My theory on how the Multiverse became a universe

Started by mediumaevum, October 09, 2013, 04:18:06 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

mediumaevum

So, you've probably heard of the 'multiverse' theory. It seems likely, as the wierd behavior of quantum mechanics suggests that a particle may be in multiple places at once,
only to have its properties and location etc. localized into one definite state when measured. But before the measurement, Schrödingers "cat" (ie. an electron) is both dead and alive - at once!

This is somewhat how the multiverse theory works: Every possible alternative outcome has its own universe.

So how come we only live in this particular universe? Why THIS universe, why not one of the many other universes?
Why do we experience only this universe, and not the universe where Hitler got shot or won WW2?

I've got an idea, and as crazy it may sound, I need critics to review my conclusion: Our universe is nothing but the product (or result or whatever you like) of the multiverses. That the outcome of our universe is the average of what happened in all the other universes/multiverse.

The particles are localized into their position, because it really isn't there at all, it is jus a holographic picture of the average position of the countless other places it could be.

I know it sounds crazy, it probably is, but as I am no theoretic physicist, I need someone with a better understanding to verify or clarify or both. Please refrain from calling me stupid, like you did in other threads, thank you very much.

FrankDK

>  the outcome of our universe is the average of what happened in all the other universes/multiverse.

You are suggesting that our universe is special, which contradicts both conventional physics and notions of the multiverse.

You experience only this universe because this is the only one you are in.  If the multiverse hypothesis is correct, someone similar to you is experiencing a different universe and wondering why he only experiences that one.  There are infinitely many universes in which you exist in a spectrum of similarity to your existence in this one, from very similar to not existing at all.

Frank

Solitary

Quote from: "mediumaevum"So, you've probably heard of the 'multiverse' theory. It seems likely, as the wierd behavior of quantum mechanics suggests that a particle may be in multiple places at once,
only to have its properties and location etc. localized into one definite state when measured. But before the measurement, Schrödingers "cat" (ie. an electron) is both dead and alive - at once!

This is somewhat how the multiverse theory works: Every possible alternative outcome has its own universe.

So how come we only live in this particular universe? Why THIS universe, why not one of the many other universes?
Why do we experience only this universe, and not the universe where Hitler got shot or won WW2?

I've got an idea, and as crazy it may sound, I need critics to review my conclusion: Our universe is nothing but the product (or result or whatever you like) of the multiverses. That the outcome of our universe is the average of what happened in all the other universes/multiverse.

The particles are localized into their position, because it really isn't there at all, it is jus a holographic picture of the average position of the countless other places it could be.

I know it sounds crazy, it probably is, but as I am no theoretic physicist, I need someone with a better understanding to verify or clarify or both. Please refrain from calling me stupid, like you did in other threads, thank you very much.

I know the feeling. This is a hypothesis and not a theory. I have never quite understood talking about other universes because the universe could be all there is by definition. Physics is in a flux right now with trying to unite the Micro world with the macro world we live in. Quantum mechanics works, but no one understands it. Stephen Hawking's says the universe just is with no beginning or end. I agree with him. Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

entropy

#3
I think you are referring to Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (measurement problem). I'm not sure, but I don't think that "averaging" the universes is conceptually consistent with what the many-worlds interpretation is about. josephpalazzo will probably weigh in on this to say whether that makes sense or not.

There are actually several different "multiverse" theories:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

Plu

Averaging universes doesn't make sense. How would you average multiple people in different positions and locations and still end up with a functional human being? It requires the assumption that what we experience as "a thing" be considered a thing in the universe as well, when realitistically it's about particles, and averaging a whole bunch of particles is very unlikely to generate a functional human being.

Especially once you consider that many of those human beings will not actually be human beings but just random atoms scattered throughout the universe, which when averaged will most decidedly not be close enough together to work as a human in our universe.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: "mediumaevum"So, you've probably heard of the 'multiverse' theory. It seems likely, as the wierd behavior of quantum mechanics suggests that a particle may be in multiple places at once,
only to have its properties and location etc. localized into one definite state when measured. But before the measurement, Schrödingers "cat" (ie. an electron) is both dead and alive - at once!

This is somewhat how the multiverse theory works: Every possible alternative outcome has its own universe.

So how come we only live in this particular universe? Why THIS universe, why not one of the many other universes?
Why do we experience only this universe, and not the universe where Hitler got shot or won WW2?

I've got an idea, and as crazy it may sound, I need critics to review my conclusion: Our universe is nothing but the product (or result or whatever you like) of the multiverses. That the outcome of our universe is the average of what happened in all the other universes/multiverse.

