Scientific Proof For The Existence of God/ Heaven

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well I don't know what to say. The last few days I've been reading a little more on this stuff, and Sean Carroll has some good talks online about MW. I'm just not convinced, for now anyway. I don't know what it means to speak of probabilities while simultaneously asserting that every possibility will happen.

You don't have to be convinced, they're just interpretations. What is important is to have some idea of what they really say, rather than the usually misleading efforts of the popular press.

Every possible measurement outcome will occur. The measurement outcomes are determined by the wavefunction which is a probability density function. That means that each possible outcome has a certain probability, and all the outcome probabilities sum to 1. For example, if there are two possible outcomes of a measurement and the probability of one is 0.75, the probability of the other is 0.25. So you'll see one outcome 75% of the time you measure quantum systems with that configuration, and the other outcome 25% of the time.

Also, some people think MW is a way to avoid the weirdness of consciousness being in control of reality, so to speak. It seems to me, though, it makes the problem worse. If I can consciously choose to do an experiment which splits the universe, I become a creator of worlds. Or at least an influencer of many worlds besides this one.

It's happening all the time anyway. And as I said, the conscious collapse interpretations are no longer taken seriously. There are a whole bunch of other interpretations.

BTW, have you ever read the Wiki page on Everett? Some interesting trivia about him there. I don't mean that as character assassination, just that it's interesting.

Like Tipler, he believed in some kind of human-immortality-through-physics.

Quantum immortality is the idea that there will always be some branch of the universal wavefunction where a version of 'you' stays alive when another version dies. I think the consensus is that is optimistic because there is no necessary requirement in everyday life that at least one measurement outcome will always be not dying, and for it to be worth staying alive you'd also need to not age (or age very slowly).

The popularisation of this idea is quantum Russian roulette, where the gun is a quantum device in an appropriate superposition. If you shoot and kill yourself there will always be a branch where you didn't. One pragmatic objection is that there will still be a branch where an idiot shot himself and caused a lot of trouble and distress, and one or more other branches where the survivor realises that he just created a branch of death, trouble, and distress with (a version of) him as the idiot. There are other technical problems, such as not quite killing yourself, and some philosophical problems around identity.

If WM is ever proven, I think the Nobel Prize should go to Stan Lee.

Lol!

 

[Chesterton]

You don't have to be convinced, they're just interpretations. What is important is to have some idea of what they really say, rather than the usually misleading efforts of the popular press.

Every possible measurement outcome will occur. The measurement outcomes are determined by the wavefunction which is a probability density function. That means that each possible outcome has a certain probability, and all the outcome probabilities sum to 1. For example, if there are two possible outcomes of a measurement and the probability of one is 0.75, the probability of the other is 0.25. So you'll see one outcome 75% of the time you measure quantum systems with that configuration, and the other outcome 25% of the time.

Well it sure would make the local weatherman's job easier. I guess many worlds would mean many cities, so everyday is 100% chance of rain and 100% chance of sunshine. Somewhere.

Quantum immortality is the idea that there will always be some branch of the universal wavefunction where a version of 'you' stays alive when another version dies. I think the consensus is that is optimistic because there is no necessary requirement in everyday life that at least one measurement outcome will always be not dying, and for it to be worth staying alive you'd also need to not age (or age very slowly).

The popularisation of this idea is quantum Russian roulette, where the gun is a quantum device in an appropriate superposition. If you shoot and kill yourself there will always be a branch where you didn't. One pragmatic objection is that there will still be a branch where an idiot shot himself and caused a lot of trouble and distress, and one or more other branches where the survivor realises that he just created a branch of death, trouble, and distress with (a version of) him as the idiot. There are other technical problems, such as not quite killing yourself, and some philosophical problems around identity.

Yeah, identity is a big problem. I'm the only me I know. I'm sure I have more empathy even for a stranger in this world than for some version of me I'll never meet.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well it sure would make the local weatherman's job easier. I guess many worlds would mean many cities, so everyday is 100% chance of rain and 100% chance of sunshine. Somewhere.

As I understand it, most macro-scale causal sequences aren't decided on the results of quantum 'measurements', so won't lead to the branching of the wavefunction.

Yeah, identity is a big problem. I'm the only me I know. I'm sure I have more empathy even for a stranger in this world than for some version of me I'll never meet.

