:5, Informative)
The Many-Worlds [wikipedia.org] concept of quantum mechanics was originally presented as an interpretation of the theory. It was viewed by many as being ridiculous, or "non-economical with universes" as the joke goes. Work in fields like quantum decoherence [wikipedia.org] has, over the last few decades, helped to explain how "normal" (classical) states emerge from quantum superpositions. Decoherence, briefly, explains how a superposition of quantum states evolves deterministically (no randomness!) into a discrete set of pseudo-classical states (due to entanglement with the many degrees of freedom available in the "environment"--i.e. the universe at large). This extension to quantum mechanics has been tested experimentally and verified.
The remaining issue in a theory of quantum + decoherence is that the classical states have the right probabilities, but there is still nothing to explain why we observe a particular classical state (photon measured spin-up instead of spin-down). However the (ad-hoc) postulate of wavefunction collapse, no longer being necessary to explain how the probabilities arise, can in fact be entirely removed if we allow that the global superposition never collapses.
Thus, a local observer (e.g. an instrument or a human) perceives a single outcome only because they are a participant in this "global superposition" (the superposition of the entire universe). The wavefunction of the universe as a whole evolves deterministically.
Okay, that was a long-winded preamble, and I still have not answered your question. The answer is that the existence of multiple universes cannot be falsified per se. But, then again, in this formalism Many-Worlds is not an axiom: it is a prediction. Given that it is a prediction of a thoroughly successful theory, we should be compelled to accept the prediction as correct even if we cannot directly test it. We can, at least, test other predictions of the theory. In principle, we can test for superpositions as big as we like (superpositions of entire galaxies, etc.), but we cannot ever test that final prediction: that the universe as a whole is also in a superposition. But, if we've tested the theory in every other way, can we really "throw away" the final prediction about the global superposition?
Now, I know many of you will counter-argue that non-falsifiable predictions are not science, and should be ignored as metaphysics, or even "meaningless." Perhaps. But allow me to draw an analogy: One of the fundamental assumptions of science is that there is such a thing as "physical law." That is, we can extrapolate from one measurement to others. Put otherwise, we accept that the laws of physics are the same here as they are in a distant galaxy. Note that, because of the expansion of the universe and the speed-of-light-limit, there are some regions of the universe that we cannot ever explore (even in principle, assuming our current physics is correct). Thus, the prediction that "the laws of physics are invariant across the universe" is itself unfalsifiable, yet we generally accept it to be true.
Similarly, we need but extend this logic into quantum mechanics, where if assume that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe (and everywhere within the wavefunction of the universe), then we should accept that the global superposition is probably correct: i.e.: Many Worlds "exist" (but are inaccessible to us). I agree that this conclusion is uncomfortable, but it appears inescapable given our current understanding of physics. (Note: As a scientist I'm of course allowing for the possibility of future measurements disproving some part of this logic--this is entirely based on our current understanding.)
As I said, the point I'm trying to make is not obvious. Hopefully I've not muddled it beyond understanding.
Re: (Score:2)
For anyone interested, this argument was made much more clearly than I am able to in a recent Nature review article:
Max Tegmark. "Many lives in many worlds [nature.com]" Nature 448, 23-24 (5 July 2007) | doi:10.1038/448023a [doi.org]; Published online 4 July 2007.
The blurb is:
The article is only available to subscribers, but here are some quotes from the article:
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Short answer: there are constraints and limits.
Long answer:
First off, some of the discussion here is getting confused because people are equating the "many universes" of the Many-Worlds Interpretation with the "parallel realities" espoused by other theories (but, most prominently displayed in sci-fi), where
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. It is an axiom of science as we do it.
Well if you can't believe in God.... (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll feed this troll...
The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics doesn't fit a primary requirement which is that it be falsifiable. We need to be able to do an experiment that would have a different outcome of the hypothesis were true or false. As far as I know, nobody has thought of any such experiment yet. The many world interpretation is a philosophical debate, but not yet a scientific one.
OTOH, dark matter and dark energy demonstrably do exist. There are repeatable experiments that show
Re: (Score:2)
You don't think that scientists are working to figure out a way to detect them? Currently, dark matter and energy are placeholders that people use while they characterize the anomalies that brought the concepts about. If we assume that *something* causes the anomalies, then we can study it until we know enough ab
Re:Well if you can't believe in God.... (Score:5, Funny)
It worked once before. Calculations of the orbit of the planet Uranus were noticeably inaccurate; the planet wasn't quite where it ought to have been. One explanation was that this was the result of the gravitational effect of a large amount of dark matter. This dark matter was later found and named Neptune.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One question... (Score:4, Interesting)
From my perspective, even if this mathematical "proof" is true, it is only true in the ontological sense, i.e. that these branches can happen and maybe do happen, but not in reality. Then again, I believe the entire basis for the universe is ultimately ontological but that's a different matter.
