Multiverse splits the universe with every choice

Multiverse, the one where the universe splits at every choice. Everything happens in its own universe.

So, what does that mean??? Nothing, you'll never see it.

You will never get to see all the worlds that could be.

 

Firstly, you are talking about the extreme interpretation of the Many World's Theory, which is really a hypothesis or one interpretation of Quantum Mechanics; in particular the Schrodinger's Cat paradox - the Everett interpretation. But given that, you might be able to see alternate realities if time travel into the past is possible. You would see the universe where you didn't go back in time - the one you start in - and then the one where you did go back in time. This removes the problem of temporal paradoxes.

Also, since we don't even know if it's true, we can't rule out the possibility that we could travel between alternative universes.

I found that marriage also makes it possible to see alternative universes: I always knew what happened in my universe. But her's was entirely different.

 

Well as far as I know there are two possibilities. Either the universe splits at every choice or it [the many choices] collapses into one reality when observed.

 

What problem was there, that drove the creation of the multiverse idea? I cannot recall what prompted it.

I seem to recall it concerned something being questioned at the quantum level.

 

Well, do we have a free will or is everything set in motion and continued along the path that its supposed to go from the beginning of time due to physics? Whats to say your "choice" wasn't influenced by your up bringing, which was influenced to the infinite level all the way back to the beginning? Molecular levels of forces acting upon each other in ways we can never measure or perceive bringing us to a "choice" of going pee right now, or waiting 2 mins. So many variables out there that we will never know how we make a decision about things from basic bodily functions to whether or not we reproduce with someone. Our thoughts and decisions are also physics driven with neurons and electrons flowing in patterns and giving us hard wired decision making skills.

 

The multiverse idea is slightly older than you may already know.

Multiverse
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multiverse&oldid=855693859

 

We probably have free will, but they don't know yet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Quantum_Physics

 

There is a third possibility considered by Quantum Cosmologists who have to worry about things like the wavefunction of the entire universe. They suggest that the wavefunction of the observer collapses, and not the observed.

Most physicist do not buy into the idea of an entirely new universe emerging with every possible option. I've seen Many World's theorists take a real beating from people like Standard Model physicists. But then physicists love to call each other crackpots. LOL!!! Proponents from differing schools of thought often do not get along at all. I've even seen the very notion of collapse disregarded as obsolete.

One possible explanation for the so-called collapse is that it results from gravitational effects between photons and atoms, and no observer is needed.

 

I've always thought this concept was absurd. Why would the universe care what the choices of human beings are? Why does it have anything to with choices in the first place? Sounds like human arrogance at it's finest. The idea that not just this unvierse, but an untold number of other universes are all based on human beings and what they do.

And, lets say a multiverse does exist. Wouldn't new universes be created based on more than just "choices". I would think that every action down to the subatomoic level would spawn a new universe. Every time an electron moves, a new universe gets created, because that is an action. For all intents and purposes, this would mean an infinite number of universes.

And finally, what does this concept gain for us? How do we benefit from this fantastical thinking?

Honestly, I find it hard to believe that this concept is even entertained in the scientific community. It's so absurd on it's face that we might as well still be talking about there being an ether.

 

I had not considered the third option that is "the wavefunction of the observer collapses, and not the observed." Interesting idea.

And also yes gravity does collapse the wave function.

 

I have seen that argued both ways. But if true, the observer really isn't critical, which removes a bit of the spooky aspects of it. But there are experiments that produce challenges to that idea. To the best of my knowledge, none of this is resolved yet.

 

Yes subatomic particles have their own set of "choices" too. Splitting the universe without end.

 

You might never get to know. Oh, no!

 

Well, I may know in a number of other universes but not this one yet....

 

Tbis idea could help us understand the cosmogocal constant and dark energy.

 

The philosophical interpretation results from empirical evidence. We go where the evidence leads us and try to make sense of it. And the origins of it go back to Schrodinger and his State Theory from the early 1920s. He won the Nobel Prize in 1933.

