Slashdot Mirror
50 Years of the Multiverse Interpretation
chinmay7 writes "There is an excellent selection of articles (and quite a few related scientific papers) in a special edition of Nature magazine on interpretations of the multiverse theory. 'Fifty years ago this month Hugh Everett III published his paper proposing a "relative-state formulation of quantum mechanics" — the idea subsequently described as the 'many worlds' or 'multiverse' interpretation. Its impact on science and culture continues. In celebration, a science fiction special edition of Nature on 5 July 2007 explores the symbiosis of science and sf, as exemplified by Everett's hypothesis, its birth, evolution, champions and opponents, in biology, physics, literature and beyond.'
There was no Sliders, no Crisis on Infinite Earths, no quantum mirror in Stargate?!
That the first thing I thought of when reading the title was, "50 years of anime?"
If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
Looks like I got landed with the Universe where Slashdot didn't run the story.
Wait, no, that's not why. It's because they're the same thing.
Sony ha
Just what we need; the knowledge that there are an infinite amount of dupe posts in the multi-verse.
But I'd like to know what consists a measurement.
Quantum mechanics does weird stuff when you measure it (probability field of position/velocity).
When something is measured, it collapses it... What causes the collapse?
Perhaps consciousness?
Wasn't it proven that the multiverse interpretation is mathematically equivalent to the other more traditional approaches like wavefunction collapse and decoherence?
I like SF as much as probably most people here, but I can't see the scientific significance.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
For a true retrospective of 50 years of the multiverse interpretation, we would need this nature article from all the multiverses for completeness.
Try harder next time guys.
Hurray for pseudoscience !
In all this postmodern mambo-jambo there is some interesting concept - quantum immortality. http://www.elea.org/Miracles/Miracles1999.html
.sig one-liners, like this:
And there are many nice, easy-to-find
"Under exponential-Everett, as I understand it, almost everybody is 10E-43 seconds from death. It is only in very rare circumstances that we continue to exist from one Planck-time to the next. But that is our history and we do not experience those universes in which we are dead." -- James Higgo
Somewhere, a goateed version of me is reading the story, because that version has a Nature login.
Fifty-Two! Feeftee-Tooo! Fiddy-Doo! 52!
Ok. I'm going public with this craziness of mine...
I've observed many times that I "should have" died. It struck me that, perhaps, I did die in an alternate universe, but I (whatever I "is") continue on in at least one of the multiverses. In those multiverses in which "I" experience the death of a close friend or family member... well... that just is how it goes. But they, too, continue in an instance of the multiverse. Perhaps I do not.
Anyway... "They're coming to take me away, ha ah..."
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
I so wanted to read their take on it, but I gotta catch a flight back to my universe.
Anyone who knows if they'll be selling this one in other universes?
In an alternate universe, an alternate me is thinking "It feels like an alternate me in an alternate universe didn't have the balls to not post anonymously" as alternate me gets modded down by an evil version of CowboyNeal who is just the puppet of dictator Soviet States of America president, John Kerry, who became evil after an unfortunate accident at a dodo barbecue with peace activist Osama bin Laden, who was promptly eaten by Tobias Bruckner's cyborg T-Rex, later stating that he, quote, 'Didn't like the fact that Osama was a transvestite.'
"In celebration, a science fiction special edition of Nature on 5 July 2007 explores the symbiosis of science and sf, as exemplified by Everett's hypothesis, its birth, evolution, eternal champions and opponents, in biology, physics, literature and beyond.'" ...........There fixed that for ya.
In this one it's modded -1, Overrated.
This issue will last me through at least a month of Port and Stilton evenings in the back yard, contemplating the beautifully strange weirdness of reality. Thank you, Nature!
He may experience it for at least 10e-43 seconds..
Then again.. maybe not !
--Ivan
The multiverse hypothesis is an ancient idea. I remember reading about a poetic image used in Hinduism to describe it: that of "Shiva's Necklace". It's said that the god Shiva, which together with Vishnu and Brahma form the (main) Hinduist Trinity, the Trimurti, wears around his neck an infinitely long necklace with an infinite number of beads. Each bead is a full universe, ours being just one among them, and Earth with us just an infinitesimal aspect of that single bead.
