(Normally I would reply to a comment using the reply button at the end of the post. Unfortunately, my reply exceeds the 4,000-character limit for replies so I am publishing my reply as a new post which sets no character limits on post size.)
Paul's Comment to Post 8, Apologies Aren't Necessary—Einstein Was Right
It is comforting to learn that Einstein continues to be correct. It seems that physicists for a long time were trying to show that Einstein was wrong about something so that it would lead to fame and fortune.
But if Einstein’s being correct depends on the existence of other universes, suspicions are aroused.
In the case cited I understand that scientists in an alternate universe try the same experiment and their particle appears in our universe. Clever.
However, is there any proof of this amazing performance? Where is this alternative universe? If an alternative universe is created each time there is a decision point, there must be an infinite number of such universes. Given that our universe is ever expanding and is infinite in size itself, all the alternative universes must be infinitely large as well.
Why would God do this? To see if a perfect universe could develop? What would be the characteristics of such a universe? Perhaps for some other reason we do not know?
Now I suppose that the mathematics require the existence of alternate universes. But mathematics is a language. Where is the experimental proof?
Reply, please
I share your respect for Einstein. His knowledge of quantum physics was underrated by many in the scientific community and much of that failure to appreciate that knowledge was a widespread misunderstanding of what he said and believed about the behavior of entangled particles. To my knowledge, he never stated that entangled particles do not exhibit coordinated behavior—that is, when one is measured, the other immediately displays anticorrelated behavior.[1] What he did say, is that there is no "action at a distance"—a measurement of one particle does not cause the correlated behavior of the other particle. This belief was grounded in his extraordinary understanding of and respect for our universe's laws of physics. He knew, better perhaps than any other of his generation, that such a causal connection would require the effect he ridiculed as "spooky action at a distance" and that such action was not allowed by those laws. Unfortunately, Einstein died in 1955, two years before the publication of Hugh Everett's Doctoral Dissertation introducing the theory underlying the multiverse. Einstein could not have considered whether Everett's version of multiverse theory offered an alternative explanation for action at a distance that would not require a violation of the laws of physics.
On to your comment, let me make an important correction to your understanding of what happens when alternate universes are formed. Yes, scientists in an alternate universe perform the same experiment but the particle they observe does not appear in our universe. Nor does the particle our scientists observe appear in their universe. The reason this cannot occur is that measurement of the particle in either universe results in immediate collapse of the associated entangled wave function resulting in a loss of all other information about particles associated with the wave.
So your immediate rejoinder, I'm sure, would be: then how do we know that the particle in the alternate universe displays a value anticorrelated with the measurement in our universe—for example, that it displays an opposite spin—if we cannot observe that particle? That this anticorrelated value occurs has been shown by bringing the teams of scientists together, so to speak, in a laboratory setting, in order that they can operate on their entangled particles conjointly.[2] In order to acquire information about the spins of both particles without collapsing their respective wave functions, application of a unitary transformation (a transformation that preserves their entangled states) is required. This transformation allows each team to rotate the entangled basis of their particle. They can then measure their entangled particles separately to acquire the information they seek and to infer, but not to observe, the value of the other team's measurement. (A similar procedure was used in the Delft University experiment to produce event-ready electrons [3] and is used by computer programmers using a quantum computer. (For an explanation of the relationship between quantum computing and the multiverse, see At the Edge of Time, especially pages 118-121.) [4] Note that this result, while guided by mathematical computations, is obtained by a reproducible experiment, not by mathematics alone.[5]
Where is the proof for the multiverse? We are at the stage in our exploration of the frontiers of knowledge when we will no longer be able to definitively prove or disprove many emerging concepts. However, as with the hypotheses of dark energy and dark matter, we know the multiverse exists because it satisfactorily explains aspects of our cosmos not otherwise explainable.[6] Instantaneously correlated behavior of widely separated particles is one example of a behavior that cannot otherwise be explained.[7]
Are there too many universes for the space they must occupy? Isn't an infinite number just too many? I try (with some success) to avoid using the term "infinite" for I don't find it helpful; the term literally means "beyond number" and yet we treat it, as in my phrase "too many" as a number. I use instead the phrase "beyond number" to remind myself that we don't know how many of something there are. Further, to ask if there are too many universes for the space they must occupy, I think, puts the cart before the horse: the universes are there so there must be space for them.