An interesting note: It is said that his greatest inspirations came after spending time with young women; in particular time in the Swiss Alps with a young woman who was married, IIRC. The correlation between his sexual life and his professional life was considered common knowledge among his friends.

For that reason alone I chase young women in hopes of winning a Nobel Prize.

 

https://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/nobel-prize-awarded-to-two-quantum-physicists

 

Thanks! You indeed informed me of something that I was not aware of! That is why I like this section of the forum. Good, intelligent folks here.

But I had read in the last few years, somewhere, that this multiverse idea was perhaps in vogue again, or we are talking about it again, due to some question being raised. Perhaps it was about how finely tuned this universe that we exist in, is, and the odds of that happening? I am not sure. But if there are other universes where such a fine tuning does not exist, then that would give me a reason to believe it was brought out of the cobwebs to address that question. As a way to explain how ours is, and that if only something was just a little off we would not exist nor would the universe that we observe. Sound familiar? Have you read this as well? Or were you not aware of it?

 

I wasn't aware of it. Sorry I can't help you.

But here's a thought most of quantum physics comes down to trying to explain Schrödinger's cat and also the double-slit experiment.

 

And to that point, have you heard of the physicist, Sean Carroll? I think he is currently at Cal Tech. Anyways, he mentioned something recently on the Joe Rogan podcast, that I found interesting. His take on physics in academia is that they don't really ask the questions about QM that arise here in this section of this forum. Since Feynman, they have more or less taken his advice and just worked the equations, and seldom ask the Big Questions in regards to QM. So much so that Sean said many of his peers, while he was attending university, once they got their Master degrees in physics, got their Phds in philosophy! Why? Well, he said something that I have heard for years, coming from retired physics profs. That the field of physics is not interested, in academia, of the Big Questions, and quite a few physics majors are. And so the only field where they can actually go into this is in....yep, philosophy. ha ha ha. And I would imagine they make some really thoughtful, rational, logical, profs of philosophy! At least when it comes to the big questions of the implications of QM. Something that seems to be gaining popularity, according to him. And so academia, the politics of it, discourages asking and probing into those big questions. Just work the damned equations! Don't try to understand it. Although Carroll is writing a book or has written a book on this recently, to my understanding. I have not read it yet.

 

That's only one philosophical interpretation.

Only correlation can be observed.

And the correlations that are observed seem to be as if possibilities that don't happen have a statistical effect on the probabilities of what does happen. (basically wave-theory)

That could either mean these possibilities do exist, in a sense, or that it goes down to something much more fundamental in the nature of the universe that transcends the usual understanding of time and the relationship between cause and effect.

To state it in another way, we can't actually see the wave-like nature with multiple probabilities, but it has an effect on the mathematical equations that predict what we do see.

The multiverse theory (which can't really be proven or disproven at this point) holds that what we do see is fundamentally no different than all the other possibilities.

 

Whichever universe houses humans must follow a strict set of physical laws otherwise humans can't exist there. This doesn't mean a MV doesn't exist but we would have access only to those like our own. Other forms of life might exist elsewhere. None of this means much but it is interesting in its limitations.

 

Lisa Randall put out a book discussing the potential of universes with different physical laws and even what forms of life might exist. I never read it so I'm not sure how far out on a limb she goes. But it sounded interesting. I always mean to pick up a copy.

 

It all comes down to grant money. What is most interesting and potentially significant, doesn't necessarily produce the potential for practical applications. I have seen plenty of grad students steered away from discussions like this because it can be a death rattle for their careers before they start.

I will never forget something I came up with as an undergrad. I was showing a unique way of viewing a relationship between the Uncertainty Principle and the De Brolie Wavelength. My professor for nuclear physics, a woman, was interested and wanted to talk about it. So I met her in her office after class. But then another professor came in - a man. She told him about my observation and interpretation. He scoffed and basically dismissed it as irrelevant. The next thing I knew, they were in a heated argument. Eventually I just backed out of the office. Things were getting pretty ugly. Later I found out that they were married!!!

 

Probably something someone in NASA dreamed up.