It would be nice if scientists, when talking to non-scientists, drafted lively images like this one. IMHO, it would go a long way in bridging the gap between them and "normal" people, who don't think in terms of numbers and mathematical concepts.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
I'm going to gas my neighbor's cat with hydrocyanic acid.
put it in the bit bucket
In celebration, a science fiction special edition of Nature on 5 July 2007 explores the symbiosis of science and sf, as exemplified by Everett's hypothesis, its birth, evolution, champions and opponents, in biology, physics, literature and beyond.'
All of them?
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
If this were the case, then all of the wacked-out comments hea read on /. would really be hallucinogenic creations of his own subconscious. Freak
... where they don't charge you $30 to download the text-only version of the article.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
Don't get terrified, get depressed. If this is my final hallucination than I either want hookers to fall from the sky or this shit to end right now.
If by "perfect Utopian universe" you mean dead, then yes. Somebody's going to push that button.
But lets assume for argument sake that nobody does. People will quickly learn that nobody will push their button, and nobody will seriously care that others have them. We will be in much the same place we are right now.
That's the problem with the current (and former) arms race. We weren't willing to "push the button" (meaning nuke Russia), and Russia wasn't either. Both countries were reduced to non-nuclear means of dealing with each other (Vietnam, etc). The problem with the current variant is that some eastern nut-job is going to decide that Allah wants the West nuked. If capable, this will eventually happen even if a majority of his Muslim countrymen were to disagree with his interpretation.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
I wonder if Deanna and Worf are married in this universe?
Consider a random sequence such as the "increasing decimal point" of the square root of two.
The number sequence is random and runs on forever. If it is random then we can assume that all possible sets of numbers are contained within the sequence.
If we ran a Universal Turin Machine on the square root of 2, and ran it for eternity , than the computer will emulate every single possible program. As Turing has proved that any "possible computer program" can be run on a Turing machine.
If we assume that consciousness can be encoded into a Turing compatible code, then all permutations of consciousness are contained within any naturally occurring infinite sequence.
With this in mind the universe is a highly recursive fractal pattern, infinite in all directions. This moment that you are perceiving is just part of an infinite collection of experiences of the same state.
We can deduce that a transitional state is one where only 1 bit changes in the sequence, or a new bit has been added to the sequence. For instance think of the sequence 101, the transitional states are therefore 001, 111, or 110.
Your state now (and your surrounding perceived environment) can be considered as a sequence of bits (if thinking of a Turing Machine). When any of those bits change it can be considered a change in time, and therefor a change in your state.
Total death of consciousness assumes that there are NO bits present in this system. Therefore death can not be considered a valid transitory state as it doesn't exist. If death was a state where you weren't conscious, you don't exist in that state, instead you continue onto another path where you are conscious.
Basically it's impossible to cease to exist, as existence always exists in some(every) form. There is allways a transition from your state to another, and the path must be taken.
Argh, I probably sound like a mad man, my belief may not make sense to most people, but I think Buddhism is the most spiritual one can get without denying scientific thinking. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_immortality for more info about this idea.
\(^o^)/
I don't care for his illusions, did he save the cat?
the cat probably couldn't have escaped on itself because:
- it would have already done so
- though it can jump, it is very low, and getting its head & vital parts caught in the fire would have
killed her trying, while a man being taller can still move while his shoes are on fire, and the head somewhat out of the smoke...
So my theory of at least some of my dreams being insights into a parallel universe are not so far fetched. Cool. That would also mean dreams of past friends and places are from a different part of the timeline, or a parallel universe whose timeline is running behind ours. This has implications on 'Judgment Day'...are we judged by our actions in our own universe or is it based on the infinite(?) instances in the multiverse rolled up into one judgment.
~ awaiting spiritual enlightenment ~
What does consciousness have to do with it?? Do you think physicists are just sitting around watching photons and eyeballing the measurements? No, obviously they have computers and lab equipment that is recording that information, and will continue to do so whether a conscious person looks at it or not.
The collapse of the wavefunction is caused by interaction with other particles. After the interaction, the particle has a new modified wavefunction.
The sending of this message pretty much inconveniences everyone involved.