Why would God create multiple universes? I agree with you that the multiverse was created with purpose; that this is so has become the elephant in the room and arguments to the contrary are becoming increasingly lame and unsatisfactory. One way to view this is attributed to Aristotle: "nature does nothing in vain". Does it not appear that evolution is steering life and the universe inerrantly toward fulfillment of a purpose? You suggest that the purpose of multiple universes is to see if a perfect universe could develop? I would not quarrel with this as a possible purpose.[8]
I welcome other points of view.
NOTES
1, See also: Quantum Entanglement, Abstract, line 4.
2. The following explanation is unavoidably complex given the way characteristics of elementary particles are measured. See how do we measure spin
3. See Delft University News and Zukoski, et al, Abstract.
4. Donald W. Jarrell, At the Edge of Time: Reality, Time, and Meaning in a Virtual Everyday World (North Charleston, SC: CreateSpace Pub., rev 2014)., 120-121..
5. For a more complete explanation of this process, see the online version of Cal Tech's Course, Physics 219, Particle Theory, by copying and pasting the following URL into your browser::
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/preskill/ph229/notes/chap4.pdf
6. See Vilenkin and Tegmark.
7. Other examples are presented in Jarrell,
8. I defer here to Chapter 5 of Ibid., esp. p. 140.
Next post on a four-week schedule: January 15, 2015.
How to comment, for first-time commenters: With the blog page open in front of you, find the post that you would like to comment about. Go to the end of the post and click on "comments" which will allow you to read previous comments (if any). You will be invited to enter your comment in a "comment" window.
1 comment:
Dear Don,
I found your comments. And they are tough. My replies follow for what they are worth.
Paul
Where are the teams of scientists?
Your explanation just below is very difficult for me to understand,
anticorrelated value occurs has been shown by bringing the teams of scientists together, so to speak, in a laboratory setting, in order that they can operate on their entangled particles conjointly.[2] In order to acquire information about the spins of both particles without collapsing their respective wave functions, application of a unitary transformation (a transformation that preserves their entangled states) is required. This transformation allows each team to rotate the entangled basis of their particle. They can then measure their entangled particles separately to acquire the information they seek and to infer, but not to observe, the value of the other team's measurement. (A similar procedure was used
______ _______________
“We are at the stage in our exploration of the frontiers of knowledge when we will no longer be able to definitively prove or disprove many emerging concepts.
However, as with the hypotheses of dark energy and dark matter, we know the multiverse exists because it satisfactorily explains aspects of our cosmos not otherwise explainable.[6] Instantaneously correlated behavior of widely separated particles is one example of a behavior that cannot otherwise be explained.[7]
”
Above quote from your reply.
Can I say that if you can’t prove it, it isn’t scientifif\c. I remember Ptolomey’s theory about the solar system provided a good explnation of the solar system with the Earth as the center. Then a better theory came along and could be proved.
About the number of universes as discussed below:
It seems to me that God could serve his purposes in one universe.
Are there too many universes for the space they must occupy? Isn't an infinite number just too many? I try (with some success) to avoid using the term "infinite" for I don't find it helpful; the term literally means "beyond number" and yet we treat it, as in my phrase "too many" as a number. I use instead the phrase "beyond number" to remind myself that we don't know how many of something there are. Further, to ask if there are too many universes for the space they must occupy, I think, puts the cart before the horse: the universes are there so there must be space for them.
Is the above circular reasoning
Post a Comment