• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Question about Multi-Verse / Many-Worlds Theory

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
If I understand properly, Multi-verse and Many-Worlds theory hinges on unobserved quantum particle behavior.

If this is correct, why is unobserved particle behavior relevant for us? We're not quantum sized particles, and even if we were, as soon as anyone of us observes anything... the quantum behavior collapses? The net result is null? And therefore there is only 1 universe, 1 reality, right? :confused:
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
First, there are several different versions of the multiverse scenario. Some, for example, merely have other 'universes' as causally disconnected patches that are far enough away from us that there has been no interaction since the Big Bang.

The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, however, is (close to) what you are talking about here. The issue is what 'collapse of a wave function' means. In the context of the Everett many-worlds scenarios, every observation (the collapse) produces a split in the universe, with each possible observation happening in one of the splits.

So, if there is an electron in a mixed state of spin-up and spin-down and an observation is made, then the *whole universe* splits into two. One has the electron as spin-up and the other has the electron as spin-down.

The interesting aspect of this is that it follows pretty straightforwardly from the Schrodinger formulation of quantum theory. The reason a measurement *is* a measurement is that the other options in the mix are no longer retrievable. This process splits the Hilbert space of wave functions, which Everett interprets as a split in the universe (since all information prior to the split is shared).
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
is an electron in a mixed state of spin-up and spin-down
I thought that mixed state was a theoretical probability. It exists in the Math and the equations, but it's nothing more than "odds are the particle will be ..." ?

The particle only actually behaves 1 way, right? The remainder never actually happen?

Edit to add:

Isn't this all just a thought experiment? ( Yes, just like Schrodinger's cat? )
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I thought that mixed state was a theoretical probability. It exists in the Math and the equations, but it's nothing more than "odds are the particle will be ..." ?

Not quite. For example, a system that has 100 electrons in a 50/50 mixed state of spin-up/spin-down is a physically different system than one that has 50 electrons spin-up and 50 spin-down. There are 'interference effects' that show up (observationally) in the mixed state that do not in the 'pure' state.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
The particle only actually behaves 1 way, right? The remainder never actually happen?

Edit to add:

Isn't this all just a thought experiment? ( Yes, just like Schrodinger's cat? )

First, no it is NOT just a thought experiment. Mixed states (and entangled states) are routinely produced and measured. These are *real* situations.

Second, the particle can only be *observed* in one or the other state, but it is quite possible (and commonly done) to have the two parts of the 'mixture' do separate things, both of which are observed to happen.

So, it is possible to split a light beam into different polarizations, have the two beams bounce off different objects, then recombine before observation. The result will show influences from *both* paths.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
First, no it is NOT just a thought experiment. Mixed states (and entangled states) are routinely produced and measured. These are *real* situations.

Second, the particle can only be *observed* in one or the other state, but it is quite possible (and commonly done) to have the two parts of the 'mixture' do separate things, both of which are observed to happen.

So, it is possible to split a light beam into different polarizations, have the two beams bounce off different objects, then recombine before observation. The result will show influences from *both* paths.
Thank you!
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I'd also point out that the interference effects I mention happen even if only one particle is sent through the system at a time.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
That addresses my question about observation. What about size? Is the behavior of a quantum particle expected to be at all similar to the behavior of a football? Maybe there are many-worlds for quantum particles. But I am not a quantum particle. ( At least as far as I know :rolleyes: ). Isn't that one of the important elements of quantum mechanics? Quantum particles don't behave like Newtonian objects?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
That addresses my question about observation. What about size? Is the behavior of a quantum particle expected to be at all similar to the behavior of a football? Maybe there are many-worlds for quantum particles. But I am not a quantum particle. ( At least as far as I know :rolleyes: ). Isn't that one of the important elements of quantum mechanics? Quantum particles don't behave like Newtonian objects?

Well, Planck's constant is small and it mediates how much the quantum aspects are relevant. Because of this, macroscopic objects don't usually show quantum effects. More accurately, the quantum effects are too small to be measurable. This is why quantum mechanics didn't get discovered until we started looking very closely at atoms.

There *are* situations when macroscopic objects show quantum indeterminacy, but those situations tend to be at very low temperatures (less than one degree of absolute zero) and in *very* specific situations.

That said, everything is ultimately made from quantum particles. The reason macroscopic objects obey Newtonian mechanics is that the Newtonian path is *by far* the most probable *quantum path* and for large objects (larger than an atom or so), the quantum effects don't change that much.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
If I understand properly, Multi-verse and Many-Worlds theory hinges on unobserved quantum particle behavior.