Yes. it's the same issue as the Star Trek transporter; if you're destructively scanned at one end and reconstructed at the other end, is it still really you? Would you use such a device if it was 100% reliable? Suppose the scanning was non-destructive and they put you to sleep and gave you a lethal injection at the departure point? Suppose someone forgot the lethal jab, would there be two 'you's, or an original and a copy? and so-on...

 

[Chesterton]

As I understand it, most macro-scale causal sequences aren't decided on the results of quantum 'measurements', so won't lead to the branching of the wavefunction.

Okay, so even for what does lead to the branching - say a scientist performs the double-slit experiment. After measurement (according to you) the particle hits some kind of screen or detector. Do the particles in the other worlds hit screens, or just pop into other worlds at random physical locations? And the same question for Schrodinger's cat if the experiment were actually done - would the cat (alive or dead) appear in another world in a box in a lab, or could it spontaneously appear in someone's dining room?

I see only two answers, and both are very problematic. Either you have truly chaotic, seemingly random events occurring in the other worlds, or you have to somehow have entire back-histories loaded into these worlds. (For example, the scientist who performed the experiment has to have a counter-part in the other world, a version of himself. This scientist's father fought in WWII, which led to him meeting his wife, which led to the scientist being born. Did the other world have a WWII?)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Okay, so even for what does lead to the branching - say a scientist performs the double-slit experiment. After measurement (according to you) the particle hits some kind of screen or detector.

No, the particles hitting the detector is what causes the measurement, so the particles hit the detector before the measurement occurs. This is not just according to me, it's the generally accepted meaning - as I already posted in the quote from the Griffiths textbook in #205.

Do the particles in the other worlds hit screens, or just pop into other worlds at random physical locations? And the same question for Schrodinger's cat if the experiment were actually done - would the cat (alive or dead) appear in another world in a box in a lab, or could it spontaneously appear in someone's dining room?

In the double-slit experiment, most of the photons that go through the slits will hit the screen or detector - there might be a small chance of a photon ending up elsewhere, but when you shine a laser at something it gets illuminated. Schrodinger's cat stays in the box until you take it out. Alternate branches of the wavefunction vary only by the measurement outcome. In one branch the cat will be alive, in another it will be dead. The corresponding versions of you won't discover which branch they're in until they open the box.

I see only two answers, and both are very problematic. Either you have truly chaotic, seemingly random events occurring in the other worlds, or you have to somehow have entire back-histories loaded into these worlds. (For example, the scientist who performed the experiment has to have a counter-part in the other world, a version of himself. This scientist's father fought in WWII, which led to him meeting his wife, which led to the scientist being born. Did the other world have a WWII?)

Not sure where you get the idea about chaotic random events in other worlds... the evolution of the wavefunction creates a deterministic tree-like branching structure, there's nothing random about it.

A branch of the wavefunction means that the current state of the wavefunction, which describes the universe at that point in time, splits, and each branch continues to evolve, initially differing only in the measurement outcome. Over time, this will cause their states to diverge, as different outcomes will have differing consequences.

There's no 'loading of entire back-histories', the current state of the universe is what remains of its history, i.e. what its history led to (and theoretically, there are many different histories that could have resulted in that current state). It's the current state that splits into a superposition of the possible measurement outcomes of a quantum measurement.

 

[Chesterton]

No, the particles hitting the detector is what causes the measurement, so the particles hit the detector before the measurement occurs. This is not just according to me, it's the generally accepted meaning - as I already posted in the quote from the Griffiths textbook in #205.

For purposes of my question, it doesn't matter when it happens.

In the double-slit experiment, most of the photons that go through the slits will hit the screen or detector - there might be a small chance of a photon ending up elsewhere, but when you shine a laser at something it gets illuminated. Schrodinger's cat stays in the box until you take it out. Alternate branches of the wavefunction vary only by the measurement outcome. In one branch the cat will be alive, in another it will be dead. The corresponding versions of you won't discover which branch they're in until they open the box.

Not sure where you get the idea about chaotic random events in other worlds... the evolution of the wavefunction creates a deterministic tree-like branching structure, there's nothing random about it.

A branch of the wavefunction means that the current state of the wavefunction, which describes the universe at that point in time, splits, and each branch continues to evolve, initially differing only in the measurement outcome. Over time, this will cause their states to diverge, as different outcomes will have differing consequences.