Funny(?) to see this article appear in my RSS reader, as I started reading 'His Dark Materials' ( http://www.bridgetothestars.net/index.php?p=parall el ) yesterday, which had many parallels with Stephen King's 'Dark Tower' series. I'm on the second book today and spent a couple of hours searching on the topic a few hours ago ( http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Parallel_univ erse_(fiction) ). Spooky.
Wow, an entire thread on the multiverse hypothesis, and no one's mentioned Noein yet? By far one of the best anime programs of the past couple of years, Noein depicts a conflict between alternative universes that comes to involve a group of middle-school kids in Japan. The producers actually try to explain some of the science involved, including a cute scene with Schrodinger's cat. One of the most experimental animes I've ever watched, and I've watched quite a few. The style of animation is rather unusual; for a sample, see this Youtube clip which shows the opening sequence in the first episode.
It's currently showing on the SciFi channel in the US; most of the series has been released on DVDs in Region 1; there's one more left to go.
The bible is only sacred to those who believe in the divinity of its writers and protagonists. If I were to write my own bible, would you use it as screed for defining the Universe? No, because you wouldn't believe in my divinity. The problem, therefore, with attempting to argue such issues lies with the personal beliefs of the audience. What you hold sacred, the majority of humanity regards as a curiosity.
Biblical mysticism first requires that a person believes in the supernatural. This in itself is an unfounded leap to make, but people generally seem wired to accept this sort of premise. Beyond this, one is also required to accept the ancient writings of various prophets and disciples as the definitive handle on what form the supernatural assumes, and how it relates to us. As there are numerous other religions, both dead and thriving, one must assume that the others are wrong. Why? How can we know?
I can appreciate the fact that science isn't infallible, either. Science has looked at gravity for a few centuries and still hasn't really explained it. Ultimately, there are things science will never explain, but the greatest thing about science is that it doesn't claim to answer questions that can't be proven experimentally. Want to prove why the sun rises? Fire a satellite up to show the earth spinning. Want to prove that Jesus rose from the dead? Rely on testimony retranslated multiple times from a small cult of people living 2000 years ago (or use science to observe that no one who dies comes back to life after 3 days).
You get to know whether the guy lived or the cat... but not both!
Captcha for this post: "choosing". I keep finding these creepy coincidences now and then...
The ONE. Now that was a fun movie. It give you a simplistic look at the multiverse theory and manages to be interesting in the process.
:)
I got interested in the Quantum Theory and Mechanics just by having a conversation with a friend over dinner. I began reading the preliminary thinking and basic theories - it's some mind blowing stuff to be sure. DANGER! QUANTUM THEORY. WARNING: READ AT YOUR PERIL.
Anyway, The ONE should be added to any geeks must have list of movies.
Codifex
Empty of me, at any rate.
I don't exist in all realities. A reality where life is silicone based means my carbon based form wouldn't be there. A reality where I'd exist as a result of choices I don't make means I wouldn't be in that one either. Math is a binding formality across all realities; 2 + 2 is always 4, no matter where you go, and in some realities, I'm a 3 to that equation which means the quantum possibility won't be able to materialize. --Or rather, God's awareness would have to manifest in a manner more appropriate and fitting; a version of me who DID make the necessary choices and who is built to exist in accordance with the local physics, all of which would presuppose a suitable version of me who exists there willingly. So it's not a problem either way.
-FL
I think one of the things people forget about "quantum interpretations" is that they are just that: interpretations. The physics is self contained within the mathematics and procedures of quantum theory and its ability to predict experimental outcomes -- and is independent of interpretation. Also, a valid interpretation is inherently subjective, experimentally indistinguishable from another self-consistent interpretation. If new physics actually emerges from a specific interpretation or one interpretation is somehow experimentally distinguishable from another, then you aren't really talking about interpretations anymore and you are talking about some structural, scientific part of the theory. There are perhaps a dozen or more self-consistent interpretations of quantum mechanics on the market, most of them dating back over 40 years, all of them (apparently) experimentally indistinguishable. Some are downright silly, for example, the Copenhagen interpretation, while others tickle the imagination like Many Worlds. Fads will come and go which favor one over another. But despite what people like to believe, there is no experimental way (yet?!) to distinguish between Copenhagen and Many Worlds interpretations. Perhaps one charismatic theorists pushes for one for a few years or the community adopts it as a default for a while, for no other reason than fashion. But the actual science that is done with quantum mechanics marches on independent of all that. The interpretations serve basically three roles: 1) it lets a physicist adopt something so they can sleep at night; 2) one interpretation may provide problem solving insight into new or old problems, which might give it an creative advantage for inventing new ideas; 3) perhaps what you are dealing with isn't an interpretation at all, but rather something fundamental (and thus experimentally distinguishable from other interpretations) and so exploring all its possibilities is natural (hedging your bet in case the theory can be augmented). I personally enjoy thinking about the various quantum interpretations out there, so I certainly don't want to discourage people who like to dabble. What I don't like is when people (especially physicists like myself) start talking about how "the world really is" through these interpretations or speak of them as if they were accepted facts of reality or experimentally confirmed physics, which is certainly not the case for MWI, for example. What we have is basically a powerful engine for calculating things, but the physical meaning of the engine can be viewed many ways and still function as the same engine. To ask what the engine is "really" doing becomes metaphysics because all you can apparently actually measure are the inputs and outputs.
