INTRODUCTION
 |
| Hugh Everett III |
 |
| Werner Karl Heisenberg |
Werner Karl Heisenberg (5 December 1901 – 1 February 1976) was a German theoretical physicist, and one of the key pioneers of 'quantum mechanics'. He published his work in 1925 in a breakthrough paper. In the subsequent series of papers with Max Born and Pascual Jordan, during the same year, this matrix formulation of 'quantum mechanics' was substantially elaborated. He is known for the 'Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle', which he published in 1927. Heisenberg was awarded the 1932 Nobel Prize in Physics "for the creation of quantum mechanics".For example - when an electron scatters from a target, we cannot know in advance whether it will bounce to the left or to the right.
'Quantum mechanics' will give the relative odds for the outcome, but it cannot predict which will actually occur in any given case, however, we have no difficulty after the event in finding out which way the electron has scattered - we simply make a direct observation of its path.
One way to think about this is to say that before the electron hits the target there is one 'World', with two alternative futures: one with a left moving electron, the other with a right moving electron.
At the moment of collision, nature is forced to 'make up its mind' - left or right.
 |
| Niels Bohr - Copenhagen Interpretation |
Niels Henrik David Bohr (7 October 1885 – 18 November 1962) was a Danish physicist who made major contributions to understanding atomic structure and 'quantum theory', for which he received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. Bohr was also a philosopher and a promoter of scientific research. Bohr developed the 'Bohr Model' of the atom, in which he proposed that energy levels of electrons are discrete, and that the electrons revolve in stable orbits around the atomic nucleus but can jump from one energy level (or orbit) to another. Although the Bohr model has been supplanted by other models, its underlying principles remain valid.According to the 'Copenhagen Interpretation', the act of observation itself was the key step in forcing 'Nature' to ‘make up its mind’ (‘left or right').
A few physicists saw this as evidence for 'consciousness' playing a direct role in the physical world at the quantum level.
Most physicists, however, rejected that view.
Although there is no current consensus, a popular interpretation of 'quantum mechanics' is to accept the theory as a 'complete description' of reality, observers included.
(In principle, the theory may he applied to the entire universe.)
If we adopt this point of view, we can interpret the simple experiment described above to mean that both alternative 'worlds' are equally 'real’ - so that when the electron hits the target the universe divides into two 'copies': one with a left moving electron, the other with a right-moving electron.
A better way of thinking about it is that, before the collision, there are two identical copies of the universe, which then differentiate from each other at the moment of collision.
Any observers watching the 'show' must also divide into two copies, one who sees the electron going one way, another who sees it going the other way.
Either observer may be 'fooled' into believing that theirs is the only ‘real’ world, the other being a potential but unrealized contender, but in fact all possible quantum realities co-exist in parallel ('many worlds').
This set of ideas became known as the ‘parallel universes’ or ‘many worlds’ interpretation of 'Quantum Mechanics'.
In general, subatomic activity will create not just two, but a countless number of parallel worlds - a process which will be going on all the time.
In spite of its mind boggling nature, the 'many worlds' (or 'many universes') interpretation of 'quantum mechanics' is probably the most popular among physicists working on fundamental topics such as string/M theory. (M = membrane)
It is also the favored interpretation when 'Quantum Mechanics' is applied to cosmology.
'Simples - yes ?'
Now, if you have followed the above, you should realize that the 'many worlds' theory offers us an infinite variety of 'realities', but that doesn't mean that they have to be impossibly exotic.
If we adopt this point of view, we can interpret the simple experiment described above to mean that both alternative 'worlds' are equally 'real’ - so that when the electron hits the target the universe divides into two 'copies': one with a left moving electron, the other with a right-moving electron.
A better way of thinking about it is that, before the collision, there are two identical copies of the universe, which then differentiate from each other at the moment of collision.
Any observers watching the 'show' must also divide into two copies, one who sees the electron going one way, another who sees it going the other way.
Either observer may be 'fooled' into believing that theirs is the only ‘real’ world, the other being a potential but unrealized contender, but in fact all possible quantum realities co-exist in parallel ('many worlds').