My point is that these alternate "universes" may only exist in infinitesimally-small times (possibly below the Planck time threshold) and then simply cease to exist again as compared with our reality in the next moment, moment after moment.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Raises the question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Because you are in this one. If you were in a different one you would wonder the same thing.
That's the anthropic principle.
Re: (Score:2)
Except in the one where, by an unlikely spontaneous quantum event, the OP's head just exploded.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So maybe underneath, this says something about what time really is.
Re: (Score:2)
It's only *us* experiencing this one.
We're punished for something, I just know it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe since once a quantum "decision" is made, there is no more communication possible between the different states. Our consciousness rides along both paths, but has no way of knowing about the others.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My theory is that we actually ARE experiencing parallel universes. But the pressures of biological evolution have driven us toward brain structures which hide this fact. Maybe we actually ARE spread out across many different possibilities, but our conscious view of reality is as a single whole. Why? Because it made survival easier, perhaps. Or maybe, individuals with parallel awareness inevitably go insane and die out. Who knows.
Sometimes this parallelism "leaks through," in the form of quantum strangenes
Re:Raises the question (Score:5, Interesting)
Briefly, the theory shows (rigorously) how pseudo-classical states are the only ones that are robust against decoherence. Hence, those are the states that tend to persists for measurable periods of time. And those pseudo-classical states are the ones that give rise to other pseudo-classical states.
Moreover the main developer of these ideas (Wojciech Zurek [wikipedia.org]) describes in his papers how what we typically term "memories" are inherently classical states (it's either "a" or "b"--not a superposition of both). He explains how macroscopic states will tend to be pseudo-classical, so of course any biological (macroscopic) creature will evolve to assume that reality is classical (it's an adaptive advantage and a good approximation of reality).
The point is that these larger-scale superpositions do indeed exist, but that local observers (e.g. instruments, or ants, or humans) can inherently only record/remember classical states, not quantum ones. So, our perception of reality (and memory of reality) is inherently a classical one.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You got it 180 degrees out. The answer is the equivalent, but the reverse, of the Anthropic Principle. Every parallel universe also has copies of him asking that same question.
or... (Score:2)
On another note, why are scientists wasting their time with this when Sliders [wikipedia.org] solved this mystery for us over a decade ago?!
circular dependency (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with quantum mechanics interpretation is that as of now, no interpretation exists which is not bizarre in our traditional world view. Parallel universe is just one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, but the parallel universe interpretation HAS to be correct because the mere fact that we think it's possible collapses the quantum waveforms and MAKES it possible - see?
You are arguing about circular references in a circular, ok sorry "quantum", field...?
We Need Space (Score:2)
But where are we putting all of them?
What is the name of the space that contains Universes?
Quit making so may decisions/observations lest we run out of space for all the different outcomes.
Re: (Score:2)
bush-like branching structure ? (Score:2)
1 = 2? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Where is the paper? (Score:4, Interesting)
By the way, Deutsch is a well known physicist, not some crackpot. One of the first problems discovered to be theoretically sped up by a quantum computer is named after him (link [wikipedia.org]).
an old chestnut... (Score:5, Funny)
Great! (Score:2)
Whose up for a game of quantum suicide?
Sliders (Score:2)
idiotic circular logic (Score:3, Insightful)
Or in other words, this science fiction nonsense about parallel worlds, unscientific because it can never be tested or proven, and which was inspired by observations of quantum mechanics, is now supposedly able to explain, guess what, ... quantum mechanics, the very concept that the nonsense was built on in the first place.
The absurd number of parallel universes that would have to be created is mind boggling, since, at the very least, an entire universe would have to be created every single time any atom decayed (one for the universe where that atom happened to decay at that instant, another for the case where that atom didn't happen to decay). Strange that none of the wackos who advocate this, and I use the term very loosely, "theory", bother to expain where all of the mass and energy is coming from for all of these extra universes. Note that we are talking about far more universes than atoms in our own universe. Absolute hogwash.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless, of course, God(s)(ess)(esses) cons
It's not mass, it's information... (Score:5, Insightful)
The mass and energy isn't coming from anywhere, because there's no new particles being created. The particles are the same ones, in all universes, their state is just getting more complex, and each "parallel universe" is just a description of one consistent state of all the particles of the universe over all histories. We only observe the particles as as having measurable (subject to Heisenberg) positions and velocities because we're using other particles to measure what those positions are.