There's no 'loading of entire back-histories', the current state of the universe is what remains of its history, i.e. what its history led to (and theoretically, there are many different histories that could have resulted in that current state). It's the current state that splits into a superposition of the possible measurement outcomes of a quantum measurement.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. The Carroll blog you linked said, in the Schrodinger experiment, the universe splits and two cat outcomes happen, one in this universe, one in another. I'm asking about the cat in the other universe. Does the cat 1) always exist in that universe, which would require the cat have a pre-existing history there, or 2) does the cat appear in that universe's spacetime as a brand new macro object?

 

[SelfSim]

... Maybe I wasn't clear enough. The Carroll blog you linked said, in the Schrodinger experiment, the universe splits and two cat outcomes happen, one in this universe, one in another. I'm asking about the cat in the other universe. Does the cat 1) always exist in that universe, which would require the cat have a pre-existing history there, or 2) does the cat appear in that universe's spacetime as a brand new macro object?

Umm .. why does this question matter?

The entire Schrodinger experiment is a thought experiment anyway .. do any things in any thought experiments have to really 'exist'?

Also, I'm yet to fathom how analogies put together to explain quantum mechanical principles, get literally interpreted, resulting in confusion between quantum mechanical concepts and everyday objects like cats(?)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The Carroll blog you linked said, in the Schrodinger experiment, the universe splits and two cat outcomes happen, one in this universe, one in another. I'm asking about the cat in the other universe. Does the cat 1) always exist in that universe, which would require the cat have a pre-existing history there, or 2) does the cat appear in that universe's spacetime as a brand new macro object?

You seem to have misunderstood the fundamental nature of the branching, and I'm not sure I can explain it any clearer than I already have. Carroll's blog post covers it pretty well...

The effect of the branching is to split the current state of the universe into two versions that are identical, cats and all, except for the outcome of the measurement that caused the branching (atom decayed or atom did not decay). They're both equally real, and you can pick either version to be 'this' one or the 'other' one. There will be a version of you in each branch, and when these you's open their respective boxes, one will see a sleeping cat, the other an awake cat (in the ethical experiment).

When you split the universe this way, both versions share the same history, like branches of a tree share the same trunk. The split occurs because a superposition of some state in some quantum system spreads into the local environment and decoheres, leaving the local environment, and eventually, the rest of the universe, in a superposition too. But as the states of a superposition that has decohered can no longer interfere with each other, the spreading superposition can be taken as splitting the world into two separate worlds which then diverge.

There is no creation of a whole new universe - the universe consists of something described by a complex wavefunction; when it branches, it's the same wavefunction in a decohered superposition of states, which effectively behave like separate versions of the original, all described by the same wavefunction.

If you can grasp what a particle superposition is and extend it out into the world, that's what happens.

 

[Chesterton]

Umm .. why does this question matter?

We're just chatting.

The entire Schrodinger experiment is a thought experiment anyway .. do any things in any thought experiments have to really 'exist'?

That's what I'm trying to find out.

You seem to have misunderstood the fundamental nature of the branching, and I'm not sure I can explain it any clearer than I already have. Carroll's blog post covers it pretty well...

The effect of the branching is to split the current state of the universe into two versions that are identical, cats and all, except for the outcome of the measurement that caused the branching (atom decayed or atom did not decay). They're both equally real, and you can pick either version to be 'this' one or the 'other' one. There will be a version of you in each branch, and when these you's open their respective boxes, one will see a sleeping cat, the other an awake cat (in the ethical experiment).

When you split the universe this way, both versions share the same history, like branches of a tree share the same trunk. The split occurs because a superposition of some state in some quantum system spreads into the local environment and decoheres, leaving the local environment, and eventually, the rest of the universe, in a superposition too. But as the states of a superposition that has decohered can no longer interfere with each other, the spreading superposition can be taken as splitting the world into two separate worlds which then diverge.

There is no creation of a whole new universe - the universe consists of something described by a complex wavefunction; when it branches, it's the same wavefunction in a decohered superposition of states, which effectively behave like separate versions of the original, all described by the same wavefunction.

If you can grasp what a particle superposition is and extend it out into the world, that's what happens.

Okay, thanks. I think I've got it better now. It's the mind-numbing numbers of universes that there would be...more universes full of stars than there are stars in ours. It just seems like it can't possibly be.

Just so I'm clear, you'd describe a "measurement" as any quantum systems interfering with each other and causing decoherence, no observation by a consciousness required?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Okay, thanks. I think I've got it better now. It's the mind-numbing numbers of universes that there would be...more universes full of stars than there are stars in ours. It just seems like it can't possibly be.

