Lightspeed, time and multiple realities

[Sir Doom]

I had a thought about this just now and I wanted to see what people thought about my thought.

I was thinking about the idea that every choice we make spawns a new reality. It would seem like there would be so many realities it would be absurd, but then I got to thinking about the speed of light being the cosmic speed limit and how time slows down to a standstill if moving at the speed of light.

Wouldn't this sort of put a maximum 'spawn-rate' on realities under this premise?

I think that might reduce the number of realities to something less than infinity which is somewhat promising for the idea, I would say.

 

[Parsimony]

If you have a limited number of particles in a closed universe, then there are a limited number of possible ways that they can interact at any given moment. That alone should prevent the "spawn-a-new-reality" sequence from going infinite after any finite span of time has passed. The number, however, would still be absurdly large.

 

[Straw Dog]

I was thinking about the idea that every choice we make spawns a new reality. It would seem like there would be so many realities it would be absurd, but then I got to thinking about the speed of light being the cosmic speed limit and how time slows down to a standstill if moving at the speed of light.

Wouldn't this sort of put a maximum 'spawn-rate' on realities under this premise?

I think that might reduce the number of realities to something less than infinity which is somewhat promising for the idea, I would say.

I've had similar thoughts, actually.

There is a constant opening up of the possibilities of situations. Making a choice collapses them into an actualization while creating new possibilities. It's not that there are infinite possibilities, but always a certain net range based on conditions.

I've been approaching it more philosophically, though, rather than scientifically so I'm not sure about the physics. The idea of having a spawn-rate for realities makes sense, but the vast number of realities would still seem quite absurd. Also, are there realities outside of consciousness?

 

[brokensymmetry]

I had a thought about this just now and I wanted to see what people thought about my thought.

I was thinking about the idea that every choice we make spawns a new reality. It would seem like there would be so many realities it would be absurd, but then I got to thinking about the speed of light being the cosmic speed limit and how time slows down to a standstill if moving at the speed of light.

Wouldn't this sort of put a maximum 'spawn-rate' on realities under this premise?

I think that might reduce the number of realities to something less than infinity which is somewhat promising for the idea, I would say.

Do you have in mind the multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics? It's but one way to try to understand superpositions of quantum states and decoherence, and I don't see how the finitude of the speed of light is relevant to the number of multiverses involved.

 

[Parsimony]

Of possible relevance:

Quantum twist could kill off the multiverse - physics-math - 14 May 2014 - New Scientist

 

[Penumbra]

I had a thought about this just now and I wanted to see what people thought about my thought.

I was thinking about the idea that every choice we make spawns a new reality. It would seem like there would be so many realities it would be absurd, but then I got to thinking about the speed of light being the cosmic speed limit and how time slows down to a standstill if moving at the speed of light.

Wouldn't this sort of put a maximum 'spawn-rate' on realities under this premise?

I think that might reduce the number of realities to something less than infinity which is somewhat promising for the idea, I would say.

Whether spacetime itself is discrete or not is a factor.

If space is not discrete, than a given particle can move in an infinite number of directions, with infinitesimal variations between those possible directions. For example, there are 360 degrees in a circle, so you can move in 360 integer directions (discounting other planes of movement in a sphere, for simplicity). If you can move a half degree rather than only integer degrees, then there are 720 possible directions to travel. If you can move a quarter degree, then there are 1440 possible directions, and so onto infinity.

So, if there is a finite number of particles and a finite amount of elapsed time, there can still be an infinite number of potential movements and arrangements. Those infinitesimally small differences might get to a point of being small enough that they don't affect anything at the macro level though, making for either not an infinite number of realities, or an infinite number of realities for which many of them look identical to other ones but with infinitesimally small differences.

If spacetime is discrete, as some people have indeed theorized, then this scenario doesn't occur, because a finite number of particles will move in a finite number of directions/arrangements for a finite period of time.

 

[Skwim]

I had a thought about this just now and I wanted to see what people thought about my thought.

