It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Parallel Universes Proven

page: 4
50
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2010 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 

More gobbledygook.


Collapse doesn't occur in MWI.

Are you saying events don't occur in MWI? No, you are not. Because obviously they do.

In MWI all possible values of the wavefunction are preserved in separate worldlines branching from the event. From the viewpoint of a godlike being who could observe the many worlds simultaneously, all values are present. But from the viewpoint of an observer on any particular worldline, only the value assigned to that worldline is present. The wavefunction seems to have collapsed to a single value.


Loosely speaking a "world" is a complex, causally connected, partially or completely closed set of interacting sub-systems which don't significantly interfere with other, more remote, elements in the superposition... In terms of the wavefunction, a world is a decohered branch of the universal wavefunction, which represents a single macrostate.

The worlds all exist simultaneously in a non-interacting linear superposition. Many Worlds FAQ

Parallel worlds exist in MWI, but objects don't flit back and forth between worldlines.

What you have been saying in this thread is that the superposition of macroscopic objects proves Everett's interpretation, the Many Worlds Interpretation. That there is no longer any doubt which interpretation of quantum phenomena is the right one.

But you have not shown us how and why this is the case. Your argument remains the childish and illogical one I outlined in my first post on this thread. That's nowhere near good enough.

Until you can show convincingly that MWI is true, the existence of parallel worlds remains as hypothetical as it did before. Show us how placing a macroscopic object in superposition proves MWI.

edit on 9/9/10 by Astyanax because: of the intransigence of gobbledygook.




posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 05:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Now you say it "seems like collapse." I'm glad you finally know the difference between Copenhagen and MWI.

Secondly, I already showed you why this experiment supports MWI. If you didn't know the difference between Copenhagen and MWI then it's understandable why you don't know what I'm saying. Let me explain it again now that you know the difference.

Let's look at Schrodinger's cat.

MWI says that the nuclear device caused a measurement to occur because the cat became entangled with the quantum event. So the quantum event put the cat in a state of superposition of dead/live cat at the same time.

In this case the experimenters used a superconducting electrical circuit to put the paddle in a state of superposition.

Again, a single universe can't account for the superposition of macroscopic objects. This is a matter of information. Qubits entangle the macroscopic object in a state of superposition. This is because the qubit calculates both states i.e. dead/live cat.

The superposition is the branching of macroscopic objects into Parallel universes. Again, this is a matter of information. There isn't enough information capacity in a single universe to account for the superposition of macroscopic objects.

When the branching occurs you have to treat it as real unless you have discovered a hidden variable that causes the wave function to collapse. If you have, I suggest you call up everyone and say,"Eureka."

If there's no mechanism for collapse then this superposition branches into Parallel universes ad infinitum.

If you look at it from a metaphysical prospective then you can say God or Spirit can collapse the wave function. I have no problem with a metaphysical interpretation but it's a matter of faith.

When you look at it from a scientific standpoint, this experiment shows that Parallel universes exist because there isn't any mechanism to stop the branching and cause the wave function to collapse. Now we may find a hidden variable or a missing link between quantum mechanics and classical physics that causes a measurement to occur someday but that day isn't today.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 


A single universe can't account for the superposition of macroscopic objects. This is a matter of information. Qubits entangle the macroscopic object in a state of superposition. This is because the qubit calculates both states i.e. dead/live cat.

More gobbledygook. 'Qubits entangle objects'? Bits of quantum information do physical work?


The superposition is the branching of macroscopic objects into Parallel universes.

This is your error. The branching of worldlines occurs at the event. Superposition only exists before the event. Afterwards, the object exists in different non-superposed states, one state to each non-interfering worldline. Superposition is not the branching of anything into parallel worldlines, or universes if you will. It is the state that exists prior to the branching.

But this is MWI. You still haven't explained how macroscopic superposition proves MWI--which is what your OP claims. Until you've put your money down, this Spruce Goose of a thread stays grounded.


I'm a male so stop saying she.

Are you sure you don't exist in a state of sexual superposition? In parallel universes?



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


First off, I explained my position and you just don't understand it. So you will keep asking the same question over and over again. This is an old debating tactic.

Secondly, the experiment used qubits to put the paddle in an entangled state.


