MWI for dummies?

For discussing anything related to physics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, and their practical applications.

Moderator: Flannel Jesus

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby Amorphos » Tue Jan 10, 2012 8:20 pm

QM doesn't concern itself with macroscopic objects -- Einstein himself is not a quantum being, but rather a composite of millions, billions, trillions of quantum "particles" (if they can be called that).


Why is a collection of QM less than a particular instance of wave function collapse ~ or have no effect et al? Our sat-nav’s wouldn’t work without adjustments for relativistic effects, nor would our spaceships travel in comparative time to the earth if they travelled fast enough [and they’d be an entire ’object’ rather than QM working aside from collections/objects]. I know this is relativity but at least that’s measurable.

I just think that with the quantum world we have to see the whole thing as fluid and entire, rather than in terms of particular objects. Is it not so that one thing can effect another at any part of the universe.
Formerly; quetzalcoatl
the truth is naked,
once it is written it is lost.
genius is the result of the entire product of man.
righteousness itself is divisive.
User avatar
Amorphos
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4018
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: Chillin` to the blue note somewhere's aroun`

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby Flannel Jesus » Tue Jan 10, 2012 11:44 pm

I didn't really understand anything you said in your last post, except the last paragraph, which is more or less correct.

Anyway, one of the things you said in a previous post deserves clarification: you pointed out the possibility that Einstein wouldn't have looked at a clock and then wouldn't have discovered relativity, or something like that. So, let's assume for a second that indeed there was a moment in time where Einstein was in a room with a clock, and that in the present universe we're in he looked at the clock and subsequently -- let's even assume consequently -- discovered relativity.

The possibility here that you're referring to is not necessarily an actual possibility. In QM, we can talk about actual possible events which are different from what I'll call pseudo-possible events. I'll describe both. Keep in mind that these terms aren't used in QM, I'm just using them to distinguish between an incorrect interpretation of QM and a correct one.

Actual Possible Events:
If we were to, say, run the double slit experiment, and let's say we're using a tool to measure which slit it goes through. Let's say that in 1 minute we will shoot one photon through. It's fairly accurate, according to our knowledge, to say that it's actually possible for the photon to end up in any place behind the slits that isn't completely blocked off (if we weren't using a tool to measure which slit it goes through, it would be able to even end up in places that were blocked off). Now, MWI takes each actual possibility and makes a universe out of it, as we've discussed.

Pseudo-Possible Events:
Right now, you might say that it feels like you could go and jump off a balcony. It feels like you could run into the middle of a street in an attempt to get run over. It feels like you could go and get a pen and poke your eyes out. All of these events seem possible to you, but this kind of possible is not synonymous with actual possibility. The reason is, I think, fairly straight foreward: assume for a moment that MWI is true, and let's just start at the moment that you started reading this post, ignore all parallel universes prior to that moment, and we'll just worry about the parallel universes after that moment. Though these events may seem possible to you -- you may think it's possible to poke your eyes out -- it may (and probably is) completely the case that no series of actually possible quantum events would lead to that outcome. No combination or permutation of quantum events would result in those actions happening, say, within the next five minutes. (I don't KNOW that that's the case, maybe all along you've been planning on poking your eyes out tonight). But, the point is that just because it feels possible doesn't mean it's actually possible. Just because it feels like you could do something doesn't mean that any actual possible series of events would lead to that necessarily.

And, if we take Einstein at the moment he entered the room with the clock, and erased all parallel universes prior to that moment and focused on only the ones following from that moment, it may be that none of the subsequent parallel universes includes an Einstein that didn't look at the clock.
User avatar
Flannel Jesus
For Your Health
 
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:32 pm

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby Amorphos » Wed Jan 11, 2012 8:56 pm

Interesting post fj, thanks!

I didn't really understand anything you said in your last post, except the last paragraph, which is more or less correct.


I meant that a collection of quantum effects may work together, rather than thinking of it all in terms of individual quantum superposition’s. The macroscopic world works like that e.g. if I move a glass with my hand, then all the QM effects in that action are working with the macroscopic set. Otherwise we would have to think of me moving the glass being done as an effort by the particulars.
This is also what I meant with the rocket moving faster in time than a man stood on earth, the rocket as an object is forcing the quantum decisions macroscopically ~ as an object.