I was thinking about the idea that every choice we make spawns a new reality. It would seem like there would be so many realities it would be absurd, but then I got to thinking about the speed of light being the cosmic speed limit and how time slows down to a standstill if moving at the speed of light.

Wouldn't this sort of put a maximum 'spawn-rate' on realities under this premise?

I think that might reduce the number of realities to something less than infinity which is somewhat promising for the idea, I would say.

I think that to answer properly we have know what you mean by "reality(ies)." What ya got?

 

[BSM1]

I think that might reduce the number of realities to something less than infinity which is somewhat promising for the idea, I would say.

[/QUOTE]

If this were the case could the number of realities only be infinity-1?

 

[Sir Doom]

I was thinking mostly of the science-fiction trope like Marty McFly's sports almanac, for example.

Basically what I was thinking is that since time slows relative to the speed we move, no matter how quickly we made decisions and acted on them, the alternative realities (and by this I mean realities where we took a different action) would be created at the same constant rate, or at least a maximum rate.

Thinking about it now after reading the comments, I don't really think it makes much of a difference either way. I wasn't really thinking about quantum mechanics or anything like that.

 

[Thief]

I had a thought about this just now and I wanted to see what people thought about my thought.

I was thinking about the idea that every choice we make spawns a new reality. It would seem like there would be so many realities it would be absurd, but then I got to thinking about the speed of light being the cosmic speed limit and how time slows down to a standstill if moving at the speed of light.

Wouldn't this sort of put a maximum 'spawn-rate' on realities under this premise?

I think that might reduce the number of realities to something less than infinity which is somewhat promising for the idea, I would say.

Saw the notion presented in a science documentary about a year ago.
Order dinner and you may anticipate what will be on the plate....but...
it's not real until it lands on the table in front of you.

I thought that demonstration was a bit shallow.

As for the speed of light...
The one item no one ever mentions.....EVEN THOUGH we do such things....
An item moving toward you as you move to it....at the speed of light...
is traveling at twice the constant!

We do this in colliders.
The speed of light is doubled as the particles are moving to each other.
All motion is relative.
Even if the speed of light cannot be exceeded by one item...
an opposing vector increases the factor!

 

[Parsimony]

Saw the notion presented in a science documentary about a year ago.
Order dinner and you may anticipate what will be on the plate....but...
it's not real until it lands on the table in front of you.

I thought that demonstration was a bit shallow.

As for the speed of light...
The one item no one ever mentions.....EVEN THOUGH we do such things....
An item moving toward you as you move to it....at the speed of light...
is traveling at twice the constant!

We do this in colliders.
The speed of light is doubled as the particles are moving to each other.
All motion is relative.
Even if the speed of light cannot be exceeded by one item...
an opposing vector increases the factor!

That's not true, actually. The speed of light is a constant for all observers, regardless of speed and direction. If I move towards you at 90% the speed of light while you move towards me at 90% the speed of light (as seen by a third observer, that is), we will not look to each other like we are moving at 180% the speed of light. We will both look to each other as though we are moving at sub-light speed. There is a formula to calculate what speed it would look like, but I can say for sure that it is below the speed of light. Relativity actually hinges on that fact. That's how crazy effects like time dilation and length contraction are derived.

 

[Thief]

That's not true, actually. The speed of light is a constant for all observers, regardless of speed and direction. If I move towards you at 90% the speed of light while you move towards me at 90% the speed of light (as seen by a third observer, that is), we will not look to each other like we are moving at 180% the speed of light. We will both look to each other as though we are moving at sub-light speed. There is a formula to calculate what speed it would look like, but I can say for sure that it is below the speed of light. Relativity actually hinges on that fact. That's how crazy effects like time dilation and length contraction are derived.

Not buying it.

If your car heads to collision at 60mph....
And the oncoming is headed your way at 60mph....
The impact will be dealt at 120mph.

That's how the colliders work.
The speed of light is doubled by the head on direction.