The quantum device is a qubit, a term that generically refers to a kind of quantum transistor being used for quantum computation, in this case made from an ultrathin aluminum-based superconductor. At extremely cold temperatures, it goes quantum: It exists in an oscillating waveform spanning an excited state, an unexcited state, or both simultaneously, all controlled by electrical currents.

In a study published in September in Nature, Cleland’s team coupled two qubits in what’s known as quantum entanglement, in which the oscillations of one were linked to the oscillations of the other, even when physically distant. That feat drew attention for demonstrating quantum properties in a large, visible system, but the properties themselves still belonged to electrons, in which quantum effects are routinely observed and controlled.


www.wired.com...

Lastly, you don't understand MWI. MWI says superposition leads to Parallel Universes. This is because there isn't any mechanism to reduce the wave function and cause it to collapse. So superposition occurs before the event but when the event occurs it's the superposition of states that branch into parallel universes. You can't have Parallel Universes without superposition LOL.

Like I said, MWI treats the wave function as an objective reality. Since there isn't a mechanism for collapse of the wave function, they say these superposition of states keep branching into Parallel universes ad infinitum.

I really don't know what your objections are. I see you don't fully understand MWI so I don't really see your point. Are you trying to say that superposition isn't real?

If you're talking about MWI, then superposition is very real because they treat the wave function as an objective reality. If you're talking about Copenhagen then you're talking about something else.

I think this is what you're trying to say but it doesn't make any sense in the context of MWI.

In MWI these states are still in superposition on a macroscopic level, it's just there isn't any interference pattern because of decoherence. So these universes are parallel to each other. Maybe they interfere after long periods of time and this interference causes a big bang to occur.


edit on 10-9-2010 by Matrix Rising because: add on



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 

That 'external source quote' of yours is not from your link. I couldn't imagine Wired printing a piece of gobbledygook like this...



The quantum device is a qubit, a term that generically refers to a kind of quantum transistor being used for quantum computation, in this case made from an ultrathin aluminum-based superconductor...

...because a qubit is not a physical object but a unit of information.* However, I googled some of the text from your source quote and lo and behold, I found it in an entirely different Wired Science article. The author of that article is simply wrong. Qubits are not transistors, they are information stored as state superpositions of electrons inside (in this case) a superconductor. The PlanetPhysics link below gives more details.


I really don't know what your objections are. I see you don't fully understand MWI so I don't really see your point. Are you trying to say that superposition isn't real?

No, I am not debating the reality of superposition. I am asking you why you think the superposition of macroscopic object states proves MWI, and therefore parallel universes. Or, if you prefer, why it proves parallel universes, and therefore MWI. You haven't explained yet.

 

Here are a few references for that: 1. Wikipedia 2. PlanetPhysics 3. WordIQ 4. PC Magazine



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 02:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I don't think this would prove MWI because would the MWI not imply that there is no split of worldlines until a particular outcome is realized ("collapse") for each? In superimposed states that are being observed, those states exist within the worldines in which they are observed.


edit on 9/11/2010 by EnlightenUp because: my thoughts confuse me more than you



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Of course a qubit is a unit of information. Have you ever heard of qubit coupling? You can transfer the state of an entangled particle pair or superposition to another object via qubits. In the experiment they put the paddle in a state of superposition via qubits. They transferred the state of the superconducting electrical circuit to the paddle. Do you understand this is how they will try to scale up quantum computers?

What you find on ATS sometimes is people who are just here to debate their point of view instead of trying to learn something. This is why you keep asking me to explain my position over and over again when I have explained it several times. You just don't understand it but you don't want to say you don't know because your ATS ego will be bruised. There's nothing wrong with saying I don't know.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


This is wrong and this is why I objected to the use of the word "collapse" when talking about MWI. There is no collapse in many worlds.

The superposition of states branches into many worlds after decoherence.

Collapse is just wishful thinking. Maybe one day they will discover a mechanism for collapse but that's not today. This is why you hear people say quantum mechanics is incomplete.

They say this because of their belief system not science. They just don't want to accept things like Parallel universes so they say there must be a hidden variable or missing theory that causes "collapse" of the wave function.

