Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

songjoong df: on 12/27/17 at 7:22am UTC, wrote KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK DISINI KLIK...

Jason Wolfe: on 1/17/11 at 4:09am UTC, wrote AtheistMohammed, To quote the link,"MWI response: Conservation of energy...

AtheistMohammed: on 1/16/11 at 23:59pm UTC, wrote Dear Jason Wolfe Conservation of energy is not violated since the energy...

Peter Jackson: on 8/30/10 at 17:11pm UTC, wrote Hi Georgina Have you researched Ewald-Oseen Extinction? A nice...

Jason Wolfe: on 8/25/10 at 19:08pm UTC, wrote Dear Anonymous, I'm not seeking weapons. I'm trying to make a point. ...

Anonymous: on 8/25/10 at 18:59pm UTC, wrote >After all, it takes a Big Bang worth of energy to create a new...

Anonymous: on 8/25/10 at 17:23pm UTC, wrote Well put Georgina. Ths was considered by the father of probability...

Georgina Parry: on 8/18/10 at 1:56am UTC, wrote I'm not sure I fully understand the question. However isn't the coin both...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Robert McEachern: ""all experiments have pointed towards this and there is no way to avoid..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Joe Fisher: "Dear Steve Agnew, Naturally provided VISIBLE realty am not a silly humanly..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

James Putnam: "Light bends because it is accelerating. It accelerates toward an object..." in Black Hole Photographed...

Steve Agnew: "Stringy and loop quantum are the two big contenders, but neither has a..." in Can Time Be Saved From...

Robert McEachern: "Lorenzo, The nature of "information" is well understood outside of..." in Review of "Foundations of...

Georgina Woodward: "Steve, Lorraine is writing about a simpler "knowing " rather than the..." in The Nature of Time

Steve Agnew: "Knowing information necessarily means neural action potentials. Atom and..." in The Nature of Time


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.

Dissolving Quantum Paradoxes
The impossibility of building a perfect clock could help explain away microscale weirdness.


FQXi BLOGS
May 20, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Parallel Universe on your iPhone [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Aug. 16, 2010 @ 21:45 GMT
Got a tough decision to make and just don't know which option to choose? Well, why not choose both options––but perform each in a different parallel universes?

www.cheapuniverses.com
Yes, in what must be one of the boldest marketing ploys yet, the website link:cheapuniverses.com/]www.cheapuniverses.com is offering two fates for the price of one. It even comes recommended by FQXi's Garrett Lisi, so I thought I’d highlight www.cheapuniverses.com it here. There’s also a universe-splitting iPhone app

If you can’t decide between two options--taking a bath or going for stroll are the examples offered on the site––log on to www.cheapuniverses.com, pay $3.95, and the organizers promise to “initiate an actual quantum event – just for you – which has two equally possible outcomes. Both outcomes will happen, but in _separate_ _universes_.”

The physics behind the website is, of course, the Many World’s Interpretation of quantum mechanics, proposed––as the site tells us––by the father of Mark Oliver Everett’s of Eels (or Hugh Everett III). Everett wasn’t happy with the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics that says that before observation, quantum objects don’t exist in a single state, but are described by a wavefunction containing a superposition of multiple states. This is exemplified by Schrödinger’s cat locked in a box with a radioactive atom that on decaying will trigger a mechanism that will release poison that will kill the cat. Until the box is opened, standard wisdom goes, the atom has both decayed and not decayed, and hence the cat is both alive and dead at the same time. When the box is opened, the wavefunction "collapses" and the cat snaps into one set state, life or death.

Everett’s view was, instead, that the observer becomes entangled with the superpositioned object. Due to the correlation between the observer and the object, the observer splits into multiple copies. Each quantum option is satisfied—the cat both lives and dies—just in two parallel worlds.(For more, read “The Many Lives of Hugh Everett III.”

Well, the physics is there. But in practice, why go to this website? Why not just a flip a coin to decide whether to take a bath or go for a walk? (I can’t help thinking though, if you think you need a bath, you probably should take one.) The answer is that a classical coin flip won’t give you a split universe. For that you need a quantum event, which is apparently supplied by the company idQuantique in Geneva.

The company idQuantique specializes in quantum cryptography--and their technology was used at the soccer World Cup in South Africa. I recently wrote a news article for Nature about claims that its supposedly invincible cryptographic system had been hacked, so it’s nice to blog something more cheery about them.

