Strange behavior of quantum particles may indicate the existence of other parallel universes

June 3, 2015 by John Davis
Strange behavior of quantum particles may indicate the existence of other parallel universes

It started about five years ago with a practical chemistry question.

Little did Bill Poirier realize as he delved into the of complex molecules that he would fall down the rabbit hole to discover evidence of other parallel worlds that might well be poking through into our own, showing up at the quantum level.

The Texas Tech University professor of chemistry and biochemistry said that quantum mechanics is a strange realm of reality. Particles at this atomic and subatomic level can appear to be in two places at once. Because the activity of these particles is so iffy, scientists can only describe what's happening mathematically by "drawing" the tiny landscape as a wave of probability.

Chemists like Poirier draw these landscapes to better understand chemical reactions. Despite the "uncertainty" of particle location, quantum wave mechanics allows scientists to make precise predictions. The rules for doing so are well established. At least, they were until Poirier's recent "eureka" moment when he found a completely new way to draw quantum landscapes. Instead of waves, his medium became parallel universes.

Though his theory, called "Many Interacting Worlds," sounds like science fiction, it holds up mathematically.

Originally published in 2010, it has led to a number of invited presentations, peer-reviewed journal articles and a recent invited commentary in the premier physics journal Physical Review.

"This has gotten a lot of attention in the foundational mechanics community as well as the popular press," Poirier said. "At a symposium in Vienna in 2013, standing five feet away from a famous Nobel Laureate in physics, I gave my presentation on this work fully expecting criticism. I was surprised when I received none. Also, I was happy to see that I didn't have anything obviously wrong with my mathematics."

In his theory, Poirier postulates that small particles from many worlds seep through to interact with our own, and their interaction accounts for the strange phenomena of quantum mechanics. Such phenomena include particles that seem to be in more than one place at a time, or to communicate with each other over great distances without explanations.

There is no fuzziness in his theory. Particles do occupy well-defined positions in any given world. However, these positions vary from world to world, explaining why they appear to be in several places at once. Likewise, quantum communication of faraway particles – something Albert Einstein called "spooky action at a distance" – is actually due to interaction of nearby worlds.

Waving goodbye?

Many Interacting Worlds theory doesn't prove that the quantum wave does not exist, or that many worlds do exist, Poirier said. The standard wave theory is perfectly fine in most respects, providing agreement with experiment, for example.

"Our theory, though based on different mathematics, makes exactly the same experimental predictions," he said.

"So what we have done is to open the possibility that the quantum wave may not exist. It now has only as much right to that claim as do many interacting worlds – no more and no less. This may be as definitive a statement as one can hope to make about a subject that has confounded the best minds of physics for a hundred years and still continues to generate controversy."

At this nanoscopic scale, particles don't act like larger objects, whose position over time is well defined, such as an airplane or an apple falling from a tree.

Strange behavior of quantum particles may indicate the existence of other parallel universes
A and B are two "entangled" quantum particles. A measurement of particle A correlates instantly with a measurement of faraway particle B, which seems to violate relativity. (How can A get a signal to B faster than the speed of light?) MIW describes this as follows. The two black discs represent particles A and B in our world. There is also a neighboring world in which A and B also exist, but at slightly displaced positions (the open, dashed circles). The two worlds interact because they are close to each other, even though the two particles are far apart.

Instead, particles sometimes behave as fixed particles, and other times behave more like waves. Even weirder than this: when scientists look at a quantum particle, it behaves like a particle. When they're not looking, it suddenly starts acting like a wave.

Even Albert Einstein is said to have disagreed with the quantum idea that particles could exist in an approximate possible location or possibly more than one location at a time rather than just one place.

"I like to think the moon is there, even if I am not looking at it," Einstein famously said on the topic.

Scientists dissect and disagree to this day as to exactly what's happening on this tiny scale. Although they may not know for sure what's happening, they do at least know how to predict the wave-like behavior of the quantum particle when it's not being observed.

For this, they use the Schrödinger Equation, a mathematical description invented in the '20s that describes how these crazy particles move as a wave over time.

At least, they did until Poirier took another look at the wave and upended established .

Some physicists can make much about the philosophy of quantum mechanics, Poirier said. For a chemist such as himself, however, he is less interested in the philosophy and more interested in solving Schrödinger's quantum wave equation to help him understand chemical reactions.

"In physical chemistry, we are interested in solving problems involving large, complex molecules as accurately as we can," he said. "We're looking for the reaction rate for a chemical reaction, the allowed quantum states of a molecule and the spectral 'fingerprint' that a molecule emits or absorbs when we shine a light on it. … There is a paradox here. To answer these kinds of questions accurately requires quantum mechanics, but solving quantum mechanics problems for large systems (more than three bodies) is extraordinarily difficult."

Chemists use traditional grid-based methods for solving the quantum wave equation. However, the more complex the molecule, the more complex the computations become. With each atom added to the molecule, about 10,000 times more additional computational effort is needed, he said.

To ease the computational burden, chemists borrowed an idea from engineers to allow the grid points to move like a liquid and "flow" with the quantum wave. Once moving, the grid points trace out trajectories, much like a baseball. While engineers use the technique to model fluid flow, chemists use it to help calculate the motion of the quantum wave –hence the term 'quantum hydrodynamics.'

At a certain point, Poirier wondered what would happen if you left the wave computations out and just worked with the quantum trajectories and if the simpler numerical simulation still would be valid.

"My key insight was to realize that all you really need are the moving quantum trajectories themselves," he said.

"The quantum wave is not actually needed to tell your trajectories how to move. The trajectories tell themselves how to move. Moreover, you don't need the wave for anything else either. Any scientific question that might be answered by knowing the motion of the wave can also be answered just as easily by knowing the motion of the trajectories alone. So the wave becomes completely extraneous and can be discarded altogether."