A better question might be "where is the information needed to describe the state of the particle stored". Or to put it another way "how many bits does God's Computer have, and can we hack it?"
Re:idiotic circular logic (Score:4, Interesting)
42 (Score:2)
More links (Score:5, Informative)
http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19526223.700-parallel-universes-make-quantum-sense.html [newscientist.com]
However it is behind a paywall. See Google Groups [google.com] for the whole thing.
There is a great quote by physicist Max Tegmark: "The critique of many worlds is shifting from 'it makes no sense and I hate it' to simply 'I hate it'."
As far as the meat of it, traditionally the Many-Worlds Interpretation has had two technical objections raised. The first is called the basis problem, and the second is deriving correct probabilities. The basis problem is that when the universe "splits" it's not clear how it should split. The math allows for infinite different ways to split, but we only see one way. This has been solved in recent years by the study of decoherence, which in MWI terms is like looking at the splitting process up close. Turns out it can only happen one way in practice. So that one's done.
The article is more about the other one, deriving probabilities. Actually it's easy to derive probabilities in the MWI, but they're wrong. The right probabilities are what is called the Born rule, and it's been hard to get those. David Deutsch came up with a new idea in 1999 where he proposed tying it in to decision theory. He said that we really care about probabilities because they influence how we make decisions about what to do. If we can derive a reasonable decision theory within the MWI, then we've essentially explained probabilities. His work had some shortcomings but subsequent efforts have largely resolved those.
So now for the first time, the two traditional technical problems with the MWI have reasonably good solutions. Hence we are back to, as Tegmark says, "I hate it" as the main objection to the theory. Since that's not really a good argument, it can be said that the MWI should be considered the most compelling candidate for an interpretation of QM.
One final link, here is one of the papers that extends Deutsch's idea about decision theory and pretty much closes the holes: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0312157 [arxiv.org]. It's pretty technical but still a lot more readable than most physics papers.
Standard of evidence is getting low these days (Score:2)
I abhor mathematical proofs of supposedly scientific things. Math is a tool for constructing human thought in meaningful exchanges for other humans to understand. It is, therein, a language and not a scientific form of proof in and of itself.
As just one more language, math suffers the faults that any language can suffer. Just because something makes a working equation does not give it validity. Certainly no more than when a sentence is grammatically correct does that make the sentence a proof of anythi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just look out of your window.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You *can* use "near hit" and I believe the safety industry actually uses the two interchangeably. It might be one of those glass half full or half empty situations.
But it boils down to what it really was. Was it a hit or a miss, and what kind of hit or miss.
Here's how *I* would put it:
Near miss: Objects miss, but it was close.
Near hit: Objects collided in glancing blow.
Distant miss
Re:Parallel Universes conflict with Mind-Body Prob (Score:4, Funny)
Think about the "mind-body problem" Okay ...
I did ... and here's my solution. Basically, there are other branches where life sucks less, and others where life suck more, etc. I'm going to find the one where life sucks less and kill my alter ego so I can take their place!!!!!!!! (Of course, that means that there's ANOTHER me in an even suckier universe gunning for me, so better be quick!)
You'd better watch out - there may be a doppelganger of you looking to do the same thing...
Re:Parallel Universes conflict with Mind-Body Prob (Score:3, Interesting)
Fixed!
Re: (Score:2)
Now, I'm not well-versed enough to say anything substantial about spontaneous particle pairs appearing and fixing things, but I think you really need to consider the possibility that at some point (maybe when you were born, maybe yesterday, maybe tomorrow) life according to the path you've experienced so far will, inevitably, lead to your death. Not "almost surely" (limes
Re:Publication? (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously though, there's no sign of a citation from any of the people running the story (most of which are nearly identical, so they're probably just copying from the same press release), and there's no sign of it on arXiv or from a quick trawl of journal feeds, so it's a very good chance that it's either unpublished work, or a conference paper somewhere. Not surprising, given how many "most significant discoveries in the history of science" turn out to be much less dramatic under the cold hard light of review than when they're first reported.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh really? (Score:3, Informative)
Math can prove that a mathematical system is consistent, and within that system can prove properties that result in that system.
Oh [wikipedia.org] really [wikipedia.org] ? [wikipedia.org]
Re:How does quantum states end up in car accidents (Score:3, Funny)