A Multiverse Question

[Kayra]

I am not even certain how to phrase the question as I do not have a physics background, but here goes anyway.

 

I have been struggling for a very long time to understand the wave/particle properties of matter without referring to that bad thing called mathematics.

 

As any physicist knows, without the math, true understanding is unlikely, but I am a very visual person and need to see things in my head to truly grasp them.

 

To start with. The electron in "Orbit" around an nucleus actually exists at every point in it's possible orbit. If we were to measure and locate the electron, it would be found at some point in it's orbit, and the likelihood of it being in one particular place would be based on probabilities.

 

Is it possible that this represents the multi-verse in a microcosm? That all of the possible multi-verses exist at that one conjunction, and only when we force the outcome (by measuring or observing) do we move along a specific "Path" while all other multi-verses (created from that particular junction) go off in their own?

 

If this is the way things are, then all "Wave" properties would seem to come from the congruence of the multi-verses, and all particles would represent the choices (chances) our particular verse has made to get to where we are.

 

If this were true, then I could finally imagine a solution to the double slit experiment that has so bothered me. Until measured (and forcing our verse along a particular path) the traveling electron (or photon) travels all possible paths of all the multi-verses, creating a wave like effect. These possible paths, since they all exist at one time, can even interfere/interact with each other. If the electron/photon is measured at the slit before it travels through, it can no longer interact with other possibilities of itself, and can not create an interference pattern on the other side. If it is measured as it strikes the far wall only, then it will have had the opportunity to interact with it's other possible outcomes, and an interference pattern is created.

 

While it is nice that this allows me to visualize a tidy solution to the double slit experiment without resorting to math, is the concept way out to lunch?

[ronthepon]

I'm just posting a bunch of thoughts that came to me, reading this. It's regarding your usage of the jargon.

 

:) So please take no offence from a kid who has been rigidly forced to get his jargon in order.:)

 

To start with. The electron in "Orbit" around an nucleus actually exists at every point in it's possible orbit.

It does not actually exist at any point. It may be found at any point. And call it path, not orbit. Orbits conjure different mental images.

 

If we were to measure and locate the electron, it would be found at some point in it's orbit, and the likelihood of it being in one particular place would be based on probabilities.

Actually, since the electron is moving at a breakneck speed and so we can't say that it is here. All we can say is that it's aound here somewhere. (I know you've got it, just posting my thoughts as I said)

 

PS: Sorry if this had nothing to do with your expectations from the thread.

[Kayra]

:) So please take no offence from a kid who has been rigidly forced to get his jargon in order.:)

 

Considering my lack of formal training, I am accustomed to being "corrected" and take no offense :) the Jargon is required in order to convey concepts properly.

 

PS: Sorry if this had nothing to do with your expectations from the thread.

 

My expectations were that I would be told I am a dolt, and to go away. Other expectations were that what I am trying to say is

• Impossible
  
• old hat
  
• unlikely
  
• Ridiculous
  
• possible.
  

or combinations of those.

 

Those expectations aside, thanks for the corrections.

 

Silly question time

It does not actually exist at any point. It may be found at any point

How can it be found if it does not exist?

[EWright]

How can it be found if it does not exist?

 

He meant it does not exist at every and any given point at the you may look for it (which is not what you meant, but how you made it sound); but it does exist at ONE given point in its path at any given time (but not necessarily the one you'd attempt to find it at at that time).

[Kayra]

He meant it does not exist at every and any given point at the you may look for it (which is not what you meant, but how you made it sound); but it does exist at ONE given point in its path at any given time (but not necessarily the one you'd attempt to find it at at that time).

 

Ahh, thanks.

 

Am I mistaken, or does that imply that time would have a discreet quantized value? (no laughing please :) )

[Farsight]

Kayra: I think it's the particle concept that causes the problem. Things like electrons can't have surfaces and edges, they must be like places with properties. And as for what place a place is in, you don't know until you try to catch it, in a partucular place. Then you say "it's here", but for all we know we've detected the equivalent of a lightning particle. There is no such thing as a lightning particle, but if lightning is the only thing we can detect, we're going to get a weird idea about the charge in an electrical storm. Maybe we're kind of asking a dumb fool question like "how long is a gallon of water". I don't know, but I also don't feel confident that "multiverse" offers the answer.

[Kayra]

I see. In what way does the particle concept cause a problem with my question, or the multi-verse as a possible explanation?

 

When I speak of a particle or wave, I should have said it acts as a particle or acts as a wave. Does that help clear my question up?

 

It is unfortunate that you feel this solution is unlikely, as I found this concept quite easy to visualize. Could you expand on why you feel it could not be?

[sanctus]

 

It is unfortunate that you feel this solution is unlikely, as I found this concept quite easy to visualize.

 

I read once somewhere a statement from a well known physician (I think it was Feynman) who said something like "to every problem there is a solution which is nice, easy, elegant and.... wrong!"

 

Jokes besides, I like very much your idea, but simple logic I think it is wrong, because there are so many people who discussed/thought/wrote about the dual nature of matter (wave-like and particle-like) that it would susprise me that noone ever came up with this idea. So there must be a mistake, but where?