If this is correct, why is unobserved particle behavior relevant for us? We're not quantum sized particles, and even if we were, as soon as anyone of us observes anything... the quantum behavior collapses? The net result is null? And therefore there is only 1 universe, 1 reality, right? :confused:
We cannot see even to the end of our universe, so we'll never know for certain whether we are part of a multiverse. However, based on the behavior of sub-atomic particles, most cosmologists and quantum physicists that I have read believe that it is likely that we are part of one.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
If I understand properly, Multi-verse and Many-Worlds theory hinges on unobserved quantum particle behavior.

If this is correct, why is unobserved particle behavior relevant for us? We're not quantum sized particles, and even if we were, as soon as anyone of us observes anything... the quantum behavior collapses? The net result is null? And therefore there is only 1 universe, 1 reality, right? :confused:
I think one problem we have is that our minds want to collapse reality into something we can get our heads around.

I start with this mystery: Why should observation affect anything external like quantum behavior of an electron?

I think the direction to solving the mystery is to think we had it all wrong in looking at things bottom up; subatomic particles make atoms which make molecules which make cells, which makes consciousness. Bottom-up creation. I think that way of looking at things makes sense only 99.999% of the time.

It all starts from the top and works down. It starts with a creation of God/Brahman and the lower levels play it out. Top-down creation.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I think one problem we have is that our minds want to collapse reality into something we can get our heads around.

I start with this mystery: Why should observation affect anything external like quantum behavior of an electron?

It's a good question, but it does have an answer.

Think about it like this. What does it take to observe an electron? More specifically, what does it take to observe the *location* of an electron (say, to answer which slit it goes through in the double slit experiment)?

Well, we cannot 'just look' because to 'look' means we are getting light (or something else) that somehow interacted with that electron and carries information about the position of that electron.

But, in order for that light to react differently to the different electron positions, the light has to have a wavelength short enough to distinguish the distances we are wanting (the distance between the slits).

The problem comes when we realize that small wavelength = high energy.

So to be able to distinguish between the two slits, we have to hit the electron with light of a small wavelength, which is thereby energetic. But this means that the electron was more affected by the collision of that light (photon). And, in fact, if the wavelength is amll enough to distinguish between the slits in a double slit experiment, the interaction with the light is strong enough to eliminate the interference pattern for the electron.

And this is the fundamental realization of ALL of quantum mechanics: in order to 'observe' something, you interact with it. More precision in the observation implies a stronger interaction which affects the thing you want to observe.

It isn't consciousness that makes the difference. It is the wavelength of the light used to observe the electron.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
It's a good question, but it does have an answer.

Think about it like this. What does it take to observe an electron? More specifically, what does it take to observe the *location* of an electron (say, to answer which slit it goes through in the double slit experiment)?

Well, we cannot 'just look' because to 'look' means we are getting light (or something else) that somehow interacted with that electron and carries information about the position of that electron.

But, in order for that light to react differently to the different electron positions, the light has to have a wavelength short enough to distinguish the distances we are wanting (the distance between the slits).

The problem comes when we realize that small wavelength = high energy.

So to be able to distinguish between the two slits, we have to hit the electron with light of a small wavelength, which is thereby energetic. But this means that the electron was more affected by the collision of that light (photon). And, in fact, if the wavelength is amll enough to distinguish between the slits in a double slit experiment, the interaction with the light is strong enough to eliminate the interference pattern for the electron.

And this is the fundamental realization of ALL of quantum mechanics: in order to 'observe' something, you interact with it. More precision in the observation implies a stronger interaction which affects the thing you want to observe.

It isn't consciousness that makes the difference. It is the wavelength of the light used to observe the electron.
The question becomes why does 'passive' observation matter? The eye for example only receives information (passive observer). Observation by the eye should not affect anything in the materialist understanding of things. But it does? Why?

If it was a simple as you say we wouldn't be talking about a mystery. Passive observation is possible and should not matter in something like the double-slit experiment in our materialist understanding of reality. But the experiment shows passive observation does affect things.

You must question why the double-slit experiment is considering so counter-intuitive to so many great minds.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
The question becomes why does 'passive' observation matter? The eye for example only receives information (passive observer). Observation by the eye should not affect anything in the materialist understanding of things. But it does? Why?

No, passivity of the observation isn't relevant. What is relevant is whether that photon that interacted with the electron (to allow you to see it at all) had a high or a low energy (and thereby a short or large wavelength). Whether that information ever gets to an eye is irrelevant. Even if it is all cameras and automatic recordings, the interference pattern is eliminated if the photon hitting the electron has a short enough wavelength to distinguish between the slits.

If it was a simple as you say we wouldn't be talking about a mystery. Passive observation is possible and should not matter in something like the double-slit experiment in our materialist understanding of reality. But the experiment shows passive observation does affect things.

ALL observation requires some sort of interaction with the thing being observed. To be able to locate an electron, that electron had to interact with something that had a small wavelength and thereby a large energy.