But does it work? Well, I should say that I haven’t (yet) tried it out. And even if I do, as cheapuniverse says itself, in small print: “Due to the separateness of the two universes, you won't be able to check in on your other self. But that other self will exist nonetheless, and will be exploring its universe just as you are yours.”

Plus, there’s a money-back guarantee: “Our universes are 100% guaranteed. If, after using our service, you find that you're not in a universe, contact us immediately. You're entitled to a complete refund, no questions asked. Of course, if you simply don't like the universe you've created, there will be no refund... but you can take some comfort in knowing that the other version of you is probably quite happy with our service.”

Worth a try? (As long as it doesn’t give Max Tegmark any more ideas about quantum suicide.)

And who says foundational physics doesn't pay?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 16, 2010 @ 22:46 GMT
Yeap, it sounds like something Garrett Lisi would recommend.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 09:33 GMT
Speaking of baths, I am reminded of something from Delmore Schwartz: "Existentialism means that no one can take a bath for you."

At the end of the day, there is just no way in principle to judge whether even the smallest particle in the universe chooses its own path or not. When fate is randomness, perfect order is assured.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 09:48 GMT
Tom,

Sometimes we do take baths for others, otherwise they might not want to be around us.

Maybe it's not the particles which decide, but the functioning of the network that determines the path of particles.

Order is viewed from the top, but emerges from bottom up processes. Form follows function.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 10:37 GMT
John,

One might give another a bath; i.e., cooperate in some bathing experience, but one cannot choose to take another's bath for her.

There's an alternative to vertical, hierarchical (top-down or bottom-up) organization: laterally distributed order of subsystems evolving and decohering at different rates. Then function follows form, which does not obviate the converse.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 21:00 GMT
Tom,

That, in essence, is bottom up. It is cumulative, rather than linear. Top down is only the linear perspective of a sub-system. The theological assumption of monotheism that permeates western thinking is that there is some ultimate top down system, but any such entity exists in a larger eco-system. Even the idea of the entire universe existing as a single such entity has been breached by the concept of multiverses.

As for the bathing analogy, I was playing on your use of "a," rather then "your."

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 17:49 GMT
This migth operate better if your iPhone has a Q-bit processor. In that way you might indeed be splitting off the universe by operating a gadget.

Cheers LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jason Wolfe wrote on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 18:02 GMT
Since entire universes are supposed to spring into existence from every eigenstate of a quantum system, is there any way to harness that energy into a weapon system? After all, it takes a Big Bang worth of energy to create a new universe. When a wave function collapses, all of those eigenstates have to become new universes. Is it possible to catch some of that energy? If there are 100 eigenstates in a quantum system, than measuring it should release 99 Big Bangs of energy, right? Could that be used to build a weapon powerful enough to blow up the universe?

No, I didn't think so. Could it blow up the many worlds interpretation? If it does, then where does that leave time travel?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Anonymous replied on Aug. 25, 2010 @ 18:59 GMT
>After all, it takes a Big Bang worth of energy to create a new universe.

No it doesn't.

Don't we have enough weapons in the world? It is bizarre (and somewhat disturbing) that you would go there, rather than look for new ways to get energy peacefully.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 25, 2010 @ 19:08 GMT
Dear Anonymous,

I'm not seeking weapons. I'm trying to make a point. Many Worlds Interpretation by its very nature requires separate and distinct identical universes. Each new universe requires energy, E=mc2, so that the astronomy of those worlds is identical, right? That means you have to start with a Big Bang worth of energy so you can reproduce an identical copy of this universe.

That is why the MWI doesn't work. In flagrantly violates conservation of energy.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

AtheistMohammed replied on Jan. 16, 2011 @ 23:59 GMT
Dear Jason Wolfe

Conservation of energy is not violated since the energy of each branch has to be weighted by its probability, according to the standard formula for the conservation of energy in quantum theory. This results in the total energy of the multiverse being conserved

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation#Comm
on_objections_and_misconceptions

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Saibal Mitra wrote on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 20:05 GMT
A coin throw would work just as well. Despite this being classical, it would have a similar effect. Classical just means that the probabilities behave in a classical way (no interference, no violations of Bell's inequalities etc.), not that quantum mechancis does not apply and that clasical physics is exactly correct. In fact, macroscopic objects behave in a classical way, pecisely because of decoherence, i.e. entanglement of the object with the environmental degees of freedom.

