I was thinking (after attending a lecture given by Brian Greene, at the 2013 World Science Festival), of the nature of time and how it might affect some aspects of quantum theory, specifically related to probabilistic fields.
I am not skilled in the advanced mathematics necessary to formally describe my thoughts, nor even skilled enough to find out if there is math or theory that can clarify and either dismiss or substantiate this thinking. As I can't describe it mathematically I will do so metaphorically. The below is basically an open question to the world, I'm sure I'm just missing some nuance that is only revealed by the deeper math but if someone can point it out to me I'd love to know where/how this breaks down (preferably with a response that is non-mathematically presented)
One of the conundrums of Quantum Physics, according to Greene, is related to probabilistic fields and the many world's solution to the idea of uncertainty. The posit being that maybe every possible particle position/value actually does exist in an alternate universe and every time a particle can have multiple states, a universe comes to exist where that particle has that state value. Clearly it can be seen that this leads to an infinite number of mirror universes, each one as validly 'the universe' as the singular one we think we exist in. That's not the issue with the probabilistic field though - the issue is that if there is a many worlds solution to the idea of a probabilistic field then why does it appear that some position/states are more likely than others? If every possible state happens somewhere, what would it even mean that a particle has a 60% chance of being observed as X and a 40% change of being observed as Y?
So here's some thoughts on why we might have multiple universes, but still be able to observe a probabilistic field that shows different probabilities for a particle's position/state at any observational point.
My first thought is - what if time isn't what we think it is. It is my understanding that time is not required to move from the past to the future in the math that describes particles and quantum reactions.. and that we only observe time as moving from the past to the future with causal outcomes resulting from initial actions because of the nature of the instantiation of our universe- the Big Bang was highly ordered and of extremely high energy so the resulting decay thru entropy of the universe from order to complete chaos (total heat equilibrium) leads to events that are perceived by our brains as a present made of events occurring in such a manner that it appears we are moving from the past to the future. What if this is not precisely correct? I recall reading about particle and anti-particle annihilation that described an anti-particle as a regular particle traveling thru time from the future to the past. For example, we as observers might observe the following phenomenon - a proton and an anti proton traveling on a trajectory that brings the two together where they annihilate and and release energy. So the two particles are traveling thru space and time from the past to the future and at a particular time value they interact and cease to exist. But according to the article I read, the math is equally valid if we consider a single particle, a proton, traveling thru time along with us from the past to the future, then at some particular inflection point in time, the particle reverses its direction and starts traveling on a different trajectory thru time from the future to the past. Creating a loop. If this is equally valid, then here is my first question regarding a probabilistic field.
What if time isn't what we think it is and the particle we observe as having a probable position/state that creates a wave form is really that particle existing in all those positions along a different temporal axis. i.e. that the time value is actually a spectrum rather than just a linear vector from the past to the present. If Quantum Mechanics is agnostic to time, then maybe the formulae are describing the particle position/states as they exist in a volume of time - a volume of time that expands in vectors perpendicular (or at least not parallel) to the time that we think we are traversing from the past to the future. And maybe when we observe the particle and the probabilistic field collapses, that is really just us applying a particular temporal lens to the observation - maybe that is the effect of the observer on the universe - maybe our brains which perceive time as a vector from the past to the future - allow us to perceive the results of the particle's position as a definite point in space is because of our perception of time as this sequential series of 'ticks'.
Another thought was on the very nature of these infinite universes for every possible particle state. Greene stated that the multiverse conundrum was that if there was a universe for every possible state, what could we even mean by there being a higher probability of a particle in any one state than another. If we can accept the notion that every time a particle can have more than one state a whole new universe for that particle state is spawned we can still preserve the notion of a probabilistic field for the particle in question. Imagine this multiverse where every time any particle could have more than one set of values for it's state, that a new universe was spawned. Eventually this many branched universe would spawn universe leafs at different branch coordinates that were identical to each other, even though the two branches were distinct and separate, and for each universe branch, at no previous point in time were those 2 universes identical in every way. At that time, when the 2 universes in the multiverse both contained an identical set of particles with identical values down to the quantum level, wouldn't they cease to be two separate universes and collapse into a single version? So - the multiverse would have two opposing forces at play - a force that lead to more and more universes (infinity times infinity right? LOL) but a moderating factor of universes collapsing as they fell back into synchronicity (infinity minus infinity = infinity). Either way, it's still an infinity of universes but some entire branches would simple collapse as they became identical to other distinct branches.
If that is the case, maybe the probabilistic field is simply higher where there is less likelihood of universal branches collapsing into a single branch, and the probability field is low where, for whatever reasons, that particular universal configuration is more likely to lead to a branch (or branches) collapsing into a single universe again.
I am sure that if I throw this out there with enough tags, someone somewhere will be able to dispute this and point me to someone who's shown this to simply be a total lack of understanding of the deeper nature of the problem on my part. I have found this and it appears to discuss some of the elements I raise above but either I don't understand it well enough to see how it clarifies my above inquiry or I still see room for alternative interpretation - for example - the idea of different worlds collapsing when they become identical at a quantum event level - this article says is too unlikely to happen, but there are infinite universes, and in infinity, even something virtually impossible will happen regularly. And if anyone can I would ask they tweet me @galvorniii or email me
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