If you have a double slit experiment and no light to determine the location of the electron, then an interference pattern will show up. if you have light that does not have a short enough wavelength to distinguish between the two slits, no interference pattern will show up. If you have light with a small enough wavelength to distinguish between the two slits, then no interference pattern will show.

All of this happens whether or not a person observes that light or not. The eye and the consciousness have NOTHING to do with it.

You must question why the double-slit experiment is considering so counter-intuitive to so many great minds.

Partly because so many people think it is possible to observe something without affecting it. They seem to think it is possible to know where the electron is without having something interact with it.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
If I understand properly, Multi-verse and Many-Worlds theory hinges on unobserved quantum particle behavior.

If this is correct, why is unobserved particle behavior relevant for us? We're not quantum sized particles, and even if we were, as soon as anyone of us observes anything... the quantum behavior collapses? The net result is null? And therefore there is only 1 universe, 1 reality, right? :confused:
The answer is: we have no idea what exists, if anything, before, beyond, or after our universe. No idea at all. Because we have no way of exploring such states apart from our own fantasies.

And keep in mind that we still know very little about THIS universe. So little, that what we think we do know is within a logical margin of error, and therefor could be significantly wrong.
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
No, passivity of the observation isn't relevant. What is relevant is whether that photon that interacted with the electron (to allow you to see it at all) had a high or a low energy (and thereby a short or large wavelength). Whether that information ever gets to an eye is irrelevant. Even if it is all cameras and automatic recordings, the interference pattern is eliminated if the photon hitting the electron has a short enough wavelength to distinguish between the slits.



ALL observation requires some sort of interaction with the thing being observed. To be able to locate an electron, that electron had to interact with something that had a small wavelength and thereby a large energy.

If you have a double slit experiment and no light to determine the location of the electron, then an interference pattern will show up. if you have light that does not have a short enough wavelength to distinguish between the two slits, no interference pattern will show up. If you have light with a small enough wavelength to distinguish between the two slits, then no interference pattern will show.

All of this happens whether or not a person observes that light or not. The eye and the consciousness have NOTHING to do with it.



Partly because so many people think it is possible to observe something without affecting it. They seem to think it is possible to know where the electron is without having something interact with it.
This explains the mystery that you seem to be bypassing (intentionally?).



Why should the observer change anything? Photons and such must be hitting the electrons in the exact same way whether the observer is there or not.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
This explains the mystery that you seem to be bypassing (intentionally?).



Why should the observer change anything? Photons and such must be hitting the electrons in the exact same way whether the observer is there or not.

First, there *is* an important aspect of ALL quantum particles: they have *both* the properties of (classical) particles and (classical) waves. They come through double slits as single particles, but over time they show the interference pattern. In that essential quantum mystery, your video gets it correct. Quantum particles just don't act like either classical particles or classical waves. They have aspects of both.

What this video gets *wrong* (deliberately?) is when it describes the 'observation' of the electron. That detector is NOT passive. In order to detect which slit the electron goes through, it has to emit and then detect some sort of particle that interacts with the electron (or something else has to emit and the detector detect). There is no such thing as 'passive' observation. it is the interaction of the detector that eliminates the interference pattern, NOT the consciousness of the ultimate observer.

Your video gets this essential aspect wrong.


Once again, that detector is not, and cannot be, passive in the sense of not interacting with the electron. And whether there is an interference pattern depends on the strength of that detectors interaction.

PS: You don't have to believe me. Here is Feynman's lecture on this.
Feynman lecture on double slit - LinuxMint Video Search Results
 
Last edited:

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
What this video gets *wrong* (deliberately?) is when it describes the 'observation' of the electron. That detector is NOT passive.
When I look just look at my coffee cup am I affecting it? Are my eyes outputting anything that could affect the cup?

Why should it be different when we watch an electron passing through a slit?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
When I look just look at my coffee cup am I affecting it? Are my eyes outputting anything that could affect the cup?

No. They are *recieving* light that has bounced off the cup. That light *does* affect the cup.

Why should it be different when we watch an electron passing through a slit?

If you have light on, there is no interference pattern. If there is no light, there is. The light affects the electrons. If you don't use light (or something), you don't see the electrons and there is an interference pattern.

Watch the Feynman video.

/E: start about 33 minutes in.
 
Last edited:

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
No. They are *recieving* light that has bounced off the cup. That light *does* affect the cup.
Isn't the exact same light affecting the cup whether I am gazing at it or not??? So my gazing shouldn't affect it, right?


If you have light on, there is no interference pattern. If there is no light, there is not. The light affects the electrons. If you don't use light (or something), you don't see the electrons and there is an interference pattern.
But just like I said above the lighting was not changed from before observation to while observing. So the observing shouldn't affect anything. But it does in the case of the electrons? 'Why' is the mysterious question.
 
Top