Yes, that's why I find the MWI particularly interesting; it simply drops the idea of a classical universe in favour of 'pure' quantum mechanics and takes it literally, so treats the universe as a quantum entity, although we, as parts of it, only experience it in its emergent, classical approximation.

It's hard to accept because of its apparent profligacy, but no new matter or energy is required to the branch the wavefunction. I suppose most people haven't come to terms with relativity yet, so it's not surprising they find MWI a step too far...

Just so I'm clear, you'd describe a "measurement" as any quantum systems interfering with each other and causing decoherence, no observation by a consciousness required?

That's right - the only involvement of consciousness is that you need it if you want to appreciate what's going on.

 

[SelfSim]

... That's right - the only involvement of consciousness is that you need it if you want to appreciate what's going on.

.. and I'd also say that you need it in order to design the test apparatus before you can observe what's going on ... which is an often glossed over component of the quantum system under study. What effect does this have on the observation, I wonder?

 

[essentialsaltes]

.. and I'd also say that you need it in order to design the test apparatus before you can observe what's going on ... which is an often glossed over component of the quantum system under study. What effect does this have on the observation, I wonder?

I can't imagine any.

While QM is weird, it is not particularly mystical or related to consciousness. It's about tiny bits of matter bumping into each other.

Just as Becquerel accidentally (unconsciously) discovered radiation in the fogging of film plates, there are natural 'detectors' of radiation like the radiohaloes that appear in rocks that formed long before any humans existed. There is no reason to imagine that the origin of the 'test apparatus' has any effect on the physical phenomena. Fusion in the sun is like fusion in the lab.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

.. and I'd also say that you need it in order to design the test apparatus before you can observe what's going on ... which is an often glossed over component of the quantum system under study. What effect does this have on the observation, I wonder?

This has been explored in EPR experiments to falsify the idea of local hidden variables. The implications of true entanglement are sufficiently profound that even apparently far-fetched objections are taken seriously, and over the last few years attention has been on closing various loopholes that might cause us to falsely think it was real, including seemingly metaphysical loopholes like superdeterminism, i.e. "maybe the experimenters don't have the free choice they think they do and their choices of experimental setup are pre-determined so that they always get these particular results..." This was tested by automating the setup of experimental conditions using random number generators.

See Loopholes in Bell Test Experiments, the Cosmic Bell Test, and Our Fate is not Written in the Stars.

 

[SelfSim]

This has been explored in EPR experiments to falsify the idea of local hidden variables. The implications of true entanglement are sufficiently profound that even apparently far-fetched objections are taken seriously, and over the last few years attention has been on closing various loopholes that might cause us to falsely think it was real, including seemingly metaphysical loopholes like superdeterminism, i.e. "maybe the experimenters don't have the free choice they think they do and their choices of experimental setup are pre-determined so that they always get these particular results..." This was tested by automating the setup of experimental conditions using random number generators.

See Loopholes in Bell Test Experiments, the Cosmic Bell Test, and Our Fate is not Written in the Stars.

Hmm ... the last paragraph of the 'Loopholes in Bell Test Experiments' link gives a pretty sound summary, I think:

In October 2015, scientists from the Kavli Institute of Nanoscience reported that the Quantum nonlocality phenomenon is supported at the 96% confidence level based on a "loophole-free Bell test" study. These results were confirmed by two studies with statistical significance over 5 standard deviations which were published in December 2015. However, Alain Aspect writes that No experiment can be said to be totally loophole-free.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Hmm ... the last paragraph of the 'Loopholes in Bell Test Experiments' link gives a pretty sound summary, I think:...

It looks like they've pretty much got to the point now, where Hume's 'miracle' criteria can apply - the likelihood that all the successful loophole tests are still insufficient would be more 'miraculous' than the seeming 'miracle' of entanglement ("no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish.") It's approaching the point where science itself would be called into doubt - although, of course, the standard disclaimer applies, and something quite different could have been missed...

 

[Chesterton]

Yes, that's why I find the MWI particularly interesting; it simply drops the idea of a classical universe in favour of 'pure' quantum mechanics and takes it literally, so treats the universe as a quantum entity, although we, as parts of it, only experience it in its emergent, classical approximation.

It's hard to accept because of its apparent profligacy, but no new matter or energy is required to the branch the wavefunction. I suppose most people haven't come to terms with relativity yet, so it's not surprising they find MWI a step too far...

That's right - the only involvement of consciousness is that you need it if you want to appreciate what's going on.