Now, what mnatters here is what happens if we apply the exact time evolution operator to the state of the universe in which I have just decided to throw a coin. Note that I have yet to select a coin from my wallet, and then throw it.

The general final state can be written as:

A |head) + B|tail)

where |head) and |tail) denote the states of the universe in which the outcome was head and tail, respectively. But does anyone here really believe that either A = 0 or B = 0 if we run the exact time evolution operator starting from the moment I make the decision to throw the coin?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Aug. 17, 2010 @ 23:15 GMT
I don't know. However, IF the zero solution is allowed, it implies a third option, i.e., a negative term. One could not allow BOTH zero and positive solutions without a negative solution as well. This, because zero removes the problem from the Cartesian to the complex plane.

Tom

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jason Wolfe replied on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 00:03 GMT
I think what Saibal means is that if one probability is zero, then the other probability is 100%.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Aug. 18, 2010 @ 01:56 GMT
I'm not sure I fully understand the question. However isn't the coin both heads up and tails up as it falls through the air, spinning as it does so? So both possibilities of outcome exist. Neither A nor B is zero probability.

Although it is both heads up and tails up, it can not be both in the same 3D spatial position. As it is both falling through 3D space and absolute space the two different states do not exist in the same space. So thats OK. It is only when the coin drops to the floor in heads up or tails up or is caught and observed, which state it possesses will be called out. There is a material interaction at a particular spatial position, that halts the change of state and the existence of the other possibility. The observation alters it from a probability only, in the human mind ( or mathematics), into an experienced determined state. The state it has adopted already preexists the observation but is unknown until the detection has been made processed and recognized as what it is. That is formed into a subjective or inter-subjective reality.

An object remaining within a local space such as the coin spinning on the table would still be changing absolute spatial position so once again the two different possibilities do not occupy the same space. There is no need for an extra universe.

There is also the slight possibility that the coin will fall into a crack and be suspended between the two possibilities allowed for. Then both A and B would be zero.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Aug. 25, 2010 @ 17:23 GMT
Well put Georgina.

Ths was considered by the father of probability Christiaan Huygens. If we take any point on the circumference of the coin and track it's path we find it describes a wave.

When the coin transforms into another inertial frame, i.e. it collides with a table or hand (Huygens also originated collision theory) Energy is released proportional to the relative frame velocities. This is propagated into the new medium (wood or flesh) as a new wave, travelling at a new velocity with respect to the refractive index (n) and velocity of the new medium. The apparent velocities, frequencies and wavelengths will vary subject to which inertial frame they're observed from. i.e. they are relative to the observer.

The change in speed is evidenced by the Doppler shift (Christian Dopplers Formula approach for this originally eminating from guess who!).

This is all very important as it establishes and explains the Huygens-Fresnel Priciple, the basis of Fourier Optics etc. This says any point on an EM wave will condense a photon when perturbated by a change of inertial frame (any medium in relative motion) and the energy will be conserved by sending the signal on as new waves, travelling at 'c' (or cn if different) with respect to the new medium.

This is fundamental, and something Lorentz and Einstein didn't notice or consider the implications of when considering a solution to CSL.

There are both quntum and classic proofs, simply;

Electrons at the edge of a new medium (including of the same n but in relative motion) absorb photons and re emit them into the new medium at the new 'c' of the electron.

or; As the Ewald-Oseen Extinction Theorum proves, (if you like integro- differential equations!) waves propagate into a new medium (in relative motion) at 'c' wrt the new medium.

All logic and experimental evidence from Sagnac and Fizeau to Wang confirms the results of these processes, explaining not only duality but CSL, within the postulates of the STR but also using a simple quantum mechanism.

Signs of intelligent life are ethereal and purely relative. Is everyone still too limited in mental dexterity or steeped in preconception to be able to understand it and see the consequences? I still have great hopes of you Georgina.

Best regards

Peter

(PS. I hope you find it as simple as it is, but not too naieve).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Aug. 30, 2010 @ 17:11 GMT
Hi Georgina

Have you researched Ewald-Oseen Extinction? A nice Silberstein link I've just posted elsewhere for Jason is http://www.wbabin. net/historical/ silberstein2. pdf> recent Eclipse Results and Stokes-Planck Aether

I hope you're still about here as I do like the way you think.

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


songjoong sdfsd df wrote on Dec. 27, 2017 @ 07:22 GMT
KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

KLIK DISINI

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.