Window Into Wonderland

The concept of many quantum worlds isn't quite new. In the '50s, a graduate student at Princeton University named Hugh Everett III had a similar explanation to account for the strangeness of quantum mechanics.

Poirier said Everett Many Worlds theory is based on the standard quantum wave mathematics, so it is not clear where the worlds actually come from or how they're defined. Critics disagree with the theory for this reason and because the universes fork into countless more each time scientists, say, take a measurement.

In Poirier's Many Interacting Worlds approach, these worlds are built into the mathematics right from the start, so scientists don't have to do anything special to define them. It works, he said, because wave-based mathematics aren't used. Worlds never fork or merge the way Everett's worlds do, and Poirier's worlds interact with each other. Everett's do not.

"The Many Interacting Worlds theory works more like a flock of birds than an infinitely branching tree," he said.

Poirier compared figuring out quantum mechanics without the to putting up scaffolding, building a structure inside and then realizing you just needed the scaffolding. From a practical point of view, fewer mathematical moving parts mean greater simplicity.

It also posed interesting questions about the physics philosophy on the wave and what it means if you don't need it, he said. Quantum trajectories may be more than just a computational tool. They actually may explain what is going on at the quantum level.

"People have argued for a long time about what the wave function means philosophically and how it should be interpreted," he said. "Now we suddenly realized that this may be entirely the wrong way to frame the argument. The more fundamental question should be, 'Does the wave function even exist, and if not, what takes its place?' At present, we cannot say definitively that the wave function does not exist. Only that its existence is not necessary, because we've found another mathematical method that provides all the same information. So, what does this new mathematics have to say about what takes the place of the wave function? What emerges from the math are parallel universes."

Poirier explained that in the classical physical world where humans operate, everything is in a definite state with respect to velocity and position. Think airplanes and apples falling out of trees. We can calculate where those things are and where they're going.

In quantum mechanics, scientists have to give that up. They can know where particles are or where they're going. Not both. The classical trajectory, with its well-defined particle attributes, has been replaced with the quantum probability wave that spreads out across many simultaneous possibilities.

However, by describing quantum realities using quantum trajectories alone, at least some of the old classical notions can be restored, Poirier said. According to this picture, quantum particles really do have well-defined attributes and follow definite quantum trajectories.

The catch is that one has to have many interacting worlds. In fact, quantum behavior itself may be regarded as evidence of definite from alternate universes poking through into our own, causing this blurry picture at the quantum scale.

"That's the most radical and interesting part of this approach," he said. "Assuming that reality is now described by many trajectories instead of a wave, we have to ask what these trajectories really mean, physically. The only sensible interpretation is to think of each trajectory as representing a different world. In each world, nothing is wave-like or indefinite. Everything is sharp and well-defined. But there are now multiple worlds. The variation across these worlds is where quantum uncertainty or 'fuzziness,' together with all other quantum behavior, actually comes from."

The apparent fuzziness of particle positions may be regarded as a manifestation of an inter-world interaction. Poirier says that while the wave equation still works, scientists can no longer say that it more naturally explains what's going on at the quantum scale than the idea of many alternate universes interacting together at the quantum scale.

Both are equally valid ways of interpreting reality that are consistent with current experiments.

As for describing what might be happening right now in other parallel universes, Poirier said that would be pure speculation.

"We don't have proof that an alternate me or you might be president," he said. "I can't say whether those worlds exist or not. According to the theory, the only worlds we can directly interact with are so close to our own world that we hardly can tell them apart, except at the scale. So that might be a little bit boring for people who like to think in terms of science fiction. On the other hand, that doesn't rule out the possibility that there are indeed more distant worlds macroscopically different from our own where you and I are living out any number of counterfactual existences. We don't have any direct evidence for that. But then again, nor should we, according to the theory, even if such worlds do exist."

Explore further: Many Interacting Worlds theory: Scientists propose existence and interaction of parallel worlds

Related Stories

Experiment confirms quantum theory weirdness

May 27, 2015

The bizarre nature of reality as laid out by quantum theory has survived another test, with scientists performing a famous experiment and proving that reality does not exist until it is measured.

How spacetime is built by quantum entanglement

May 27, 2015

A collaboration of physicists and a mathematician has made a significant step toward unifying general relativity and quantum mechanics by explaining how spacetime emerges from quantum entanglement in a more fundamental theory. ...

Could classical theory be just as weird as quantum theory?

February 23, 2015

Quantum mechanics is often described as "weird" and "strange" because it abandons many of the intuitive traits of classical physics. For example, the ideas that the world is objective, is deterministic, and exists independent ...

Recommended for you

Probe for nanofibers has atom-scale sensitivity

January 20, 2017

Optical fibers are the backbone of modern communications, shuttling information from A to B through thin glass filaments as pulses of light. They are used extensively in telecommunications, allowing information to travel ...

Magnetic recording with light and no heat on garnet

January 19, 2017

A strong, short light pulse can record data on a magnetic layer of yttrium iron garnet doped with Co-ions. This was discovered by researchers from Radboud University in the Netherlands and Bialystok University in Poland. ...

86 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

nevermark
5 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2015
The parallel/many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics keeps getting attention, with slightly different formulations shedding different kinds of light.

The metaphysical fuss over whether particles are "real" or not before being "observed", what mystery mechanism "collapses" "probability waves", and most other sketchy concepts (none of these concepts have a concrete mathematical or scientific definition) used to interpret quantum mechanics go away if the equations are simply interpreted as they stand, which is that many versions of each particle interact.

...
arom
Jun 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
nevermark
5 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2015
...

There is no action at a distance if two electrons with opposite spin are sent in two directions. Instead of the measured spin of one being magically determining the spin of the opposite electron, there were two elections shot in each direction with each in the same universe as the opposite election with the opposite spin. When you measure one electron you are not suddenly have an effect on the other, you are simply finding out which pair of electrons are in your universe.