i\hbar\dot{\psi}=\hat{H}\psi
And while everyone is getting all misty eyed about EW, here is a critique of it written by physicist John Cramer (the guy doing the time signalling research at the University of Washingtion that is being funded by donations). A quote:(And lest anyone get their knickers in a twist over this quote, Cramer also describes EW as "perhaps the most 'heroic' of the efforts to deal with the problem of collapse.")
The whole article this analysis is part of is well worth reading as it presents a good description of the issues involved in thinking about all these interpretations. It also presents an interesting interpetation that some readers may not have encountered - the Transactional Interpretation - which is built on work done by Feynman. Even if you don't agree with his views, I think most will find it an interesting read.
You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
A sophomore, eh? Incoherent, eh? Oh, now you can't just throw juicy words like that around without backing them up with a couple of explanations. I hear they require that of students with grad level pretensions. Or, pardon me, but are you beyond such mundane things? Sigh. It must be nice to be able to throw hot accusations and have them stick without any requirement of validation on your part.
You see, I do actually have a rather clear understanding of the principal, and I think if you will re-read my junior antics, you will see that I am not actually trying to disagree or agree with the theory, but rather discuss how the theory fits with the phenomenon of conscious intention. Quantum theory rests in part on possibilities collapsing upon measurement, which means the state of the observer plays a significant role, which implies choice.
But I suppose that's just par for the course for someone who thinks the universe bends to their whim.
What? The universe does not bend to your whim? Gee. I can't even imagine what your life must be like! --What do you do, for instance, when you are thirsty? --When I feel like having a drink of water, I simply make an empty glass fill up with water. I make the Universe obey my whim!
Oh, I'm sorry. Was that too sophomoric for you? (Translation: annoyingly valid in a way which makes my well-ordered high-brow ducks waddle around noisily, but stated in such a way which is so. . , uneducated that I simply cannot dignify it with a gentleman's response. Quick! Lovey-dear, I think the help has been reading again. Give the cheeky villain a swat on his rear, will you? Heaven knows, only a properly trained man can responsibly manage knowledge. There's no telling what an unrestrained mind not adequately paddled into a civilized state of submission might do with an idea!)
-FL
All those of you (the infinite number of "you") whose neighbor isn't named "Schrodinger", that is...
I'm afraid that it is different in QM. Where you have left your keys is not random. The fact you do not know where they are is down to ignorance, pardon the expression. In QM the 'unkown' is down to the coherent state which encompases all other states at once. If you wish a classical example: the coin flip. Heads or tails. If the coin is flipped the result is 50% heads, 50% tails. When th coin is flipped yet still covered the chances are heads 100% tails 0% you just don't know which one. In QM there exists a third state Heads/tails which has a real eigenvalue. Only the act of measurement makes the eignvalue drop to zero. This is known as decoherence and it is an obeserable fact. There is a bridge between the quantum and classical world which is crossed (Copenhagen interpretation of QM doesn't really care where). Questions are asked how does the wave function collapse. Answer it interacts with other atoms that define it in our classical world. Keeping this coherent state completely in the QM world is key to Quantum computing and cryptography. The power in these applications is making sure that these waves decohere in a proper inteperatable way. There is no mystery, no magic and it is not the result of consciousness.