The Macro Reality of MWI
a supplement to the paper, Time's Paradigm, opening up the argument for parallel universes if we include a fractal fourth dimension of time
He is known as Shrodinger's cat.
Simply put, he placed his cat in a box with a sealed jar of poison and a device that would break the jar if it detected a particle changing state. As far as quantum mechanics is concerned, at any time in the near future the cat is both alive and dead, until we open the box to observe. Thus, the Many-Worlds hypothesis adequately resolves this cat paradox, by saying, "You see, they each have their own place in the future, simultaneously".
Observation is the key in this paradox. It will reveal its true nature later in this essay.
The Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) is trying to tell us that there are multiple time lines, or multiple universes, and we can choose any path towards our future. This is how Quantum Physics solves their problems at an atomic level, but can it work in our macro world of tangible reality? They regularly deal with minute, sub-atomic particles with half lives of less than a nano second. They do not dwell on the past for more than that time, it is inconsequential. We, on the other hand, find the past appealing and worthy, even influential.
It has been popularly documented over the last few decades that MWI is proof that their are multiple universes and that we could even, some time in the future, interact with them. Are we getting ahead of ourselves?
The quantum thought process is this: all of our states of existence are in readiness 'A Superposition of States', which Einstein, himself, was not particularly happy with at the time this idea was conceived. But Quantum Physicists are usually only concerned with opposing states; positive or negative; here or there, more or less, in or out; forwards or backwards; dead or alive. So, can we embrace this concept in our World of multiple choices, of seemingly infinite avenues we can take at any given juncture in our lives?
Well, do we really make multiple choice decisions? When faced with a broad selection, is it not true that our brains first separate all these choices into smaller blocks, eventually ending up with single yes or no pairs. For example, a multiple choice test: A, bad; B, poor; C, fair; D, good; is really a choice between, A and B, B and C, or C and D. Read more on this subject here for an in-depth look into the psychology of Free Will and making choices.
Let's run through a macro version of this paradox first.
1. If we put Shrodinger's Cat in the same box and conduct the same experiment in our Macro World of perceived reality and size, how will this experiment turn out? We can assume that the present is the future's past, so the cat has continued for sometime to potentially exist in both states, dead and alive. In Quantum Mechanics things change state fairly rapidly, within a few nano seconds, but here in the 'real world'? We could be waiting all day for the device in the box to detect a macro change of state. Did the milk turn sour? And when it does, the box will either stink of dead cat, or we will be driven mad by the insistent whining of a hungry cat.
Observation is an answer, but other external indicators are just as relevant. The cat might have been scratching, or purring.., so he's alive. But if he falls silent, has he died?
2. More importantly there is this: for those two future states to exist, then we must have put the cat in the box in the first place. What if we didn't? We just wiped out two time lines, two universes.
3. We need to accept that every eventuality does, in deed, exist and therefore occur, not just one or the other, or some of them. Each one of these Many World lines we have just described can only have one past from which they developed. The cat went in the box! Many futures from just one past. The present, it seems, is a place where many outcomes are possible. Are there many pasts converging on this present moment we perceive?
4. We are lead to believe that one past time line can have multiple futures. Can many past time lines converge on one present moment? That is suggesting that there are multiple universes in the past that have all coincidentally arrived in one present moment. Then they will all diversify and multiply into the future from this one 'bow tie' point.
5. We might otherwise suppose that this whole thing we call reality began with just one time line, and has been growing ever since. Multi-universes expanding exponentially, becoming bigger and more complex with every moment passed. This is reverse entropy on a grand scale.
6. If we never put the cat in the box, then it never came out alive or dead. Instead, the cat went and sat on the windowsill, or went and peed in his sandbox. Does the world where the cat was put in the box now exist, even though past events did not lead to it?
7. Time is complex, as is Quantum physics. However, from the above questioning it appears that, in the macro world of our reality, a multi-universe scenario would have to incorporate the past for it to make rational sense. Not that we should dismiss things that do not appear to make sense, only that we should wait for more compelling evidence before jumping to the conclusion that there are other, parallel universes all around and in which we exist, simultaneously.
So now, let's go back to the paragraph above which questioned our ability to make complex, multi-choice decisions. If that is the case, then there might be greater similarities between the quantum world and the macro world than we previously imagined.
Now, let's add Duplicity: If there are multiple universes in so called 'parallel' and time and space are contained within each one, as opposed to a higher time dimension relating all these multiverses, they can be duplicates. We can say that if two universes are identical they are actually the same, one thing, outside of time. Observation is time dependent. A replica painting of the Mona Lisa made in 1963 is clearly not the same as the original, regardless of how good the forger was. But two graphic illustrations made by the same computer program, two years apart, is now only a question in the eye of the beholder. If time does not exist between them and there is no time to observe, they are the same.
In the quantum world, two possible states or universes are connected by the present moment due to a lack of observation, and so exist. In the macro world they can only be connected if time does not exist between them. If we take the assertions of this paper, Time's Paradigm, that physical existence in the Universe is in contraction through a fourth dimension, 'Time', then duplicates can arise.
A fractal collapse of the Universe will present many duplicates. As time does not exist outside this 3d fractal cascade, replications will be numerous and the Universe may well be being frequently repeated with subtle variances.
A multiverse within itself. Duplicating, branching, a perpetually evolving structure. Thus, allowing for a superposition of states that are, in themselves, all connected, though only observed as individual from within. A structure that does not require multiple past time lines to converge on a 'bow tie' point. A finite, contained, vessel of energy, consistent with the Laws of Thermodynamics.
See: The Twins Paradox or The Beta-celeration Paradox for other examples of time twisting.
Time's Paradigm is a philosophy of science paper discussing the reality of time. It argues that time is a cyclical fourth dimension, where zero and light speed are attributes of the same event and infinite progression is invalid.
Find a summary of chapters and the hypothesis on Home Page. For an overview of postulates, see Abstract.
Top of Page
A synopsis of a work in progress. Copyright: A. Graham, 1988 - 2016
No unauthorised use of the material published or the concepts described herein is permitted.