Chaining the interaction, your measurement actually involves two versions of you, one in the universe with one pair of elections, the other in the universe with the other pair.

...
nevermark
5 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2015
...
The mystical wave probabilities go away and become normal probabilities. The mysterious mechanism for "wave collapse" is gone. The only disadvantage in the straightforward interpretation of QM equations is the implication that the universe does not consist of a single chain of events, but of many versions interacting.

But the idea of a universe that is not a unique chain of events is as likely to go away as all the other illusions based on the natural but flawed idea that what our senses directly "see" is all there is: Earth as the center of the solar system, life as having some special force, our galaxy being unique, time as having one perspective, etc.
marcush
5 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
So is there any conceivable experiment that could help decide which interpretation is more likely?

Even if not, from a layman's perspective at least, the many worlds interpretation seems more intuitive. If truly these interpretations are on equal footing then I would suggest the many worlds idea should get more attention than it has so far.
Doug_Huffman
2.6 / 5 (9) Jun 03, 2015
The Standard Models of particle physics and of cosmology are not falsifiable. The MWI is just another Turtles All The Way Down explanation.
marcush
not rated yet Jun 03, 2015
I've heard this particular version of the idea does not require the continuous creation of new universes. But how could this be avoided if, due to chaos, even very close universes diverge eventually? I don't see how the properties of quantum mechanics could stay constant.
EyeNStein
not rated yet Jun 03, 2015
The language used implies that they are not "Many worlds" at all, but just hidden facets of our own, or hidden dimensions of our own world.

"Many worlds" implies independent existence, their language used implies related but inaccessible existence. This language paradox confuses the issue.
EyeNStein
5 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2015
But at least they are not saying I create a new universe every time I toss a coin.
docile
Jun 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
docile
Jun 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
del2
not rated yet Jun 03, 2015
they use the Schrödinger Equation, a mathematical description invented in the '20s that describes how these crazy particles move as a wave over time

The original Schrödinger equation was time-independent; it described stationary states only, not moving particles, crazy or otherwise.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2015
If one tries to force a physical theory to say more than it can, they will enter directly into metaphysics. The most rational (literally) interpretation of the 'strangeness' of QM, is an epistemological one,... the Copenhagen Interpretation,.... i.e. the wave-function is a mathematical construct, not a physical entity of itself,... it collapses in the von Neumann sense, ... wave, location / partical are concepts that we add, not discover... the Born rule,.. etc
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2015
The metaphysical fuss [.....] used to interpret quantum mechanics go away if the equations are simply interpreted as they stand, which is that many versions of each particle interact


Your statement is absurd because it ignores the obvious elephant in the room,,.... That the many worlds notion IS metaphysics,..... which is to say if taken as literally indicative of other universes. If not taken literally but rather as simply a mathematical procedure, then it is redundant, and only gets rid of wave-function collapse at the expense of adding more questions.

There is no observable basis for thinking the wavefunction represents a physical wave, therefore the added procedure, over and above the Scrodinger equation, of collapse, is a non-problem as it can be attributed to projecting the underlying reality into the conceptual framework (hilbert basis) implied by the experimental arrangement.

But metaphysical statements sells books better.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2015
.....if the equations are simply interpreted as they stand


But that is NOT what was done. It IS what was done in the Copenhagen Interpretation. Everette, drunk on 'a slosh of cherry', added a layer (of metaphysics) to the equations purely on the basis of not being 'intuitively satisfied' with the 'explanation' given by QM. The Bohm pilot wave, also adds another layer, a unobservable physical wave. The error is in expecting an 'intuitive explanation' of independent reality at the QM scale.
docile
Jun 03, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
Your statement is absurd because it ignores the obvious elephant in the room,,.... That the many worlds notion IS metaphysics,..... which is to say if taken as literally indicative of other universes
No, the theory claims that we can discern info about these other universes by observing particles in this one. Your def of the metaphysical nether realm says that NO info can be gleaned from it.

You contradict yourself.

Of course you will provide a big bowl of spaghetti to try to prove that this is factually incorrect or similar but otherwise different.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2015
Your statement is absurd because it ignores the obvious elephant in the room,,.... That the many worlds notion IS metaphysics,..... which is to say if taken as literally indicative of other universes
No, the theory claims that we can discern info about these other universes by observing particles in this one.


You're factually incorrect. The theory, QM, ( QFT), makes no statements about other universes. That, statements about other universes, requires an extra layer of interpretation of the theory. Mathematically and experimentally the various interpretations all predict the same results. The above article even admits this fact.

"The standard wave theory is perfectly fine in most respects, providing agreement with experiment, for example.
Our theory, though based on different mathematics, makes exactly the same experimental predictions"
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (4) Jun 03, 2015
You say
That the many worlds notion IS metaphysics
-but the article says

"The apparent fuzziness of particle positions may be regarded as a manifestation of an inter-world interaction"

-Lots of things we can discern from THIS specific theory about these other worlds. Through experiment we can understand how other-worldly particles affect particles in this world, for one. We can also discern that these other worlds exist, something you cant do with your version of metaphysics.

This is info transfer.
gkam
3 / 5 (6) Jun 03, 2015
Oh, boy, Noum versus "otto". A zealot against a nothing.

Go at 'em!

Or is it "Bring 'em on!"??
Noumenon
not rated yet Jun 03, 2015
Lots of things we can discern from THIS specific theory about these other worlds. Through experiment we can understand how other-worldly particles affect particles in this world, for one. We can also discern that these other worlds exist, ...


Factually incorrect. By it's very nature "other worlds" are unobservable and thus are metaphysical. There has never been an QM experiment or otherwise that has demonstrated that 'other worlds' exist,... as the bare experimental results are independent of such interpretations and metaphysical speculation. If there was a quantifiable physical effect in reach of experiment, then de facto, it would be of THIS universe.

something you cant do with your version of metaphysics.