This set of ideas became known as the ‘parallel universes’ or ‘many worlds’ interpretation of 'Quantum Mechanics'.
In general, subatomic activity will create not just two, but a countless number of parallel worlds - a process which will be going on all the time.
In spite of its mind boggling nature, the 'many worlds' (or 'many universes') interpretation of 'quantum mechanics' is probably the most popular among physicists working on fundamental topics such as string/M theory. (M = membrane)
It is also the favored interpretation when 'Quantum Mechanics' is applied to cosmology.
'Simples - yes ?'
Now, if you have followed the above, you should realize that the 'many worlds' theory offers us an infinite variety of 'realities', but that doesn't mean that they have to be impossibly exotic.
 |
| Charles Darwin |
As a rather more significant example - would we have a 'Theory of Evolution' if Darwin had done what his father wanted, and stayed at home and become a parson?
Also - would our civilization have developed so far without an abundance of fossil fuels to tap ?
'Chaos theory' tells us that arresting the flap of a butterfly’s wings could prevent a future hurricane, but is the course of human history more resilient to such tiny changes ?
Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics focusing on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. 'Chaos' is an interdisciplinary theory stating that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, self-organization, and reliance on programming at the initial point known as sensitive dependence on initial conditions. The butterfly effect describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic non-linear system can result in large differences in a later state, e.g. a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a hurricane in Texas
Although such musings might sound untidy and confusing, elegance has always been part of the 'multiverse' appeal.
In 'Quantum Mechanics', every object in the universe is described by a mathematical entity called a 'wave function', which describes how the properties of subatomic particles can take several values simultaneously (?).
A 'wave function' in 'quantum physics' is a mathematical description of the quantum state of an isolated quantum system. The most common symbols for a wave function are the Greek letters ψ or Ψ. Whether the wave function really exists, and what it represents, are major questions in the interpretation of quantum mechanics. Many famous physicists of a previous generation puzzled over this problem, such as Schrödinger, Einstein and Bohr. Some advocate formulations or variants of the 'Copenhagen Interpretation' while others take the more classical approach and regard the wave function as representing information in the mind of the observer, i.e. a measure of our knowledge of reality. Some, including Everett, argued that the 'wave function' must have an objective, physical existence.
The trouble is, this fuzziness displayed by the 'wave function' vanishes as soon as we measure any of those properties.
The original explanation for this - the so-called 'Copenhagen Interpretation' - says the wave function collapses to a single value whenever a measurement is made.
The 'Copenhagen Interpretation' is an expression of the meaning of quantum mechanics that was largely devised in the years 1925 to 1927 by Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg. It remains one of the most commonly taught interpretations of quantum mechanics. According to the 'Copenhagen Interpretation', physical systems generally do not have definite properties prior to being measured, and quantum mechanics can only predict the probabilities that measurements will produce certain results. The act of measurement affects the system, causing the set of probabilities to reduce to only one of the possible values immediately after the measurement. This feature is known as wave function collapse. There have been many objections to the 'Copenhagen Interpretation' over the years. These include: discontinuous jumps when there is an observation, the probabilistic element introduced upon observation, the subjectiveness of requiring an observer, the difficulty of defining a measuring device, and the necessity of invoking classical physics to describe the 'laboratory' in which the results are measured. Alternatives to the Copenhagen interpretation include the 'many-worlds' interpretation of Hugh Everett II.
Hugh Everett called this enforced separation of the 'quantum world' from the 'everyday classical world' a ‘monstrosity’, and decided to find out what happened if the wave function did not collapse.
The resulting mathematics showed that the universe would split every time a measurement is made - or in human terms, whenever we make a decision with multiple possible outcomes.
And that's the 'many-worlds' interpretation...
Many modern physicists agree with Everett's stance that collapsing the wave function is unnecessarily complicated.
What's more it has a happy possible side effect: it explains the existence of evil !
use the link below (or not if you have previously read that Article) to find out more about
MULTIPLE UNIVERSES
Some of our most successful theories, from ‘Quantum Mechanics’ to ‘Cosmic Inflation’, lead to the conclusion that our universe is just one of many.
