Re: The Problem(s) with Multiverse

On May 10, 11:33 am, Beagle <beagle...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Folks,

Theoretical physicists claim that the 11th-dimension, devised out of
the quantum wave–particle duality, and framed conceptually by the sum
over histories introduced by Feynman, opens the universe into a
multiverse, with each moment of time splitting in all conceivable ways
a different out come. For example, simply rolling a pair of dice
yields not one combination but all 36 possible, with the other 35
outcomes occurring in the multiverse.

The obvious problem with this idea is that we in fact only receive one
outcome in reality. As far as I can tell the multiverse provides a
good model for quantum scale, but does not commute to the unit scale.
If we could devise an experiment that put us into contact with the
multiverse, to prove or disprove its existence in some way, very much
the impossible would be made possible. LHC, in their search for
missing energy, does seek answers to this mystery by looking for
existence of missing energy.

On the surface it appears that determinism is locked in opposition to
indeterminism in an epic battle, as a ying-yang relationship. This
point of view is useless, because it does not provide any useful
answers or clarity of understanding. One absent notion from the sum of
histories is that from the single event it does not describe how the
second outcome appears. An electron can be in a certain orbit with
some probability, but at the next moment the probability is the same.
A packet of light can travel thru both slits at the same time, but the
next packet maintains the same behavior. I can roll the dice and
receive a combination, but I can also put the dice down, and never
roll them again. From the multiverse interpretation, all of these
outcomes are occurring, but not a single physicist would bet their
life one this idea.

The history channel's episode, "The Universe, episode Parallel
Universes" was fun to watch and consider, but the conceptual
conclusions and hypotheses were science fiction in my mind. From the
YouTube.com broadcast, I can see it is dated, so what is current
thinking on these matters?

BEA

If it isn't testable it isn't physics. Endless speculations abound.
Flights of fancy, such as quarks, big bangs, black holes, worm holes,
dark matter, and multiverses should not be confused with discovery.

An archaeologist uncovers a very large skeleton of an unknown
species. His discovery is science. His attempt to relate the mating
and eating habits of the animal to us involves flights of fancy. You
can't disprove what he has decided about the animal, so his theories
must be viable, right, or at least he'd like you to believe as much.
To hell with logic. Just send him more money, that's all he asks.
And monkeys flew out of the animal's ass too! How much money should
he be awarded to pursue that notion? Not a physical impossibility, so
it must have actually happened, right?

A roll of the dice is entirely deterministic. If enough initial data
is obtained, the result of the roll can be predicted. A precision
machine could in theory be built that could roll whatever values on
the dice that you desired. It might miss the mark one out of a
thousand rolls, but then perfection doesn't really exist so you'd have
to be a little forgiving. On the microscopic scale uncertainty
applies, not because the events aren't deterministic, but because
there is a limit to the resolution of measurement. The act of
measuring alters the system being measured. In addition to this there
is no isolated system in this universe. External influences, however
slight, can severely affect the outcomes of sequences of events. See:

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

I don't know or care what the mainstream opinion is, because whatever
it is it's just an opinion.




.

Quantcast