I don't propose metaphysics, quite the opposite.
Noumenon
not rated yet Jun 03, 2015
"We don't have proof that an alternate me or you might be president," he said. "I can't say whether those worlds exist or not. [.....] We don't have any direct evidence for that. But then again, nor should we, according to the theory, even if such worlds do exist."
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Jun 03, 2015
Factually incorrect. By it's very nature "other worlds" are unobservable and thus are metaphysical
As usual you didnt read the article and you didnt read my post. The theory in the article describes ways in which these other worlds interact with this one.

We can study these interactions and begin to understand what these other universes are about.

"We don't have any direct evidence for that"

-Yet. We dont have direct evidence YET because the theory is in its infancy and hasnt been explored experimentally. But it predicts interactions and thus we can know things about these other worlds.

You are still stuck on older theories which reinforce your lyrical views of reality.

Time to update your paradigm, if thats possible.

I doubt it.
cantdrive85
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 03, 2015
Strange behavior of quantum particles may indicate the existence of other parallel universes


It only suggests the standard theory's explanation and interpretation are critically wrong. But what else would you expect from pseudoscientific metaphysical mumbo jumbo?
Returners
3 / 5 (2) Jun 03, 2015
In fact, quantum behavior itself may be regarded as evidence of definite particles from alternate universes poking through into our own, causing this blurry picture at the quantum scale.


If you kidnap your other self's son, like Walter Bishop, and raise him as your own it is still a crime.

big_hairy_jimbo
1 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2015
Well I'll through in my own 2 cents and suggest dark matter is also a protrusion from other worlds into ours. No evidence other than the idea of dark matter itself.

As for one of the early posts in this thread from nevermark regarding two electrons of opposite spin you should look at Bell's theorem.
DonGateley
not rated yet Jun 03, 2015
Sounds like a reinvention of Feynman's path-integral/sum-over-histories derivation of QM. Not that that's a bad thing if true.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jun 03, 2015
"Our theory, though based on different mathematics, makes exactly the same experimental predictions,"

If it's really the same prediction in all cases then the two should be mathematically equivalent (i.e. can bet transformed int one another). In which case the easier formulation should be used.

In that case it also doesn't really matter whether one calls it a wave or a multi-world effect. The labels would be interchangeable.

But hopefully the two do NOT correspond fully to one another so some sort of test can be devised to check if there's actually multiple worlds (or a wave). That would be very interesting to know.
luke_w_bradley
not rated yet Jun 04, 2015
"Our theory, though based on different mathematics, makes exactly the same experimental predictions,"

If it's really the same prediction in all cases then the two should be mathematically equivalent (i.e. can bet transformed int one another). In which case the easier formulation should be used....

It doesn't have to be though. Its interesting to me to see a theory where the observer plays such a central role, where so little attention is given to the human mind in the process of working with the theory. If a different interpretation causes just one scientist to think of a problem in a different way that leads to a new solution, its worth it, even if the underlying math remains exactly the same.
DonGateley
not rated yet Jun 04, 2015
"Our theory, though based on different mathematics, makes exactly the same experimental predictions,"

If it's really the same prediction in all cases then the two should be mathematically equivalent (i.e. can bet transformed int one another). In which case the easier formulation should be used....

... If a different interpretation causes just one scientist to think of a problem in a different way that leads to a new solution, its worth it, even if the underlying math remains exactly the same.


Feynman explicitly pointed that out in his first presentation of the path integral, "Space-Time Approach to Non-Relativistic Quantum Mechanics." (FWIW, the math involved in getting answers isn't the same but equivalence can be demonstrated nonetheless and he does so.)
FineStructureConstant
5 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2015
@cd -
It only suggests the standard theory's explanation and interpretation are critically wrong. But what else would you expect from pseudoscientific metaphysical mumbo jumbo?
- Bring something constructive to the discussion, or STFU.
Noumenon
not rated yet Jun 04, 2015
Factually incorrect. By it's very nature "other worlds" are unobservable and thus are metaphysical

The theory in the article describes ways in which these other worlds interact with this one.[.....] it predicts interactions and thus we can know things about these other worlds.


The above theory says nothing of the kind. In fact it plainly admits the exact opposite,.... and I quote again,...

"We don't have any direct evidence for [parallel universes]. But then again, NOR SHOULD WE, according to the theory, EVEN IF such worlds do exist."

IOW, what they are presenting is a hypothesis that 1) is a-priori to and in addition to the theory of QM, a [metaphysical by definition] interpretation, and 2) by their own admittance, is not amendable to experimental verification.

As usual you didnt read the article and you didnt read my post.

I've been quoting the article.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2015
.... as I mentioned above, any quantifiable empirical effect observabe in THIS universe can in principal be explained by theories that make reference only to THIS universe,... for example in the worst case by adding a term to present theory as was done in GR with the cosmological constant (see ΛCDM model),... or in thories that propose that the physical-laws themselves evolve in time. In fact, if science is to remain distinct from metaphysics, this condition must be met.

Ironically given Otto's endless diatribes against them, Otto is doing what the Theists do,.... presuming a-priori a metaphysical entity to sooth and protect his sensibilities against the scary unknown.
FainAvis
not rated yet Jun 04, 2015
In that other world are there fairies at the bottom of the garden? Is Father Christmas a Jehovah's Witness monk? There are so many possibilities to consider. I am quite confused.
Andrew Palfreyman
5 / 5 (1) Jun 04, 2015
If in doubt, add dimensions. That's such a lazy way to theorise.
travisr
not rated yet Jun 04, 2015
In the multi-verse there would be no discernible difference between our universe and the next. Rather we are a creature which is coherent between some integral of points over a hyper-dimensional structure (11D seems popular). Which is roughly what this paper says. So people call it metaphysical, but metaphysical shapes the questions. Questions shape the answer.

