• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Did Oxford scientists mathematically prove parallel universes?

It's been pointed out that splitting the universe into quadrillions of complete copies with each quantum event is about as grotesque a violation of Occam's Razor as is possible.
 
Beerina said:
It's been pointed out that splitting the universe into quadrillions of complete copies with each quantum event is about as grotesque a violation of Occam's Razor as is possible.
Click to expand...

hmmm....

occam's razor is often misapplied - simplicity of expression should not be used over and above a consideration of probability. Do multiverse theories violate occam's razor? They necessitate multiverses, but a single universe theory requires as we understand it universal fine tuning of astronomical probabilistic unlikelihood. Therefore one could suggest that a single universe theory violates all probabilistic likelihood - occam simply requires that entities are not multiplied beyond simplistic necessity - astronomical probablity could certainly be said to introduce that necessity.

and once we reach the realm of multiverses, level 3 multiverses (many worlds) are no stranger than level 1 (where infinite variations exist within our own 3 space) or level 2 (infinite variations in post inflation bubbles)

in summary
it's a funny old world :)
 
Last edited:
andyandy said:
occam's razor is often misapplied - simplicity of expression should not be used over and above a consideration of probability. Do multiverse theories violate occam's razor?
Click to expand...

Occam's Razor is also often misused. Occam's Razor does not say that the simplest solution is always the correct one. Even if multiverse theories do violate Occam's Razor it does not automatically make them impossible.
 
I suppose in some cases, theory will inevitably outrun practicality.

Until such time as there is a way to detect an alternate universe and gather information about it, I'll personally keep all such theories in the "not yet relevant" drawer with theories of the afterlife and the evolution of extra-terrestrial intelligence. At this point, I don't care what the math says, I don't have the time to seriously consider it, except as a plot element for a science fiction story.
 
Occam says that the simplest explanation is to be preferred among a group of theories that equally explain all the evidence at hand. How that applies here I do not know.

~~ Paul
 
Getting probabilities from Everett's approach sounds like what Gell-Mann and Hartle did twenty years ago and crossing from one universe to another sounds like wildly speculative hand-waving that goes against what actually gets you these probabilities. So they have proven, uh, what exactly? :boggled:
 
The article doesn't say that there is proof of parallel universes, only that the many worlds interpretation is mathematically equivalent to the Copenhagen interpretation. I think the article is just plain wrong in saying this has any implications for time travel. In my mind the many worlds interpretation and the Copenhagen interpretation are both about what actually happens in the forward flow of time - does a probability wave collapse to a single value, or do universes split off?

Just when I thought quantum interpretations couldn't get any stranger, I found this:
http://www.analogsf.com/0410/altview2.shtml
It says that a recent experiment, the Afshar_experiment, may disprove both Copenhagen and many worlds interpretations. I don't know what I think about this yet. I don't think it actually contradicts the many worlds interpretation, at least not as I have interpreted it.
 
It sounds like a lot of this is not so much worrying about what actually IS, but what mathematical frameworks make a successful and consistent model. In fact, it's possible that two models can be very different and yet both good at making predictions. Which one is "real"? Maybe it doesn't matter.

Reminds me of Douglas Adams' bit in "Mostly Harmless"... that there aren't so much parallel universes as different ways of looking at what he called the Whole Sort Of General Mish-mash. The WSOGM doesn't exist either, but is merely the sum total of ways of looking at it if it did.
 
whiteyonthemoon said:
Just when I thought quantum interpretations couldn't get any stranger, I found this:
http://www.analogsf.com/0410/altview2.shtml
It says that a recent experiment, the Afshar_experiment, may disprove both Copenhagen and many worlds interpretations. I don't know what I think about this yet. I don't think it actually contradicts the many worlds interpretation, at least not as I have interpreted it.
Click to expand...

Afshar's conclusion is what people arrive at when they forget that the other part of the wave effect went through towards the other detector unnoticed and this part means that they actually can't assign a definite slit for the particle to have come through and thus don't have a violation of complementarity after all. ;)
 
Can you "mathematically prove" anything about nature?
 
hgc said:
Can you "mathematically prove" anything about nature?
Click to expand...