'Quantum Mechanics' is the science of the very small. It explains the behavior of matter and its interactions with energy on the scale of atoms and subatomic particles. Towards the end of the 19th century, scientists discovered phenomena in both the large (macro) and the small (micro) worlds that classical physics could not explain. The desire to resolve inconsistencies between observed phenomena and 'classical theory' led to two major revolutions in physics that created a shift in the original scientific paradigm: the 'Theory of relativity' and the development of 'Quantum Mechanics'.
It’s proven remarkably difficult to come up with a theory of physics that predicts everything we can see and nothing more.
So where are these unseen but existing universes in relation to ours ?
How many are there ?
What goes on inside them ?
And can we ever hope to visit one ?
Such questions might sound foolish, particularly given the current lack of observational evidence that the 'Multiverse' exists, and yet thanks to new ideas on where distant universes might be hiding, or how to count them, physicists are beginning to get their bearings.
Rather fittingly, though, there is not just one answer - depending on which version of the 'Multiverse' you're navigating, there are many.
The journey into this 'confusion of worlds' starts in our own world.
The universe we call home was born from the 'Big Bang'.
There seem to be an infinity of invisible worlds lurking out there.
The 'Big Bang' theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB), large scale structure and Hubble's law. If the known laws of physics are extrapolated to the highest density regime, the result is a singularity which is typically associated with the Big Bang. Physicists are undecided whether this means the universe began from a singularity, or that current knowledge is insufficient to describe the universe at that time.So - how far away is your 'parallel self' ?
There seem to be an infinity of invisible worlds lurking out there.
Finally we're starting to get a handle on where they are, and what it might take to reach them.
Some of your ‘doppelgängers’ mimic your every thought and action, only with a 'snazzier haircut'.
Some live in a world where Germany won the Second World War, or where the dinosaurs survived, or where things fall up, instead of down.
Not here.
Not in this universe.
But they are out there - in the 'Multiverse', where every possible world exists, along with all the infinite versions of you.
‘Travel’ any distance in modern fundamental physics and you will soon find yourself in the 'Multiverse'.
Some of our most successful theories, from ‘Quantum Mechanics’ to ‘Cosmic Inflation’, lead to the conclusion that our universe is just one of many.
The universe that we call home was born from the 'big bang' some 13.8 billion years ago, during which time light has traveled further than you might expect - 47 billion light years, thanks to the universe's ongoing expansion.
This is the limit of what we can see, because light from more distant reaches would not have had time to reach us yet.
But we're pretty sure 'space-time' stretches farther, perhaps to infinity.
But we're pretty sure 'space-time' stretches farther, perhaps to infinity.
In physics, 'space-time' is any mathematical model that fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional continuum. 'Space-time' diagrams can be used to visualize relativistic effects such as why different observers perceive where and when events occur. Until the turn of the 20th century, the assumption had been that the three-dimensional geometry of the universe (its spatial expression in terms of coordinates, distances, and directions) was independent of one-dimensional time. However, in 1905, Albert Einstein based his seminal work on special relativity on two postulates: (1) The laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (i.e., non-accelerating frames of reference); (2) The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.
Past the cosmic horizon is a patchwork of separate universes like ours, all bound by the same laws of physics.
At least that’s the assumption: those laws don't change over the distances we can see, so there is no reason to think they will suddenly transform beyond them.
The only real differences are in the details: any intelligent life out there might live in a solar system that contains five planets instead of eight, say, or two suns.
What are the chances those details are exactly the same, to the point where there's another version of you ?'.
Many physicists think it’s entirely plausible.
Assuming space stretches on forever, then there are an infinite number of patchwork universes, and everything allowed by the laws of physics will happen - more than once.
The distance you would have to travel to meet your doppelgänger has even been calculated .
In metres, it’s a 1 followed by a hundred thousand, trillion, trillion zeros !
PARALLEL LIVES
Should you care about your parallel lives?
Before setting off on your adventure through the 'Multiverse', you might stop to consider the ramifications your actions have.
Every decision you make may spawn parallel universes where people are suffering because of your choices.
Navigating the 'multiverse' can be a moral maze.
I'm rich.