I wonder how many real discoveries "Sci Fi" is responsible for?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2015
Let's start with this:

""People have argued for a long time about what the wave function means philosophically and how it should be interpreted," he said. "Now we suddenly realized that this may be entirely the wrong way to frame the argument."

-This indicates a paradigm shift, a break with old theories. You ok with that?

"Strange behavior of quantum particles may indicate the existence of other parallel universes"

-An indication that these worlds exist is evidence that comes from them. Transfer of info. As indicated here:

"The catch is that one has to have many interacting worlds. In fact, quantum behavior itself may be regarded as evidence of definite particles from alternate universes poking through into our own"

-And:

"According to the theory, the only worlds we can directly interact with are so close to our own world"

-'Directly interacting with' is INFO EXCHANGE. Meaning, we can in theory discern characteristics by experiment.

But we don't have to.
Noumenon
not rated yet Jun 04, 2015
In the multi-verse there would be no discernible difference between our universe and the next. Rather we are a creature which is coherent between some integral of points over a hyper-dimensional structure (11D seems popular). Which is roughly what this paper says. So people call it metaphysical, but metaphysical shapes the questions. Questions shape the answer.


Good point, but I don't have issue if its just that, a hyper-dimensional mathematical structure,... as that is already the case, for example in Hilbert space, especially for multiple particles. It's the talk of actual "parallel universes" that is the unfounded metaphysical baggage.
docile
Jun 04, 2015
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
gkam
5 / 5 (1) Jun 04, 2015
The other six or seven dimensions in this quantum reality are alleged to be very small and near ours. Perhaps the dimensions are not small, but our points of connection are, and too small for anything but quanta to traverse. Go through that tiny opening, and you will be in other dimensions.

Is Dark Energy just the leaking gravitation from those extra dimensions?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1 / 5 (3) Jun 04, 2015
as I mentioned above, any quantifiable empirical effect observabe in THIS universe can in principal be explained by theories that make reference only to THIS universe,...
Thats not really what he's saying. He's saying that the quantum effects presently observed are identical. But if the explanation involves his version of many worlds, which interact with this one, either new interpretations of existing data may give concrete indications that these worlds exist, or that experiments can be devised which explore aspects of QM phenomena we haven't looked at yet, which tell us things about these worlds.
otto is doing what the theists do
Im not the one who is hanging on to the clearly religion-derived notion that only god can know a thing in its entirety.

Doing away with the wave aspect of a particle brings us closer to knowing ALL.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Jun 04, 2015
as I mentioned above, any quantifiable empirical effect observabe in THIS universe can in principal be explained by theories that make reference only to THIS universe,..

Thats not really what he's saying.


I know, it's what I'm saying. IOW, if it's possible to formulate a theory which only makes reference to THIS world, .....and it is always possible as I pointed out,.. then it renders reference to other non-observable worlds pointless, except for metaphysical or "realist" motivation.
Noumenon
5 / 5 (1) Jun 04, 2015
Ironically given Otto's endless diatribes against them, Otto is doing what the Theists do,.... presuming a-priori a metaphysical entity to sooth and protect his sensibilities against the scary unknown.

Im not the one who is hanging on to the clearly religion-derived notion that only god can know a thing in its entirety.


Actually, no theist has ever been so ambitious as to exponentially multiply metaphysical realities as the MWI proposes,... that at each QM interaction the superposition of all possibilities would be realized in parallel worlds.

And btw, I'm an agnostic (or atheist), so I have not mentioned god wrt the noumenon/phenomenon distinction, if that is what you're referring to.
pepe2907
not rated yet Jun 04, 2015
Or it all may be happening because of the pink unicorn...
gkam
not rated yet Jun 04, 2015
As I opined before, perhaps Dark Energy or the pull of Dark Matter is from extradimensional gravitation.

The other six or seven dimensions in this quantum reality are alleged to be very small and near ours. Perhaps the dimensions are not small, but our points of connection are, and too small for anything but quanta to traverse. Go through that tiny opening, and you will be in other dimensions.

It has been theorized before that gravity may be relatively weak as a force because it "leaks" into other dimensions.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2015
they can admit openly, that our theories have their limits - but this is just, what the existing generation of formal physicists doesn't want to admit
@ZEPHIR
except that you are dead wrong and MOST physicists openly admit that there are limits, and even during explanations of string theory or any multiverse theory they state this caveat
Heck, even in the ARTICLE above they point this out!
At present, we cannot say definitively that the wave function does not exist. Only that its existence is not necessary, because we've found another mathematical method that provides all the same information
&
We don't have any direct evidence for that. But then again, nor should we
they admit right there that there are limitations to the physics

zeph
if you are going to comment on an article, at least READ IT first, eh?
all you are doing is spreading a LIE based upon your own personal religious like belief in something proven false by science
viko_mx
1 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2015
The whole visible universe is adjusted so that it resonates with the faith and morals of the people on planet Earth. When morale is declining and people do not follow God's moral law and principles, the universe more clearly gives it signs and demonstrates decay of matter and supremacy of the spirit.
Knowledge is available for those who can use it responsibly. Therefore, the quantum world is so closed for research. He keeps his secrets because we know that every new technology is used first for military purposes. How will you let people to gain deep knowledge for fundament of our world and universe with such self destructive attitudes as selfishness and vanity.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2015
The whole visible universe is adjusted so that it resonates with the faith and morals of the people on planet Earth. When morale is declining and people do not follow God's moral law and principles, the universe more clearly gives it signs and demonstrates decay of matter and supremacy of the spirit.
Knowledge is available for those who can use it responsibly. Therefore, the quantum world is so closed for research. He keeps his secrets because we know that every new technology is used first for military purposes. How will you let people to gain deep knowledge for fundament of our world and universe with such self destructive attitudes as selfishness and vanity.