As for objects that ARE on direct collision course.
They never see it coming.
The light emission in the direction of travel never goes ahead.

 

[dust1n]

Not buying it.

If your car heads to collision at 60mph....
And the oncoming is headed your way at 60mph....
The impact will be dealt at 120mph.

That's how the colliders work.
The speed of light is doubled by the head on direction.

As for objects that ARE on direct collision course.
They never see it coming.
The light emission in the direction of travel never goes ahead.

Particles colliding do not operate the same way cars do.

Which is why classical mechanics can explain a car colliding, but not two particles. Enter quantum mechanics. And that's not how colliders work.

"The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) uses an array of 9,300 supercooled electromagnets to guide and accelerate particles – namely protons, around the 27km underground ring at CERN in Geneva, up to speeds extremely close to that of light. At their fastest, these particles travel at around 299.8 million metres per second completing 11,245 laps of this ring every second. This is equivalent to travelling around the circumference of the Earth seven and a half times in one second.

The LHC has two rings with beams of trillions of particles zooming around in opposite directions. Detectors are placed at certain points where the pipes intersect causing collisions to occur. As both the particles are travelling in opposite directions at nearly the speed of light, you might expect their combined collision speed to be almost twice the speed of light. However both particles would measure their collision speed to be less than the speed of light. This seems counter-intuitive but is accounted for by the slowing down of time and warping of space as explained by Einstein’s special theory of relativity. This theory explains why no particle with mass should be able to travel faster than light, as it would require an infinite amount of energy to get there!"

How fast is the Large Hadron Collider? | How It Works Magazine

 

[Thief]

Particles colliding do not operate the same way cars do.

Which is why classical mechanics can explain a car colliding, but not two particles. Enter quantum mechanics. And that's not how colliders work.

"The Large Hadron Collider (LHC) uses an array of 9,300 supercooled electromagnets to guide and accelerate particles – namely protons, around the 27km underground ring at CERN in Geneva, up to speeds extremely close to that of light. At their fastest, these particles travel at around 299.8 million metres per second completing 11,245 laps of this ring every second. This is equivalent to travelling around the circumference of the Earth seven and a half times in one second.

The LHC has two rings with beams of trillions of particles zooming around in opposite directions. Detectors are placed at certain points where the pipes intersect causing collisions to occur. As both the particles are travelling in opposite directions at nearly the speed of light, you might expect their combined collision speed to be almost twice the speed of light. However both particles would measure their collision speed to be less than the speed of light. This seems counter-intuitive but is accounted for by the slowing down of time and warping of space as explained by Einstein’s special theory of relativity. This theory explains why no particle with mass should be able to travel faster than light, as it would require an infinite amount of energy to get there!"

How fast is the Large Hadron Collider? | How It Works Magazine

Interesting!
The people who operate the device (and then interview) never seem to mention these details!

I will have another look around.

 

[Thief]

Took that look....

ok...so...We don't have on earth what it takes to obtain the speed of light.

But light does it.
And is constant.

Hence the factor in Albert's equation.

Would you then say 'nothing' could possibly meet head on ...at 2C?

 

[Parsimony]

Not buying it.

If your car heads to collision at 60mph....
And the oncoming is headed your way at 60mph....
The impact will be dealt at 120mph.

That's how the colliders work.
The speed of light is doubled by the head on direction.

As for objects that ARE on direct collision course.
They never see it coming.
The light emission in the direction of travel never goes ahead.

No, it's not that simple. At low speeds, the effects of relativity are so small that they can be ignored. For all intents and purposes, two cars passing each other at 60 mph will look like they are moving at 120 mph relative to one-another. This, however, is not true of velocities that are near the speed of light. Added velocities can never exceed the speed of light. Please do some reading about special relativity: Special relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Velocities (speeds) do not simply add."

"Notice that if the object were moving at the speed of light in the S system (i.e. u = c), then it would also be moving at the speed of light in the S′ system. Also, if both u and v are small with respect to the speed of light, we will recover the intuitive Galilean transformation of velocities"

Would you then say 'nothing' could possibly meet head on ...at 2C?