The particles are localized into their position, because it really isn't there at all, it is jus a holographic picture of the average position of the countless other places it could be.

I know it sounds crazy, it probably is, but as I am no theoretic physicist, I need someone with a better understanding to verify or clarify or both. Please refrain from calling me stupid, like you did in other threads, thank you very much.


I'm just going to repeat what I've posted in another thread as a preamble to my conclusion on your post:

QuoteSuppose we want to determine the position of a particle at two different times. The objective is to calculate the distance it has traveled in a given time, and then calculate its velocity. We would need light to shine on it. This is equivalent of sending photons that would hit the particle and then from that, get the information where the particle is located at a given time t1 by focusing the light through the microscope on the retina or a screen. We would need to repeat that at a later time t2. Here is what we know.

The energy of the photon is given by,
(1)E = hf

And its momentum,
(2) p = E/c

Substituting (1) into (2),
(3) p = hf/c

But for any wave, c = ? f
(4) therefore, p = h/?

Notice that as the wavelength is short, the momentum is large. So we want to focus on the particle, which is at a certain position ?x, where the ? signifies the spread or the width of the particle which is located at point x. We need to use a light whose wavelength is smaller than ?x in order to get an image that is not fuzzy or,

(5) ?x > ?

This means that the smaller the particle is, the higher momentum photon needed, and this will impart on the particle a bigger random kick to the particle, changing its momentum by an uncertainty ?p. We get that,

(6) ?x > h/?p

or ?p ?x > h

This relationship is known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Since h is a constant, it means the smaller the uncertainty in position (?x), the greater the uncertainty in momentum, ?p, and vice-versa.

Notice this fits in perfectly with the wave-particle model and probability theory.

If ?p =0, then ?x = h/?p is infinite, meaning, it's spread all over, which is exactly what a wave is. OTOH, if ?x = 0, which is what a particle is, then the uncertainty in p, ?p = h/?x is infinite, which means, you don't know where it's going. The probability of measuring p is zero.

Now, quantum mechanics DOES NOT suggest that a particle may be in multiple places at once.

Quantum mechanics DOES NOT suggest that every possible alternative outcome has its own universe. This is a misinterpretation of Feynman's path intergral that the probability amplitude must be calculated over all paths, and each path has a different weight. So the whole idea of taking averages of different universes is utterly ridiculous.

Solitary

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"
Quote from: "mediumaevum"So, you've probably heard of the 'multiverse' theory. It seems likely, as the wierd behavior of quantum mechanics suggests that a particle may be in multiple places at once,
only to have its properties and location etc. localized into one definite state when measured. But before the measurement, Schrödingers "cat" (ie. an electron) is both dead and alive - at once!

This is somewhat how the multiverse theory works: Every possible alternative outcome has its own universe.

So how come we only live in this particular universe? Why THIS universe, why not one of the many other universes?
Why do we experience only this universe, and not the universe where Hitler got shot or won WW2?

I've got an idea, and as crazy it may sound, I need critics to review my conclusion: Our universe is nothing but the product (or result or whatever you like) of the multiverses. That the outcome of our universe is the average of what happened in all the other universes/multiverse.

The particles are localized into their position, because it really isn't there at all, it is jus a holographic picture of the average position of the countless other places it could be.

I know it sounds crazy, it probably is, but as I am no theoretic physicist, I need someone with a better understanding to verify or clarify or both. Please refrain from calling me stupid, like you did in other threads, thank you very much.


I'm just going to repeat what I've posted in another thread as a preamble to my conclusion on your post:

QuoteSuppose we want to determine the position of a particle at two different times. The objective is to calculate the distance it has traveled in a given time, and then calculate its velocity. We would need light to shine on it. This is equivalent of sending photons that would hit the particle and then from that, get the information where the particle is located at a given time t1 by focusing the light through the microscope on the retina or a screen. We would need to repeat that at a later time t2. Here is what we know.

The energy of the photon is given by,
(1)E = hf

And its momentum,
(2) p = E/c

Substituting (1) into (2),
(3) p = hf/c

But for any wave, c = ? f
(4) therefore, p = h/?

Notice that as the wavelength is short, the momentum is large. So we want to focus on the particle, which is at a certain position ?x, where the ? signifies the spread or the width of the particle which is located at point x. We need to use a light whose wavelength is smaller than ?x in order to get an image that is not fuzzy or,

(5) ?x > ?

This means that the smaller the particle is, the higher momentum photon needed, and this will impart on the particle a bigger random kick to the particle, changing its momentum by an uncertainty ?p. We get that,

(6) ?x > h/?p

or ?p ?x > h

This relationship is known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Since h is a constant, it means the smaller the uncertainty in position (?x), the greater the uncertainty in momentum, ?p, and vice-versa.