Actual Possible Events:
If we were to, say, run the double slit experiment, and let's say we're using a tool to measure which slit it goes through. Let's say that in 1 minute we will shoot one photon through. It's fairly accurate, according to our knowledge, to say that it's actually possible for the photon to end up in any place behind the slits that isn't completely blocked off (if we weren't using a tool to measure which slit it goes through, it would be able to even end up in places that were blocked off). Now, MWI takes each actual possibility and makes a universe out of it, as we've discussed


Position 1. I agree that when the photon is shot through the slits it ‘acts like a bullet’ [as its often described] if its being ‘observed’ [I.e. something is making it act as expected for a particle and not a wave]. As such it can only move around like such an object can.

Position 2. Then if it is not being observed it can go anywhere even beyond where its blocked off. This is because it is no longer a single object but an entire ‘ocean’ or is otherwise EVERYWHERE at once. We could say analogously that the act of observing makes the ocean form into a droplet of water, and in the location at which it is being observed.

…hence it’s the observation from in a sense outside the ocean which makes quantum energy act as packets of energy, this is why I made the assumption that events in the world of objects create the effect to begin with. In other words QM are being determined by worldly occurences.

Pseudo-Possible Events:


I agree with you're position here. I think - if I may, that there is a series of most probable events, or even determined events, because as you say I would have had to have been thinking about poking my eyes out prior to the moments before and probably for some time prior to the decision to do so.
I assume then, that QM is based on decisions in the immediate timeframe of specific events.

What I mostly meant concerning Einstein was that there are always duel positions. The relativistic [moving away from the clock] and the still [the person stood next to the clock]. Just as relativity is also measured against light as the universal medium [the still].

Now we are getting somewhere, great stuff! :)

_
Last edited by Amorphos on Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Formerly; quetzalcoatl
the truth is naked,
once it is written it is lost.
genius is the result of the entire product of man.
righteousness itself is divisive.
User avatar
Amorphos
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4018
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: Chillin` to the blue note somewhere's aroun`

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby lizbethrose » Thu Jan 12, 2012 4:38 am

fj, I understood and enjoyed your explanation of WMI, thank you.

Now, could you do a lateral pirouette over to the Debunk Free Will thread and explain to me why one doesn't need to first believe in determinism before free will can be refuted and whether or not determinism is valid in all cases? That would help me so much with my quest. Thanks. --Liz
"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."
— Lewis Carroll
lizbethrose
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3232
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:55 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby ZenKitty » Thu Jan 12, 2012 5:55 am

Flannel Jesus wrote:Actual Possible Events:
If we were to, say, run the double slit experiment, and let's say we're using a tool to measure which slit it goes through. Let's say that in 1 minute we will shoot one photon through. It's fairly accurate, according to our knowledge, to say that it's actually possible for the photon to end up in any place behind the slits that isn't completely blocked off (if we weren't using a tool to measure which slit it goes through, it would be able to even end up in places that were blocked off). Now, MWI takes each actual possibility and makes a universe out of it, as we've discussed.

Pseudo-Possible Events:
Right now, you might say that it feels like you could go and jump off a balcony. It feels like you could run into the middle of a street in an attempt to get run over. It feels like you could go and get a pen and poke your eyes out. All of these events seem possible to you, but this kind of possible is not synonymous with actual possibility. The reason is, I think, fairly straight foreward: assume for a moment that MWI is true, and let's just start at the moment that you started reading this post, ignore all parallel universes prior to that moment, and we'll just worry about the parallel universes after that moment. Though these events may seem possible to you -- you may think it's possible to poke your eyes out -- it may (and probably is) completely the case that no series of actually possible quantum events would lead to that outcome. No combination or permutation of quantum events would result in those actions happening, say, within the next five minutes. (I don't KNOW that that's the case, maybe all along you've been planning on poking your eyes out tonight). But, the point is that just because it feels possible doesn't mean it's actually possible. Just because it feels like you could do something doesn't mean that any actual possible series of events would lead to that necessarily.