I'm a movie star.
I'm king of the world.
I'm also poor.
I'm homeless.
Lots of me are dead.
I'm none of these.
Not in this universe.
But in the 'multiverse' I'm all of them, and more.
In the 'Many-Worlds' interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, every decision I take in this world creates new universes: one for each and every choice that I could possibly make.
There's a boundless collection of parallel worlds, full of innumerable near-copies of me and you.
The 'Multiverse' is an endless succession of 'what-ifs'.
In one of those worlds, I've just written a paragraph which explains that more clearly.
This worries me.
If 'Many Worlds' is correct - and many physicists think it is - my actions shape the course not just of my life, but of the lives of my duplicates in other worlds.
In the 'Many-Worlds' interpretation, when you make a choice, the other choices also happen.
If there is a small chance of an adverse consequence, say someone being killed, it seems on the face of it that we have to take into account the fact that in reality someone will be killed, if only in another universe.
Should I feel bad about the parallel people that end up suffering as a result of my actions ?
If I drive carelessly here, I might get a fine, but one of my other selves might crash and kill himself, or worse, kill my parallel family.
How am I supposed to live with the knowledge that I am just one of endless copies of myself in the 'Multiverse', and that my decisions reach farther than I can ever know ?
You might think I should just ignore it.
After all, the 'Many-Worlds' interpretation says I'll probably never meet those other versions of me (unless, of course, I bump into Faunus).
So why worry about them ?
Well, most of us try to live by a moral code because we believe the things we do affect other people, even ones we may never meet.
If we readily accept that attempted murder has moral implications, albeit less serious than actual murder, why shouldn't we afford some consideration to our 'other selves' ?
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF MANY WORLDS
When 'Many-Worlds' was first proposed by Hugh Everett, it met with a scornful reception.
Everett struggled to get it published, and eventually left academia in disgust, but its elegant explanations for some puzzling quantum phenomena have convinced more and more physicists over the past fifty years.
'Multi-universe' physics has the same kind of experimental basis as the theory that there were once dinosaurs, and we cannot avoid its consequences.
Every time we make a decision that involves probability - such as whether to take an umbrella in case of rain - our decision causes the universe to branch.
In one universe, we take the umbrella and stay dry; in another, we don't, and we get wet.
The fundamental variability of the universe forces such choices upon us.
There’s no escaping them - which is a momentous realization.
We're living in a time akin to Copernicus realizing that Earth wasn't at the centre of the universe, or when Darwin realized that humans were not created separately from the other animals. (probably)
Both of those realizations reshaped our conception of our place in the universe, our philosophy and morality.
The 'Multiverse' looks like the next great humbler of humanity.
And what has this to do with 'Club Jaguar' - well simple...
'Club Jaguar' is based on the idea that it may be possible to 'travel' from one 'Alternative Universe' or 'world' to another.
Such 'movement' between universes, it is proposed, is not to be achieved by technological means, but rather by some undefined activity of the mind - 'a kind of magic'.
This is, of course, convenient for the narrative, but is not quite as far fetched a proposal as it might initially appear. - consider Arthur C Clarke's dictum, 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.', combined with the concept that 'The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.' which was proposed by James Jeans - physicist, astronomer and mathematician.
And it does make a very good story......
And what has this to do with 'Club Jaguar' - well simple...
'Club Jaguar' is based on the idea that it may be possible to 'travel' from one 'Alternative Universe' or 'world' to another.
Such 'movement' between universes, it is proposed, is not to be achieved by technological means, but rather by some undefined activity of the mind - 'a kind of magic'.
This is, of course, convenient for the narrative, but is not quite as far fetched a proposal as it might initially appear. - consider Arthur C Clarke's dictum, 'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.', combined with the concept that 'The universe begins to look more like a great thought than a great machine.' which was proposed by James Jeans - physicist, astronomer and mathematician.
And it does make a very good story......
and
CLICK BELOW FOR
and
All text - © Copyright Peter Crawford 2021
All Images - © Copyright Vittorio Carvelli 2021
Graphic Design - © Copyright Zac Sawyer 2021
this has been an additional article for your further enjoyment of