Maybe the problem is that then charge wouldn't be conserved (I mean after your description it would be possible to have a nanosecond period where a measurable quantity of the charge of our universe would somewhere in other universes). Just an idea...

[Kayra]

I read once somewhere a statement from a well known physician (I think it was Feynman) who said something like "to every problem there is a solution which is nice, easy, elegant and.... wrong!"

 

 

I always liked that quote :)

 

So you believe the concept is out to lunch because:

a) nobody has thought of it before (I agree it is unlikely), or

:) the possibility exists that the charge will not be conserved.

 

Would that nanosecond period that you mention really exist? Just glancing at quantum entanglement makes me wonder. How much time delay is there between collapsing the wave function of one entangled particle, and the other particle's wave function collapsing?

 

As you can see, I really do not have a strong grasp of physics:)

 

I have a request. How would a physicist phrase my first post so that it is less ambiguous, and written using the proper jargon?

[InfiniteNow]

I have a request. How would a physicist phrase my first post so that it is less ambiguous, and written using the proper jargon?

 

Let me preface by saying that I'm not a physicist either, but...

 

If the many-worlds hypothesis is correct, and all possibilities occur all of the time (thus creating other universes), is it possible that when a particle is seen as a wave this is simply the result of some overalp of common multiversal outcomes... essentially just the outcomes which are most probable?

[Kayra]

Let me preface by saying that I'm not a physicist either, but...

 

If the many-worlds hypothesis is correct, and all possibilities occur all of the time (thus creating other universes), is it possible that when a particle is seen as a wave this is simply the result of some overalp of common multiversal outcomes... essentially just the outcomes which are most probable?

 

That is EXACTLY what I mean :)

And look, hardly any jargon at all :)

[Farsight]

I see. In what way does the particle concept cause a problem with my question, or the multi-verse as a possible explanation? When I speak of a particle or wave, I should have said it acts as a particle or acts as a wave. Does that help clear my question up? It is unfortunate that you feel this solution is unlikely, as I found this concept quite easy to visualize. Could you expand on why you feel it could not be?

 

Sorry to be slow getting back to you Kayra. Let's think about a particle. Imagine a bullet. You can hold one in the palm of your hand. It's got a shape. A surface. A colour. A mass. Fire it from a rifle and it's got a definite velocity during its flight, and at all times during its flight it's got a definite position. That's the common concept of a particle.

 

Now lets look at a photon. Has it got a shape? No. A surface? No. A colour? No (because you use light to see, and so you can't see light). Has it got a mass? No. And when you fire it from a laser it travels at the speed of light. That's actually the speed of a photon. It's always the same speed relative to all observers, because it's not really a speed at all. If you like it's more like the "rate at which things happen" or "the perceived velocity of time in space". The thing is, no subjective time passes for a photon, all portions of its flight happen at the same time as far as the photon is concerned. Its flight has no duration. So, if you were in a box along with a photon, where is it? You might tell yourself the photon is travelling from the front of the box to the back of the box, but that's just relativity. In reality it leaves the front of the box at the same time as it arrives at the back of the box. It's like an instant rod connecting the two. It can't exist in any other way. Now if I shove a rod through the box and ask you to tell me where it is, you certainly won't think it's like a bullet in some particular "particle like" place. It's basically in more than one place. That's what photons are like. They're always in more than one place at once. And if you detect it, all you're doing is catching the end of the rod.

 

There's more, like a photon has as much real substance as a shout, or a compression in a slinky spring, or the crease in my pants. It's like, how much does a knot weigh and what colour is it? Not the string it's tied in, but the knot itself.

 

I hope that gives you an idea why I see a problem with particles and why I think this leads to conceptual problems such as the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Physics.

[Farsight]

Kayra: look up "Decoherence" on google. I think it's taking over from the Many Worlds Interpretation, but perhaps others here will have better information on it.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/02/990202072053.htm

[Kayra]

Kayra: look up "Decoherence" on google. I think it's taking over from the Many Worlds Interpretation, but perhaps others here will have better information on it.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/02/990202072053.htm

 

Good article, thanks.

 

Interesting how the article makes reference to

 

"The world of quantum mechanics is exceedingly weird, one in which waves can act as if they were particles,"

 

and

", a photon acting like a particle rather than a wave."

 

I understand that there is no particle.

 

I was curious, does the Decoherence concept exclude the possibility of the Many-Worlds concept? Doesn't the Many-Worlds concept rely on decoherence to cause wave function collapse? (Thanks for making me aware that there was even something called the "Many-Worlds Interpretation" )

 

If decoherence occurs when a system loses phase coherence between different portions of its quantum mechanical states, and it then no longer exhibits quantum interference between those portions, what happened to those other portions?

 

 

I think I have some massive amount of reading to do on the Many-World concept now...

[Kayra]

Well, it would appear that my "Brainstorm" is old hat :unlove:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

 

Thanks for the lessons guys.

[Farsight]

I'm glad I could help amongst others, Kayra. Note that Wikipedia is not always reliable. Sometimes people amend it to say one thing, and somebody else amends it to say something different. Then the original person amends it again, et cetera, see-saw style. And there's an awful lot of nonsense kicking around on the internet in general. I for one find it very difficult to distinguish wheat from chaff.