Nothing made of matter or energy could, no. See above.

See also: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/Special_relativity_adding/index.html

 

[Thief]

No, it's not that simple. At low speeds, the effects of relativity are so small that they can be ignored. For all intents and purposes, two cars passing each other at 60 mph will look like they are moving at 120 mph relative to one-another. This, however, is not true of velocities that are near the speed of light. Added velocities can never exceed the speed of light. Please do some reading about special relativity: Special relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Velocities (speeds) do not simply add."

"Notice that if the object were moving at the speed of light in the S system (i.e. u = c), then it would also be moving at the speed of light in the S′ system. Also, if both u and v are small with respect to the speed of light, we will recover the intuitive Galilean transformation of velocities"


Nothing made of matter or energy could, no. See above.

See also: Special Relativity Adding Velocities

Ok...But if you now say nothing could collide head on at the speed of light (or even a bit slower)....what particles are being destroyed when the collider is working?.

I'm not leaning to appearances.
The rules of mass and velocity apply on the highway.
60+60 head on IS an impact at 120mph.

C+C would be an impact would be a vector at twice the speed of light.
(even if it might be a little bit slower).

Have you considered what it would 'look' like if you could go that fast?

 

[Parsimony]

Ok...But if you now say nothing could collide head on at the speed of light (or even a bit slower)....what particles are being destroyed when the collider is working?.

You can't destroy matter or energy. You can only make them change form. Particles are not being destroyed in colliders, they are simply transforming themselves into new particles. Things can collide head-on close to the speed of light, but not above the speed of light.

I'm not leaning to appearances.
The rules of mass and velocity apply on the highway.
60+60 head on IS an impact at 120mph.

Nor am I contesting that. It's the relativistic velocities I am talking about.

C+C would be an impact would be a vector at twice the speed of light.
(even if it might be a little bit slower).

No. The impact would be at c. Space and time would always warp in just the right way to prevent speeds above light in any reference frame. If you read the second link I provided you, you would know that. Velocities do not add linearly at those high speeds. Special relativity is counterintuitive, but it is verified by experiment.

Have you considered what it would 'look' like if you could go that fast?

A beam of light in a vacuum always looks to be traveling at 300,000 km/s, regardless of your own speed or the direction that the light is moving in. Experiment has proven this to be true (the Michelson-Morley experiment and the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment).

 

[Thief]

You can't destroy matter or energy. You can only make them change form. Particles are not being destroyed in colliders, they are simply transforming themselves into new particles. Things can collide head-on close to the speed of light, but not above the speed of light.


Nor am I contesting that. It's the relativistic velocities I am talking about.


No. The impact would be at c. If you read the second link I provided you, you would know that. Velocities do not add linearly at those high speeds. Special relativity is counterintuitive, but it is verified by experiment.


A beam of light in a vacuum always looks to be traveling at 300,000 km/s, regardless of your own speed or the direction that the light is moving in. Experiment has proven this to be true (the Michelson-Morley experiment and the Kennedy-Thorndike experiment).

So the protons are not breaking into quarks?
And that destroyed particle changing to energy did not collide with anything?
head on at the (near) speed of light?

And you still can't see what it would be like to move that fast?

 

[Parsimony]

So the protons are not breaking into quarks?
And that destroyed particle changing to energy did not collide with anything?
head on at the (near) speed of light?p

Since you can't have free quarks, no. The particles are indeed colliding with each other, but the velocities as seen from any reference frame is below that of light. Always.

And you still can't see what it would be like to move that fast?

It is possible to visualize moving near the speed of light. Some things would indeed look strange (strong blue shift, Lorentz contraction, etc.), but nothing that you measure will be going faster than light.

Here is a video explaining how two spaceships (one moving at 0.6c and the other at 0.8c) would not move relative to each other at 1.4c, but rather at 0.946c: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFh8fAbAQWw