Notice this fits in perfectly with the wave-particle model and probability theory.

If ?p =0, then ?x = h/?p is infinite, meaning, it's spread all over, which is exactly what a wave is. OTOH, if ?x = 0, which is what a particle is, then the uncertainty in p, ?p = h/?x is infinite, which means, you don't know where it's going. The probability of measuring p is zero.

Now, quantum mechanics DOES NOT suggest that a particle may be in multiple places at once.

Quantum mechanics DOES NOT suggest that every possible alternative outcome has its own universe. This is a misinterpretation of Feynman's path intergral that the probability amplitude must be calculated over all paths, and each path has a different weight. So the whole idea of taking averages of different universes is utterly ridiculous.


I agree! Solitary
There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

entropy

Quote from: "josephpalazzo"[snip]

Now, quantum mechanics DOES NOT suggest that a particle may be in multiple places at once.

Quantum mechanics DOES NOT suggest that every possible alternative outcome has its own universe. This is a misinterpretation of Feynman's path intergral that the probability amplitude must be calculated over all paths, and each path has a different weight. So the whole idea of taking averages of different universes is utterly ridiculous.

Though this is probably not directly related to your point above, reading that did get me thinking about what I understand of the measurement problem and I wonder if you'd mind giving your opinion on something I came upon:

http://phys.org/news/2013-07-physicists ... oblem.html

QuoteQuantum mechanics is a highly successful theory, but its interpretation has still not been settled. In their recent opus magnum, Theo Nieuwenhuizen (Institute of Physics, UvA) and colleagues claim to have found a solution to the so-called quantum measurement problem.

...

I imagine from an engineering perspective, the whole measurement problem thing is not really a problem - just do the math! But from a theoretical physics perspective, if the authors are right and they have "solved" the measurement problem, that seems like it would be pretty significant. If you have happen to have an opinion about the proposed solution discussed in the linked article, I would be interested to hear it.

josephpalazzo

Quote from: "entropy"
Quote from: "josephpalazzo"[snip]

Now, quantum mechanics DOES NOT suggest that a particle may be in multiple places at once.

Quantum mechanics DOES NOT suggest that every possible alternative outcome has its own universe. This is a misinterpretation of Feynman's path intergral that the probability amplitude must be calculated over all paths, and each path has a different weight. So the whole idea of taking averages of different universes is utterly ridiculous.

Though this is probably not directly related to your point above, reading that did get me thinking about what I understand of the measurement problem and I wonder if you'd mind giving your opinion on something I came upon:

http://phys.org/news/2013-07-physicists ... oblem.html

QuoteQuantum mechanics is a highly successful theory, but its interpretation has still not been settled. In their recent opus magnum, Theo Nieuwenhuizen (Institute of Physics, UvA) and colleagues claim to have found a solution to the so-called quantum measurement problem.

...

I imagine from an engineering perspective, the whole measurement problem thing is not really a problem - just do the math! But from a theoretical physics perspective, if the authors are right and they have "solved" the measurement problem, that seems like it would be pretty significant. If you have happen to have an opinion about the proposed solution discussed in the linked article, I would be interested to hear it.

The whole concept of wave collapses came up in the early years when people were still trying to figure out what the wavefunction, which is the solution to the Schroedinger's equation, was supposed to mean. People were still under the impression that it was a real wave. The solutions to the Maxwell's equations are considered to be real waves-- they propagate as waves, they have real frequencies, wavelengths, they interfer, diffract, etc. However, the wavefunction of the Schroedinger equation doesn't do any of that stuff. But the early pioneers of QM thought that it did. So how to explain that what we observe is in line with the probabilities that we get ( Born along with Von Neuman had cornered the idea that this wavefunction yields probabilities)? Hence, the measuring problem. This is another field of research (along with the unending search to prove non-locality with entangled pair in an EPR experiment) to be a waste of time. Once in a while a paper comes out, claiming to have the solution to the problem -- more like a pseudo-problem. One thing I'm quite sure is that the vast majority of physicists are going to ignore that paper.

Solitary

There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.

Colanth

Quote from: "mediumaevum"I've got an idea, and as crazy it may sound, I need critics to review my conclusion
What you've got is not, as the topic says, a theory.  What you have is an idea.  (And the two aren't as closely related as the horse and the horse fly.)  There's nothing to "review" really.  It's a totally invalid idea.  But you're entitled to have any idea you have.
Afflicting the comfortable for 70 years.
Science builds skyscrapers, faith flies planes into them.