Can you clarify exactly what a "quantum system" is? I would have thought that meant a thing in superposition. But I listened to a physicist say to his audience "you are all possibility waves". I heard Carroll say that when he hops to the left, he's split the universe because he also has to hop right. He even demonstrated an app which I think was called "Universe Splitter" where, for only $1.99, you can find out whether you're in the universe where you should have pizza rather than tacos, whether to try marriage rather than suicide or pretty much anything I guess? I think I'll stick with my Magic 8-Ball. It's never steered me wrong.

So is a macro object like me, a quantum system which causes measurement?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Can you clarify exactly what a "quantum system" is?

Wiki provides one of the least helpful (if correct) explanations ever: "A quantum system is a portion of the whole Universe which is taken under consideration to make analysis"

So is a macro object like me, a quantum system which causes measurement?

You are a portion of the universe [and composed of quanta] so yes.

It is generally not advantageous or useful to describe you as a quantum system, because it would be impossibly complex and for the most part you behave like a classical object.

Your skin is causing photons to change their state by being absorbed or reflected, with a certain probability for either to occur. These are quantum events or measurements.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Can you clarify exactly what a "quantum system" is? I would have thought that meant a thing in superposition. But I listened to a physicist say to his audience "you are all possibility waves". I heard Carroll say that when he hops to the left, he's split the universe because he also has to hop right. He even demonstrated an app which I think was called "Universe Splitter" where, for only $1.99, you can find out whether you're in the universe where you should have pizza rather than tacos, whether to try marriage rather than suicide or pretty much anything I guess? I think I'll stick with my Magic 8-Ball. It's never steered me wrong.

So is a macro object like me, a quantum system which causes measurement?

Yes, everything is part of the universal wavefunction, so everything is a quantum system. But when we talk explicitly of 'quantum systems' it means we're looking at the physics in terms of quantum effects rather than in a classical way. As I already explained, at macro-scale, quantum systems behave as approximations to classical systems, any superpositions decohere immediately, so we don't normally see quantum effects. I suspect Carroll was pointing out a mistaken way to think of MWI. Macro-scale decisions are generally not thought to be the result of quantum superpositions - clumps of brain cells are too large for significant quantum effects to manifest (although there is evidence for certain metastable brain structures responding to quantum influences in special circumstances, such as bird navigation).

The 'Universe Splitter', assuming it functions as described, is like a quantum coin toss, where both heads & tails are realised as branches of the wavefunction. The answer it returns to the user tells them which branch they're on (there will be a version of the user on each branch); what they do then is up to them.

A macro object like you is a quantum system which causes measurement by effectively being a measuring apparatus that becomes entangled with the system in superposition, or more likely, joins the entanglement as it decoheres into the environment.

 

[SelfSim]

I recently had an 'interestingly' heated debate at the Cosmoquest Science Forum about the applicability of quantumness vs classical on everyday objects. The example of a 10kg stone was raised. Is such a stone quantum or classical?

So it turns out that Compton wavelength (a QM property) can be used in making such determination.
In this circumstance we can use any wavelength comparable to the dimensions of the stone or less. The mass of a 10kg stone is so large however, its Compton wavelength is, for all intents and purposes, zero. (Compton scattering does not occur, as the momentum of photons will not cause the stone to shift positions, nor lose energy in the process).

The stone's Compton wavelength is λ = h/Mc = 2.21 X 10⁻⁴³ m, and is thus even below the Planck length of 1.35 X 10⁻³⁵ m ... (and is thus is effectively zero). Since this Compton wavelength also lies inside the event horizon of the 10 kg stone shrunk down to BH dimensions, it can also never be observed in experiments. (The Schwarzschild radius of a 10 kg spherical stone is r = 2MG/c² = 1.48 x 10⁻²⁶ m).

Needless to say, we don't even have the technology that can probe the Planck length scales, let alone any understanding of the physics. This demonstrates that at such scales, hypothesised waveform collapse by any consciousness is also not possible for a 10kg stone.

'Twas an 'interesting' discussion!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...Needless to say, we don't even have the technology that can probe the Planck length scales, let alone any understanding of the physics. This demonstrates that at such scales, hypothesised waveform collapse by any consciousness is also not possible for a 10kg stone.

Not sure how this follows - as I see it, in conscious collapse interpretations we don't have to understand the physics to collapse the wavefunction, and such interpretations don't seem to make sense outside of a dualist worldview, so consciousness would not necessarily be constrained by size - or indeed, the laws of physics in general (i.e. it's a kind of magic ).