The only problem with this, there are two but I'll stick with one, is that QM states that anything that can happen (which would be your Pseudo-Possible and Actual-Possible) will happen. You will walk through a wall, given enough time and that would seem to be a Pseudo-Possible. That's a prediction of QM known as Quantum Tunneling. So your distinction doesn't hold for QM.
Look at the triangle
Image

What beautiful eyes and mouths she has
Image
User avatar
ZenKitty
Thinker
 
Posts: 649
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:35 am
Location: Omnipresent

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby Moreno » Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:02 am

ZenKitty wrote:
Flannel Jesus wrote:Actual Possible Events:
If we were to, say, run the double slit experiment, and let's say we're using a tool to measure which slit it goes through. Let's say that in 1 minute we will shoot one photon through. It's fairly accurate, according to our knowledge, to say that it's actually possible for the photon to end up in any place behind the slits that isn't completely blocked off (if we weren't using a tool to measure which slit it goes through, it would be able to even end up in places that were blocked off). Now, MWI takes each actual possibility and makes a universe out of it, as we've discussed.

Pseudo-Possible Events:
Right now, you might say that it feels like you could go and jump off a balcony. It feels like you could run into the middle of a street in an attempt to get run over. It feels like you could go and get a pen and poke your eyes out. All of these events seem possible to you, but this kind of possible is not synonymous with actual possibility. The reason is, I think, fairly straight foreward: assume for a moment that MWI is true, and let's just start at the moment that you started reading this post, ignore all parallel universes prior to that moment, and we'll just worry about the parallel universes after that moment. Though these events may seem possible to you -- you may think it's possible to poke your eyes out -- it may (and probably is) completely the case that no series of actually possible quantum events would lead to that outcome. No combination or permutation of quantum events would result in those actions happening, say, within the next five minutes. (I don't KNOW that that's the case, maybe all along you've been planning on poking your eyes out tonight). But, the point is that just because it feels possible doesn't mean it's actually possible. Just because it feels like you could do something doesn't mean that any actual possible series of events would lead to that necessarily.


The only problem with this, there are two but I'll stick with one, is that QM states that anything that can happen (which would be your Pseudo-Possible and Actual-Possible) will happen. You will walk through a wall, given enough time and that would seem to be a Pseudo-Possible. That's a prediction of QM known as Quantum Tunneling. So your distinction doesn't hold for QM.
I don't think quantum tunneling means that any event will happen, it means that it can happen, though the chances are very low for some things. Infinite time, a multiverse of some kind and yes, then one could expect quantum tunneling to bring home certain seemingly impossible events. But that Jim will leap off a certain balcony on the 23rd of June this year is not in the least made certain by quantum tunneling.
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5854
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby ZenKitty » Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:09 am

Moreno wrote:I don't think quantum tunneling means that any event will happen, it means that it can happen, though the chances are very low for some things. Infinite time, a multiverse of some kind and yes, then one could expect quantum tunneling to bring home certain seemingly impossible events. But that Jim will leap off a certain balcony on the 23rd of June this year is not in the least made certain by quantum tunneling.


I didn't say that Quantum Tunneling means that any event will happen. Just that the QM predicts things like people walking through a wall, which is what Flannel would label as a Psuedo-Possible event. And possibles aren't about certainty, whether actual or pseudo.
Look at the triangle
Image

What beautiful eyes and mouths she has
Image
User avatar
ZenKitty
Thinker
 
Posts: 649
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:35 am
Location: Omnipresent

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby Amorphos » Thu Jan 12, 2012 7:51 pm

Thing is we never get fanciful occurences ~ I think that’s what fj was alluding to. Given enough time you wont walk through a wall, because the next set of events would occur and you’d act relative to them I.e. keep walking [moving from one event to the next] then smack your head against that wall.

Infinite time and universes would mean all events exist, and that would just be insane. …add infinite variance and you’ll see why [everything you can imagine and more would necessarily exist].

The most likely explanation is within the single universe I’d think. We cannot arrive at parallel universes due to the communications paradox ~ where info/communication would occur between universe at the point they divided, hence not parallel.
We cannot also ever prove they exist, and if we could they wouldn’t mean anything to our existence as there is absolutely no relationship to ours, another you is not you, another universe is meaningless to this universe.