Take your imaginary friend nonsense rants to a religious site. That crap you just spewed is nothing more than you trying to make reality fit your young earth creationist worldview.this is a science site!
theon
5 / 5 (1) Jun 06, 2015
Hopeless. I was also a few meters away from the speaker in the Vienna symposium, remaining silent, for good reasons. The wave function is a construct that we use to describe the probabilistic properties of the system. "Going with the wave" is some probabilistic statement, that need not be wrong, but should not be interpreted much. No realism involved unless measurements are performed. Parallel universe hint only at parallel dreaming, perhaps parallel babbling. Bell's theorem is based a trivial error, (leaving out the apparatus, and when including it, doing it wrong), it is long ruled out for physics. Sigh. How the founding father of quantum mechanics would have hated this. Nothingness has no borders.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2015
@jsdarkdestruction

I guess your nickname suggests your mental attitudes. Once you like the darkness, there is no way to feel comfortable at the light. People who do not shine with professional or personal qualities among others are trying to compensate this with external signal signs.

It is not insulting to call me christian.
gkam
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2015
viko, this is a science site.

Please take your superstitions elsewhere, perhaps to a televangelist site.

Reverend Pat will tell you why New York got Sandy and New Orleans got Katrina, . . but he doesn't tell us why god inflicts all of the world's deadliest tornadoes on the Bible Belt.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2015
"viko, this is a science site. "

I talk constantly about science. If science wants to be adequate to the reality should not be trying to deny the only one reason for our existance and separate iself from Creation event as the consequence can not be separated from the cause.
gkam
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2015
viko, please take your stuff to the "creation event" sites. You are doing your cause no good here.

Thanks.
nigel_reading
not rated yet Jun 06, 2015
Perhaps this also implies a self-organised critical, edge of chaos, dynamical systems universality multiverse? Quantum criticality might hint at this relationship.
Image the chaotic bands of the Feigenbaum diagram and infinite boundary of the Mandelbrot set, with its paradoxically finite area and varied copies of the original.
Each parallel world might have an identity along such a Cantorian landscape.
#Asynsis #DaoOfDesign on #TED at #TEDxWanchai #HongKong. 

A New, Extremely Lean, Mean (#Design) #TheoryOfEverything
http://tedxtalks....0Reading
http://asynsis.st...ves/4017
http://about.me/asynsis
An alternative is ER=EPR, but perhaps they can be reconciled with MIW?
Some further speculations and news here:
https://www.faceb...66558282
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2015
I talk constantly about science
@viko
no, you don't
you interrupt science threads with religion

you have YET to justify your belief or promote ANY science here

and before you start with your creationist bull-malarky, even the court system can see there is NO science in creationist dogma

https://en.wikipe...Arkansas

the only one reason for our existance
but this "reason for existence" is only in YOUR religion
older and more established religions have different reasons and creators, which, by default, means that your religion is false

older religions are not plagiarized, either, like your xtianity has been proven to have done by stealing monotheistic and flood myths from egypt

but even beyond that... there is STILL no credibility in the bible over science

even with you and Zephir's sock army, you are still TROLLING
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2015
viko, please take your stuff to the "creation event" sites. You are doing your cause no good here.

Thanks.


If you adhere to the Big Bang, then you believe in a creation event. You should get over yourself.

"I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaître first proposed this [Big Bang] theory. ... There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time. .... It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago." Alfven
kochevnik
3 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2015
Yes the Big Bang presupposes nothingness, from which religionsists equate everything with nothing and declare all reason invalid
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (3) Jun 07, 2015
@jsdarkdestruction

I guess your nickname suggests your mental attitudes. Once you like the darkness, there is no way to feel comfortable at the light. People who do not shine with professional or personal qualities among others are trying to compensate this with external signal signs.

It is not insulting to call me christian.

It is the destruction of darkness that I mean with my screen name. I want to bring light to the darkness as much as I can.
I'm perfectly at home in the light. I have a clean conscience because I live my life completely morally treating all others how id like to be treated.
I didn't call you a christian. I said young earth creationist. Despite your constant attempts to make it seem like all Christians believe what you do the vast majority do not. I have no issues with religion and religious people besides the ones who come on science sites and try to inject it into every topic they can who's beliefs cant be changed by evidence at all.
gkam
5 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2015
The real evidence for parallel and strange universes are the comments from some of the less-educated in science.
KBK
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2015
In the words of Ben Rich, the ex-head of Lockheed Martin Skunkworks:

"We already have the means to travel among the stars, but these technologies are locked up in black projects and it would take an act of God to ever get them out to benefit humanity" (statement made after UCLA presentation to three Disclosure Project witnesses)

"There is an error in the equations, and we have figured it out, and now know how to travel to the stars, and it won't take a lifetime to do it" (UCLA School of Engineering Alumni speech 3/23/93)

Every day, the screeching about these being faked lines, fabricated quotes, those shillish voices get smaller and smaller....

However, the BLOWBACK, to and on those who have held this information from humanity... will be...stunningly incalculable.

Note that a story just emerged, that the pentagon has 'lost track of' not $2.2 trillion, but $8.5 trillion. (research it..)

That's a whole lotta black-ops projects/worlds....
gkam
5 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2015
"That's a whole lotta black-ops projects/worlds....
-----------------------------

And massive theft of the Public Purse, in addition.
KBK
1 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2015
For example, the math in this article, that no one, in the face of new revelations about the quantum state of reality..note that no one is arguing with it, and:

...it directly supports the story of 'project looking glass', which was about black ops hardware for 'dimensional probability timeline viewing'.

More nails in the coffin of those who shill that such things are conspiracy theory and crazy loonie-bin stuff.

Not when the science supports it, and the math supports it....and no-one argues with it.