I think the best explanation is computation. If we don't look at it as "collapse" of the wave function and instead we look at it as the execution of the wave function it makes more sense. So it could be written as an HTML tag.

dead cat>Observer/Measuring device live cat>

So the Observer/Measuring device executes the wave function when an event occurs. You can look at it like the wave function carries the quantum program that calculates superposition and the Observer/measuring device is like the enter button or the CPU that runs the program. So just like source code, you just see what the program produced on the website, you don't see the HTML tags. So you just see a live or dead cat in the universe program not the quantum computation of the wave function software.

This is just conjecture but there are some Physicist who say the universe is a quantum computer and this would allow you to avoid talk of any kind of collapse but you would still have Parallel Universes.


edit on 11-9-2010 by Matrix Rising because: I left out closing HTML tag so it would show




edit on 11-9-2010 by Matrix Rising because: I had to leave out part of the HTML tags but you get the picture



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Matrix Rising
 



A team of scientists has succeeded in putting an object large enough to be visible to the naked eye into a mixed quantum state of moving and not moving.


I believe the experiment is completely flawed and shows just how dumb science is getting...

There is no such thing as a state of "not moving". Nothing in the universe is at rest. Everything on Earth is spinning. Everything in the solar system is spinning. And everything in the galaxy is moving. There is no such thing as "not moving".

So the experiment is misleading and flawed.

Try again.


edit on 11-9-2010 by illumin8ed because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by illumin8ed
 


Yes, there is a thing called not moving. There's this thing called classical physics and classical physics tells us macroscopic objects are at rest. So a quantum pendulum that represents a subatomic particle never stops moving. A classical pendulum representing a macroscopic object comes to a complete stop.

The question has been why and where does quantum mechanics stop and Newtonian physics start. This experiment answers the question and unless they find a hidden variable or new theory, it tells us everything is moving but we can't see the superposition on a macroscopic level because of decoherence.

So this experiment was far from flawed.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Yes, there is a thing called not moving.


No, there is not. There is only uniform movement which gives the illusion of something being at rest relative to another object. There is no such things as true "at rest".

Rest



Rest in physics refers to an object being stationary relative to a particular frame of reference or another object. According to the theory of relativity it is said that an object is: at rest relative to another.


There is no true "at rest". So to claim an object is both moving and not moving is a lie. It is always moving in both states.



Originally posted by Matrix Rising
There's this thing called classical physics and classical physics tells us macroscopic objects are at rest.


Uh, what? Please point to the "classical" physics that tells you that. Then, point to the "modern" physics that tells you that while you are at it.

Macroscopic = length scale on which objects or processes are of a size which is measurable and observable by the naked eye. Name one macroscopic object that is truly "at rest" as in "not moving"... you can't. Nothing is at rest or not moving.


Originally posted by Matrix Rising
So a quantum pendulum that represents a subatomic particle never stops moving. A classical pendulum representing a macroscopic object comes to a complete stop.


I don't think you know what you are talking about.





edit on 11-9-2010 by illumin8ed because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Rest


In fact, there is nothing at absolute rest.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


This is wrong and this is why I objected to the use of the word "collapse" when talking about MWI. There is no collapse in many worlds.


I know. My language was all over the place. I meant it as "worlds have split" or "apparent collapse" from one point of view, where one particular state becomes manifest over other possible states, to the observer.


The superposition of states branches into many worlds after decoherence.


Decoherence has not yet occured so, no, worldlines have not split, yet. Both states are in our worldline. I don't see how it "proves" parallel realities. If they were in separate worldlines but both being observed, it would mean I'm living in two realities at once and so would my instruments. How could one instrument then measure two states at once; it's contradictory to its engineering. Also, why would macroscopic observation of superposition of states even matter in proving parallel realities?


Collapse is just wishful thinking. Maybe one day they will discover a mechanism for collapse but that's not today. This is why you hear people say quantum mechanics is incomplete.

They say this because of their belief system not science. They just don't want to accept things like Parallel universes so they say there must be a hidden variable or missing theory that causes "collapse" of the wave function.


Ok, maybe so. But that doesn't prove MWI. Besides, MWI does seem to receive serious consideration. Why must your belief system reject the possibility that it is incorrect when no solid proof to confirm it exists? I think you believed it already and were looking to see things as confirmatory.

Personally, I can live in superimposed states (aka. "tolerate ambiguity"). I needn't pick an interpretation over another unless experiments have ruled the other out.


So just like source code, you just see what the program produced on the website, you don't see the HTML tags. So you just see a live or dead cat in the universe program not the quantum computation of the wave function software.


I'm not clear on what you meant by thinking of it as "executing the wave function" but that's a hidden variable then, the program.


This is just conjecture


So then, not proof.


but there are some Physicist who say the universe is a quantum computer and this would allow you to avoid talk of any kind of collapse but you would still have Parallel Universes.


Why listen to them? They don't want to believe anyway.



edit on 9/11/2010 by EnlightenUp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by illumin8ed
There is no true "at rest". So to claim an object is both moving and not moving is a lie. It is always moving in both states.


No, that statement is a lie. They obviously mean that in one state it has a particular sort of motion and in another it does not. It's merely a colloquialism "not moving" to mean the paddle isn't showing a particular sort of vibration relevent to performing the experiment.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by illumin8ed
 


I see now I have to spell everything out.

We're talking about superposition, so I'm talking about motion of subatomic particles relative to classical objects. Again, I have been talking about superposition throughout the thread if you haven't noticed.

So a classical object is at rest relative to a subatomic particle in a state of superposition. This is why I talked about a Pendulum which is an example of a harmonic oscillator. You can know a classical objects position and momentum so the classical object is at rest relative to a subatomic particle.

So the question has been, can superposition be detected in classical objects. So, I'm not talking about relative motion. I'm talking about superposition in macroscopic objects.

I hope you know the difference between the two so I don't have to explain that.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


Again, you're trying to introduce "collapse" where there isn't any.

You're now trying to say superposition isn't real, just some hazy state between branching. That makes no sense and that's not what the experiment showed.

The experiment showed that the macroscopic object was in two states at the same time, not in some hazy superposition before branching. Decoherence doesn't cause the branching, decoherence just says the branching is thermodynamically irreversable.

So the state of superposition and parallel universes are the same thing. It's just the superposition becomes parallel after the event has occurred because of decoherence. This just means you are blinded to any interference between these states when branching occurs.

There's not enough computational power in a single universe to compute the superposition of macroscopic objects. This is why I said we need to look to computation. Maybe computation is the cause of branching and the superposition branches into Parallel universes because there isn't enough computation power in a single universe to calculate the superposition of macroscopic objects.

Superposition occurs on a microscopic level, this is why you can't see the superposition of macroscopic objects as you walk around everyday. This is because a single universe doesn't have the computation power to compute superposition in macroscopic objects.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Of course a qubit is a unit of information. Have you ever heard of qubit coupling? You can transfer the state of an entangled particle pair or superposition to another object via qubits. In the experiment they put the paddle in a state of superposition via qubits. They transferred the state of the superconducting electrical circuit to the paddle. Do you understand this is how they will try to scale up quantum computers?

Gibberish.

It is now quite clear you can't explain your claim. You don't have the first idea where to start.

So far, your score on these quantum-gobbledygook threads of yours if a big fat zero. Why do you persist?



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
I'm talking about motion of subatomic particles relative to classical objects.

What?


Oh, you mean



So a classical object is at rest relative to a subatomic particle in a state of superposition.

What?


Oh, you mean


Ladies and gentlement, we have a physics expert in the house... :shk:



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Of course it's gibberish to you because you don't understand it. If you don't understand qubit coupling, it's okay to say you don't know or go and read about it before you comment.

Don't let your ATS ego stand in the way of learning something new.

Edit:

I also see you don't know the difference between relative motion and superposition. Here's some Google links on a harmonic oscillator that might help you out.

www.google.com...=en&q=harmonic+oscillator&aq=0&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=harmonic+o&gs_rfai=&fp=44108305b71db152


edit on 11-9-2010 by Matrix Rising because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Yes... Superposition is a myth. An illusion created by mans lack of understanding of all the variables present during the double slit experiment.

Observing things into position..


Well, I'll just let you all discuss fantasy theories and head in the wrong direction.



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join