If there are other universes or if the universe is infinite, then parallel universes are not the solution.
_
Formerly; quetzalcoatl
the truth is naked,
once it is written it is lost.
genius is the result of the entire product of man.
righteousness itself is divisive.
User avatar
Amorphos
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4018
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: Chillin` to the blue note somewhere's aroun`

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby Amorphos » Thu Jan 12, 2012 8:51 pm

In addition to the formerly described positions…

Position 3. The universal superposition; does it exist? In all cases there is either position 1, or 2 occurring, in the case of position 1 no hypothetical parallel universe is formed, the photons and their actions are known. If then there is another universe built from all positions 2 [not observed], that would only represent a segment of superposition’s in a universe.
Therefore it is not the case that the entire universe duplicates itself.
All we know is that position 2 is universal [perhaps like an ocean], we don’t know if example x of a superposition that’s in position 2 [unknown] correlates with all other instances of the same across the universe. If any position 2’s correlate to any given other ‘y’ position 2’s, that would make them observed and return them to position 1.
Thus it seams most likely that no universal quantum superposition is even arrived at in such a context [other than an ocean], and thus no parallel universe occurs. At most it seems to me that you’d get a single instance of parallel-but-connected single particle universe. Perhaps in effect you’d have a soup of particles coming in and out of existence/universe.

-------


Reference
Position 1. I agree that when the photon is shot through the slits it ‘acts like a bullet’ [as its often described] if its being ‘observed’ [I.e. something is making it act as expected for a particle and not a wave]. As such it can only move around like such an object can.

Position 2. Then if it is not being observed it can go anywhere even beyond where its blocked off. This is because it is no longer a single object but an entire ‘ocean’ or is otherwise EVERYWHERE at once. We could say analogously that the act of observing makes the ocean form into a droplet of water, and in the location at which it is being observed. {this may be how particles are formed!}

…hence it’s the observation from in a sense outside the ocean which makes quantum energy act as packets of energy, this is why I made the assumption that events in the world of objects create the effect to begin with. In other words QM are being determined by worldly occurences.




_
Formerly; quetzalcoatl
the truth is naked,
once it is written it is lost.
genius is the result of the entire product of man.
righteousness itself is divisive.
User avatar
Amorphos
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4018
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: Chillin` to the blue note somewhere's aroun`

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby ZenKitty » Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:32 am

quetzalcoatl wrote:Thing is we never get fanciful occurences ~ I think that’s what fj was alluding to. Given enough time you wont walk through a wall, because the next set of events would occur and you’d act relative to them I.e. keep walking [moving from one event to the next] then smack your head against that wall.


This doesn't hold with QM, because it's not like one thing making contact with another, they pop up on the other side. Like they go from one shell to another shell without any intermediary action. It's like going from 25pmh to 50mph without any intermediaries.

quetzalocatl wrote:The most likely explanation is within the single universe I’d think. We cannot arrive at parallel universes due to the communications paradox ~ where info/communication would occur between universe at the point they divided, hence not parallel.
We cannot also ever prove they exist, and if we could they wouldn’t mean anything to our existence as there is absolutely no relationship to ours, another you is not you, another universe is meaningless to this universe.


A multiverse doesn't even change this prediction of QM. Even with one universe, it can happen. But this is considered a Pseudo-Possible, even though it's an actual-possible for QM.
Look at the triangle
Image

What beautiful eyes and mouths she has
Image
User avatar
ZenKitty
Thinker
 
Posts: 649
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:35 am
Location: Omnipresent

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby Amorphos » Fri Jan 13, 2012 10:46 pm

One thing I have missed from the whole equation is information and communication. It seems plausible to me that as all objects probably contain info about themselves, there would be an universal network of informations and communications betwixt them. ‘The decision problem’ is possibly addressed in terms of the information and relationships between informations.

This doesn't hold with QM, because it's not like one thing making contact with another, they pop up on the other side. Like they go from one shell to another shell without any intermediary action. It's like going from 25pmh to 50mph without any intermediaries.


On this side things always occur as expected. I haven’t seen any evidence for parallel worlds nor shall I, because they don’t interact hence there’s no way to know. As above I think the most likely explanation is that everything is resolved in this universe.