Beat me to it. You can't mathmatically prove anything about reality. You can prove that something is possible given certain conditions, but you can't prove that it actually happens without checking it in the real world, which is no longer maths and is instead physics (or another science, depending on what you're talking about).
 
You can prove logical statements about existence and reality but they're not really mathematical ones, though, they're philosophical.
 
hgc said:
Can you "mathematically prove" anything about nature?
Click to expand...

About nature? No. About models you use to try to describe nature? Yes. And if the model is good, proofs about properties of the model can often lead to insight into nature which can be verified experimentally.

But the whole many-worlds versus Copenhagen mess is, I suspect, rather beside the point. The fact that we have two equivalent interpretations suggests to me that we're not even looking at the right things. It all stems from the problem of "collapse" of the wave function, but we don't actually know that collapse, as a discrete process, even takes place at all.
 
Matter having two variations at once requires multiple universes, energy having two variations at once does not. Seeing as how energy having this ability has confused many into thinking matter does as well has caused some problems. Energy forming matter after the fact leads to much confusion. Everyone to the 'is light matter' thread!
 
whiteyonthemoon said:
The article doesn't say that there is proof of parallel universes, only that the many worlds interpretation is mathematically equivalent to the Copenhagen interpretation. I think the article is just plain wrong in saying this has any implications for time travel. In my mind the many worlds interpretation and the Copenhagen interpretation are both about what actually happens in the forward flow of time - does a probability wave collapse to a single value, or do universes split off?
Click to expand...

The word 'proof' I think is being used like 'evidence' not 'overwhelming conclusive proof' and the implications for time travel seems to be the telegraph trying to make it more entertaining.

But what's being waited on for consituting final proof of a multiverse? Is this new research the only way that's been found so far to "explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes" or if not then what's it's big advantage? I didn't get a sense of balance from the articles on it especially given the short extraordinary quote they chose to include from whoever Dr. Albrecht is.
 
latent aaaack said:
The word 'proof' I think is being used like 'evidence' not 'overwhelming conclusive proof' and the implications for time travel seems to be the telegraph trying to make it more entertaining.

But what's being waited on for consituting final proof of a multiverse? Is this new research the only way that's been found so far to "explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes" or if not then what's it's big advantage? I didn't get a sense of balance from the articles on it especially given the short extraordinary quote they chose to include from whoever Dr. Albrecht is.
Click to expand...

It seems to me too that the word 'proof' was used in a sensationalist fashion.

I'm not sure that a life form with the limitations we inherently have will ever be able to decide if there is a dimension across which observable universes split or if there is one universe that progresses based on randomness. Even if we can make that decision, I don't think there will be any practical application. In that way we are all just stuck in flatland.
 
The verb "to prove" has two meanings.
1. To confirm the accuracy of a statement- as in mathematical proof.
2. To test. As in "proving ground"


The second meaning is related to the verb "to probe". (Compare the German "probieren"- to try , sample or taste).
 
Keeping in mind I don't have a clue how one would prove such a theory mathematically not being an astrophysicist and all, I still find one great big flaw at least in the following example from the OP:
A motorist who has a near miss, for instance, might feel relieved at his lucky escape. But in a parallel universe, another version of the same driver will have been killed. Yet another universe will see the motorist recover after treatment in hospital. The number of alternative scenarios is endless.
Click to expand...
The problem here is once you start having universes with slightly different or largely different outcomes those differences have to be cumulative. So for example, if in one universe you are killed and it occurs before you have offspring, and in another universe you are not killed so you go on to have offspring, then it won't be long at all before the different universes in no way resemble each other. And since one presumes these differences begin occurring at the beginning of the universe, you would never be at a point where 14 billion years later there were two people living even remotely similar lives.

So either the example is so over simplified as to be nonsensical or it just can't happen the way it is being described.

If you had so many universes, close to or at an infinite number, then I suppose every second one of the infinite universes takes off in a different direction. But if that were the case, then there would have to be an infinite number of universes that still exactly matched. So would each different universe have an infinite number of matched universes so each second in time a different universe could emerge while each had matching universes to birth slightly different ones or would we be in one of the different universes so that the example applied to another universe but not to ours?

You can see where this gets ridiculous real fast.

So either this idea is nonsensical or the example is not a useful description and this makes sense to those string theory astrophysicist types but not to people like me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom