from the bat'leth-tournament-on-Forcas-III dept.
Found at sciencedaily.com is news about a new theory of quantum mechanics that presumes not only that parallel worlds exist, but also that their mutual interaction is what gives rise to all quantum effects observed in nature.
The theory, first published by Professor Bill Poirier (of Texas Tech University) four years ago, has recently attracted attention from the foundational physics community, leading to an invited Commentary in the physics journal, Physical Review X.
According to Poirier's theory, quantum reality is not wave-like at all, but is composed of multiple, classical-like worlds. In each of these worlds, every object has very definite physical attributes, such as position and momentum. Within a given world, objects interact with each other classically. All quantum effects, on the other hand, manifest as interactions between "nearby" parallel worlds.
The idea of many worlds is not new. In 1957, Hugh Everett III published what is now called the "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics. "But in Everett's theory, the worlds are not well defined," according to Poirier, "because the underlying mathematics is that of the standard wave-based quantum theory."
In contrast, in Poirier's "Many Interacting Worlds" theory, the worlds are built into the mathematics right from the start.
The above is a followup on Scientists propose existence and interaction of parallel worlds: Many Interacting Worlds theory challenges foundations of quantum science.
See also
Quantum Phenomena Modelled by Interactions between Many Classical Worlds (abstract) and
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.6144v2.pdf (pdf)
Please note that quantum mechanics is well beyond me, but it seems as if this development has garnered considerable attention and I would appreciate someone more knowledgeable providing their perspective and insight to this theory.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @06:23AM
You remember that episode where there was a transporter problem and Spock all of a sudden had a beard and he was mean? This is that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror,_Mirror_(Star_Trek:_The_Original_Series) [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 4, Funny) by Grishnakh on Friday November 14 2014, @04:14PM
There's more to it than that actually. (Also, there's other episodes about the Mirror Universe, including two episodes in the 4th season of Enterprise.)
People watching Star Trek always watch it and assume that this is supposed to represent our future. They watch the Mirror Universe episodes and assume this is some horrible parallel universe where humans are assholes.
They have it backwards. We are living in the Mirror Universe! That universe where Kirk and friends (or Archer & friends in Enterprise) are peacefully exploring the galaxy and forging alliances? That's some other parallel universe where we humans aren't such assholes. That's not the universe I'm living in.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Friday November 14 2014, @08:36AM
I'd don't see how to build spin into his model. It's certainly not encoded in the particle positions.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @07:04PM
Grammar is not explained in his writing either, for it certainly is not in yours.
(Score: 2) by cosurgi on Friday November 14 2014, @09:29PM
Yeah it's not. But it is a well written paper you must admit, and clearly states current model limitations.
About spin - check out Zitterbewegung interpretation of quantum mechanics by Hestenes (not just one paper, he wrote two books and dozens of papers). There you have spin.
#
#\ @ ? [adom.de] Colonize Mars [kozicki.pl]
#
(Score: 2) by cosurgi on Friday November 14 2014, @09:36PM
I didn't finish reading it yet. But about incorporating spin into classical model mechanics: recall that SO(3) representation group arises from isotropy of macroscopic space. And it has spin 1/2. So maybe it could be approached from that angle. Though, we enter the "weirdness" as it was meant in the OP title.
#
#\ @ ? [adom.de] Colonize Mars [kozicki.pl]
#
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @09:40AM
Its always those damn Cromags!
(Score: 2) by threedigits on Friday November 14 2014, @10:01AM
It seems like an interesting approach. The difference with classical quantum physics (it's funny just to think that quantum is now "classic") is that the wavefunction is the limit when the number of interacting "worlds" approaches infinite.
The maths (as I read them, I'm no expert) don't tell if the interactions are between "other" worlds (as independent entities) or really self-interactions within a single universe. It seems a mere question of interpretation.
What's interesting is that it could hint at a "quantized" form of the wavefunction, which seems to be of continuous nature inn it's current formulation. That would imply that the structure of the universe is really discrete, not continuous, and thus would score a definitive victory for Democritus and the ancient Atomists after 2,500 years of controversy. And more importantly, it could lead to interesting approximations to real world calculations by limiting the number of interacting "worlds".
Unfortunately this cannot be called a theory because its formulation is not fully developed (they have only played with one-dimensional "worlds").
Let's see if it bears fruit or is just something like string theory.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mcgrew on Friday November 14 2014, @12:46PM
The maths (as I read them, I'm no expert) don't tell if the interactions are between "other" worlds (as independent entities) or really self-interactions within a single universe.
On the wave/particle duality, I've always wondered if a particle could simply be the interaction of two waves. Unfortunately, I have neither the math nor physics knowledge to figure it out.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday November 14 2014, @11:08AM
I thought this was an old idea. Is this just a new formalisation?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by Sir Garlon on Friday November 14 2014, @01:06PM
Read the summary and find out!
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @12:30PM
quantum mechanics is needed if you want to hammer a nail, but only partially and without a handle on the hammer and while it's melting ...
methinks getting the "h" constant after "solving" the ultra-violet death problem of the universe really didn't solve anythings.
furthermore let's not forget that this QM always shows up mostly if stuff decays, as in unstable, as in radioactif, as in "gonne in a week or so" and also when you "take stuff apart" -aka- ionization.
not much "observing" possible if you don't use electricity, magnets and orphan electrons from their warm cozy home ...
if you ignore all this "funny matter" then there really is not much use for QM ...
-
maybe if we make the observer (physicists) really really radioactif and let him/her observe/do the experiments we'll get some more "real" results?
-
tbh, material science is where it's all at. (stable) combo materials and see how they interact and stuff.
the "moldy" stuff (unstable atoms) isn't that interesting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @05:44PM
All you prove is your lack of knowledge about quantum mechanics.
First, quantum mechanics shows not only up when taking things apart. Indeed, the first problems solved with quantum mechanics (heat radiation, atomic spectra) are absolutely not related to taking things apart. Indeed, another problem quantum mechanics solves is why there can be stable matter at all.
Next, it is true that without electromagnetism you don't get much observing, but that's not restricted to quantum phenomena. Your eyes are nothing but detectors for electromagnetic radiation. And also the atom-atom interactions are ultimately determined by electromagnetism (and quantum effects like the Pauli exclusion principle), so your other senses also depend on it. The reason for that is simply that the other forces are either too short range (nuclear forces) or to weak (gravitation). Which doesn't mean they are not also involved in many measurements (although gravitation is pretty much useless for quantum measurements). For example, a neutrino measurement without involving the weak force obviously won't work.
And finally, if you think quantum mechanics is useless, think again what your computer is operating on. Or, for that matter, how your lights work (assuming you no longer have an incandescent light bulb — not that there's no quantum mechanics at work there, too, after all the heat radiation problem was the one which started the whole quantum business; however you don't need quantum mechanics to actually design an incandescent light bulb). Oh, and if you like to listen to a CD or watch a DVD or BluRay: The laser in that device also operates on quantum principles.
And BTW, the word is "radioactive", not "radioactif".
(Score: 3, Funny) by Immerman on Friday November 14 2014, @05:00PM
My new quantum supercomputer achieve previously undreamed-of performance by distributing the workload across an of an infinite number of versions of itself in parallel universes to. Unfortunately the infinite versions of myself are hogging all the resources with their own dumb software. Jerks.
On the bright side we've been having great fun isolating the best versions of all the infinite variations of pirated movies, music, etc. And let we tell you, variant #1843873 of the fourth season of Firefly was *awesome*. We even found a breathtakingly good version of Plan 9 From Outer Space. But still no sign of a version of Justin Bieber that doesn't suck.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @05:50PM
Try Justin Bieber from world #64786765476789. In that world, he had an accident as child which caused him to lose his voice. As a result he concentrated on art forms not needing a voice and became an awesome pantomime.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @05:10PM
http://www.nature.com/news/a-quantum-world-arising-from-many-ordinary-ones-1.16213 [nature.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 14 2014, @06:27PM
So the "Fringe" TV show had it right. All it took was a mad scientist using LSD to discover the parallel universe.