A multiverse doesn't even change this prediction of QM. Even with one universe, it can happen. But this is considered a Pseudo-Possible, even though it's an actual-possible for QM.


I still don’t see how a single quantum event in a superposition would effect every other, unless that is there is a relationship between them all [a communication of informations]. Then if that’s so it would all get resolved universally ~ as expected/normally.
Formerly; quetzalcoatl
the truth is naked,
once it is written it is lost.
genius is the result of the entire product of man.
righteousness itself is divisive.
User avatar
Amorphos
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4018
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: Chillin` to the blue note somewhere's aroun`

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby ZenKitty » Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:57 pm

quetzalcoatl wrote:On this side things always occur as expected. I haven’t seen any evidence for parallel worlds nor shall I, because they don’t interact hence there’s no way to know. As above I think the most likely explanation is that everything is resolved in this universe.


I'm not saying anything about a parallel world. I'm just talking about what the theory says about this universe.
Look at the triangle
Image

What beautiful eyes and mouths she has
Image
User avatar
ZenKitty
Thinker
 
Posts: 649
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:35 am
Location: Omnipresent

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby lizbethrose » Sat Jan 14, 2012 7:34 am

lizbethrose wrote:fj, I understood and enjoyed your explanation of WMI, thank you.

Now, could you do a lateral pirouette over to the Debunk Free Will thread and explain to me why one doesn't need to first believe in determinism before free will can be refuted and whether or not determinism is valid in all cases? That would help me so much with my quest. Thanks. --Liz


I guess your lack of response means you can't. So be it.
"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."
— Lewis Carroll
lizbethrose
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3232
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:55 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby Flannel Jesus » Sat Jan 14, 2012 10:34 am

volchok already tried to explain that. so have I in that thread a couple times. if you don't want to try to understand what was presented, so be it.
User avatar
Flannel Jesus
For Your Health
 
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:32 pm

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby lizbethrose » Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:39 am

Flannel Jesus wrote:volchok already tried to explain that. so have I in that thread a couple times. if you don't want to try to understand what was presented, so be it.


But I want very much to understand it, yet I'm unable to do so. I've only asked that you explain what you and volchok were saying in the lucid and lucent way you explained MWI, which I understood. I'm not trying to pick a fight--I'm just trying to learn.
"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."
— Lewis Carroll
lizbethrose
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3232
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:55 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby Flannel Jesus » Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:35 pm

Well, I'll think about giving it another shot.
User avatar
Flannel Jesus
For Your Health
 
Posts: 4382
Joined: Thu Mar 31, 2011 11:32 pm

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby lizbethrose » Sun Jan 15, 2012 7:53 am

Flannel Jesus wrote:Well, I'll think about giving it another shot.


Have you ever done a Power Point presentation where you start with your paragraph's main point (usually, the conclusion,) and then list the points that have led to your conclusion. An outline. I've tried to do that with Vol's posts, but with little or no luck. I just thought, since you agree with him, it might be easier for you to do, is all.
"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."
— Lewis Carroll
lizbethrose
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3232
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:55 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby lizbethrose » Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:54 am

Flannel Jesus wrote:Well, I'll think about giving it another shot.


Since neither you nor volchok seem able to go beyond "I believe it, therefore it is," I'll abandon any desire to learn from either of you. Thank you for your time.
"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."
— Lewis Carroll
lizbethrose
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3232
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:55 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby ZenKitty » Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:30 am

lizbethrose wrote:Since neither you nor volchok seem able to go beyond "I believe it, therefore it is," I'll abandon any desire to learn from either of you. Thank you for your time.


Come on, you have to realize that they believe in magic. :-"
Look at the triangle
Image

What beautiful eyes and mouths she has
Image
User avatar
ZenKitty
Thinker
 
Posts: 649
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:35 am
Location: Omnipresent

Re: MWI for dummies?

Postby lizbethrose » Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:54 am

Is that why they don't want to give up their secrets? No good magician does, of course. :)
"Be what you would seem to be - or, if you'd like it put more simply - never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."
— Lewis Carroll
lizbethrose
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3232
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:55 am
Location: Pacific Northwest

Previous

Return to Science, Technology, and Math



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]