People now are forced to look when the theoretical basis is not argued and derided...but engaged... and then shows itself to stand up and walk and talk...within the scope of other recent reports in science.
gkam
5 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2015
Well, . . let's see it.
EnsignFlandry
5 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2015
The overgrown community of physical theorists faces the phenomena, which their existing theories cannot explain. After then they can have basically two options: they can admit openly, that our theories have their limits - but this is just, what the existing generation of formal physicists doesn't want to admit.


You could not be more wrong. Physicists, cosmologists, and most other scientists readily admit the limits of their sciences and knowledge. They conjecture, but distinguish conjecture from hypothesis. I don't know where you got this idea.
EnsignFlandry
5 / 5 (5) Jun 07, 2015
I think that while the main stream scientists perceive cosmic vacuum as empty space and not as a transmission medium with the structure and certain properties...It seems that these scholars do not seek the truth but abstract theories that feed them while serving another great promise to the audience. The universe is only is only partially knowable and level of knowledge must correspond to the level of spiritual development and requires responsible attitude.

Maybe if these scientists come from the parallel universe in which they intellectually reside and forget about abstractionism, will have more success. Just bad habits and poor hygiene in scientific practice.


Empty space is not empty. Scientists seek knowledge for its own sake, and to apply to human needs. I don't know where you get this nonsense about promises to the audience and level of knowledge and spiritual development. Go learn real science.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (4) Jun 07, 2015
Where is the real sciense in the mythology for cosmic and biological evolution whiich are imposed in indocrination system by consesus although these are not proven? Be more speciific and give examples.
gkam
not rated yet Jun 07, 2015
Genesis?
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2015
Where is the real sciense in the mythology for cosmic and biological evolution whiich are imposed in indocrination system by consesus although these are not proven? Be more speciific and give examples.

What evidence would you find satisfactory? What level of evidence do you require to change your beliefs on evolution and cosmology?

We are still waiting for your scientific evidence proving god exists and created everything in the manner you claim as well. Can you hold your beliefs up to the same candle you try to hold science up to?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jun 08, 2015
they can admit openly, that our theories have their limits

I don't think you understand what being a scientist even means.
A scientist is *by its very definition* someone who admits that our theories aren't perfect. Otherwise there would not be any point in doing science (it would all just be engineering).

Science is the search for knowledge. You cannot search for knowledge without admitting that there is stuff that is, as yet, unknown.

As for proof: There is no proof in science (there is proof in math, but math is an abstract tool).
The natural sciences can merly show which notions are likely (albeit to a very high degree of probability in some cases) and which ones are definitely is wrong. Consensus means nothing. Hard data and good analyses trump everything (consesus is, in science, built on hard data. So if you have a problem with the consensus view then you need to show where the data is wrong)
EnsignFlandry
5 / 5 (1) Jun 08, 2015
...

There is no action at a distance if two electrons with opposite spin are sent in two directions. Instead of the measured spin of one being magically determining the spin of the opposite electron, there were two elections shot in each direction with each in the same universe as the opposite election with the opposite spin. When you measure one electron you are not suddenly have an effect on the other, you are simply finding out which pair of electrons are in your universe. ....


Some of these quantum explanations conflate our knowledge of a system with the state of the system. We don't know whether the cat is dead or alive, buts its one or the other. We don't know until we look inside.
mytwocts
not rated yet Jun 08, 2015
Genesis?

The story in Genesis to me is an attempt to rationalise the world and it contains essential elements of evolution. This is what a 2500 years old evolution theory would look like.
It takes a religious mind to misinterpret the text to such extent as to mean the opposite of what was actually written.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2015
Where is the real sciense in the ...

Define what YOU mean by "real sciense".
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2015
Where is the real sciense in the mythology for cosmic and biological evolution whiich are imposed in indocrination system by consesus although these are not proven? Be more speciific and give examples.
@vikoTROLL
we have, repeatedly

the fact of the matter is simply that there is NO evidence that you will accept because acceptance of said evidence would violate your personal delusion and religious dogma... even if your own personal sky faerie came down and plonked you on the head and told you that physics, medicine and validated studies really are real, you would refuse to acknowledge it because you do NOT serve your FAITH,,, you serve a RELIGION

and as such, you are locked in a downward spiral where the only thing in your world is your fundamentalism

that 'belief" is your defense against knowledge and gives you the "acceptance" you crave, so that even your own creator cannot tell you anything otherwise

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Jun 09, 2015
Genesis?

The story in Genesis to me is an attempt to rationalise the world and it contains essential elements of evolution. This is what a 2500 years old evolution theory would look like.
It takes a religious mind to misinterpret the text to such extent as to mean the opposite of what was actually written.
@mytwocts

not sure i agree but that is a VERY interesting conjecture... it holds more weight than the conjectures given by the creationists like viko, verkle and others, too

THANKS for that insight.
Define what YOU mean by "real sciense".
maybe he is referring to "comnom sesne" , you know.. its like science, but without grammar??
(sarcasm and satire)

dedereu
not rated yet Jun 10, 2015
Since 1927 at the beginning of quantum mechanic this interpretation is written inside the quantum equations, without any thing arbitrary more, that we are in a world of parallel universes, but it was suppressed up to Evereet and the 1980, because it was too much incredible, although it is the only way to explain why at the microscopic level any thing can be at different places or states simultanously (source of all chemical bonding ) and only at one place at the macroscopic level !!
Any molecule is a quantum computer in paralllel worlds !
dedereu
not rated yet Jun 10, 2015
"solving quantum mechanics problems for large systems (more than three to ten bodies) is extraordinarily difficult" and completely impossible with classical computers, because they must follow all the possible histories in superposed states, which give branching of a nearly infinite number of states with their own history to follow.
Microscopic world is infinitively more performing and less accessible, than classical world, to our mind .

dedereu
not rated yet Jun 10, 2015
If there is any small non linearity in the quantum wave equation describing these parallel world, similar to a non linear Schrödinger equation, it happens dramatic disasters, like rogue waves on sea !!!
Thus the quantum equation of thesse parallel worlds is perfectly linear, otherwise our world is destroyed !!
bill_poirier
not rated yet Jun 22, 2015
"The parallel/many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics keeps getting attention, with slightly different formulations shedding different kinds of light."
I agree with this comment by nevermark, although I would say MIW is not a "slightly" different formulation from Everett Many Worlds; it is actually quite different, based on completely different mathematics. In the older, Everett many worlds theory, the "worlds" are not well defined, and they do branch (i.e. new ones are created all the time). In MIW, the worlds DO NOT branch or merge; they exist for all time, and are well-defined always. But I agree that many of the philosophical benefits, as well as problems, of the two many world theories are similar.
bill_poirier
not rated yet Jun 22, 2015
As the subject of this article, and the originator of the many interacting worlds (MIW) interpretation, I will address a few of the many comments made here. A lot of these are similar to comments made elsewhere, so I repost some old responses, together with new ones. Also, my Huffington Post blog explains MIW for a lay audience, and provides additional source materials for a more technical audience.
bill_poirier
not rated yet Jun 22, 2015
"So is there any conceivable experiment that could help decide which interpretation is more likely? Even if not,...the many worlds interpretation seems more intuitive. If truly these interpretations are on equal footing then I would suggest the many worlds idea should get more attention than it has so far." "If a different interpretation causes just one scientist to think of a problem in a different way that leads to a new solution, its worth it, even if the underlying math remains exactly the same." In our earlier MIW, the math is different from, but equivalent to, that of standard wave-based quantum mechanics. This means that the new theory is a real theory, it is not just "made up", though it does offer a different way to interpret existing quantum phenomena. Whether it is more "intuitive" than the wave picture or not, tangible benefits often accrue from new ways of looking at things. All of that said, the newer, relativistic MIW theory may indeed make new empirical predictions.
bill_poirier
not rated yet Jun 22, 2015
"The language used implies that they are not "Many worlds" at all, but just hidden facets of our own, or hidden dimensions of our own world. "Many worlds" implies independent existence, their language used implies related but inaccessible existence. This language paradox confuses the issue."
Point taken, and language is always an issue. For our purposes, different "worlds" are just different configurations/arrangements of the same particles. I don't really think of them is different or hidden dimensions.
bill_poirier
not rated yet Jun 22, 2015
"By it's very nature "other worlds" are unobservable and thus are metaphysical. There has never been an QM experiment or otherwise that has demonstrated that 'other worlds' exist,... as the bare experimental results are independent of such interpretations and metaphysical speculation. If there was a quantifiable physical effect in reach of experiment, then de facto, it would be of THIS universe."
In MIW, quantum effects can be interpreted as the influence of other worlds. But this is an interpretation only; the fact that quantum effects do exist in nature does not prove the existence of many worlds, any more than it proves the existence of a wavefunction. Neither has ever been directly measured or observed, but rather, experiments have been interpreted in terms of these constructs. One thing that is incontrovertible though, is that in any quantum theory, nearby configurations of particles (whether interpreted as "worlds" or different parts of the quantum wave) interact.
bill_poirier
not rated yet Jun 22, 2015
"This is a all just speculation right now."
"The MWI is just another Turtles All The Way Down explanation."
"I think at this point these scientists are trying to get attention by making exotic stuff up."
"If one tries to force a physical theory to say more than it can, they will enter directly into metaphysics...But metaphysical statements sells books better."
It is not just speculation or made up. It is based on completely new mathematics that agrees with the mathematics (Schroedinger equation) of standard wave-based quantum mechanics. And the new mathematics does not rely on waves or complex amplitudes. So regardless of one's philosophical stance, or how one feels about interpreting the new mathematics in many worlds terms (which is by no means a requirement), one can't argue with the conclusion that wavefunctions are (now) no longer necessary for a viable quantum theory.
bill_poirier
not rated yet Jun 22, 2015
"Everette, drunk on 'a slosh of cherry', added a layer (of metaphysics) to the equations purely on the basis of not being 'intuitively satisfied' with the 'explanation' given by QM. The Bohm pilot wave, also adds another layer, a unobservable physical wave. The error is in expecting an 'intuitive explanation' of independent reality at the QM scale."
My understanding is that Everett himself "stripped something away" from the quantum theory (i.e. collapse), and it was really DeWitt and others who later added the metaphysical layer of "many worlds", after the fact. Bohm also adds a new layer to the quantum theory, but in this case it is the quantum trajectory that is added, not the wave (which was already there).
bill_poirier
not rated yet Jun 22, 2015
"I don't have issue if its just that, a hyper-dimensional mathematical structure,... as that is already the case, for example in Hilbert space, especially for multiple particles. It's the talk of actual "parallel universes" that is the unfounded metaphysical baggage."
For sure, the usual Hilbert space treatment already contains the fact that there are multiple configurations of particles that interact in some sense. One sees this much more clearly and directly in our trajectory-based mathematics, which seems to "suggest" a many worlds interpretation. But the latter interpretation is certainly not a necessary consequence of the new mathematics; nor is a wavefunction intepretation a necessary consequence of the old mathematics.
bill_poirier
not rated yet Jun 22, 2015
"Sounds like a reinvention of Feynman's path-integral/sum-over-histories derivation of QM. Not that that's a bad thing if true."
It is actually quite different from FPI. In FPI, one considers all possible paths between two spacetime points, A and B, and then sums over complex-valued amplitudes for each, determined from the classical action. In the MIW approach, there is only one quantum trajectory connecting two spacetime points A and B (for a single particle, anyway), corresponding to the single path that extremizes the quantum action. MIW involves no complex amplitudes at all, and in other respects more closely resembles classical Lagrangian mechanics--except that a quantum action/Lagrangian is used.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.