Intelligent Design Multiverse

Multiverse advocate defends in SciAm against charges that his claims are “unscientific nonsense”

Spread the love

File:Multiverse - level II.svg Apparently, the respectful reception Max Tegmark’s universe of universes book received wasn’t enough. Mathematicians and scientists haven’t just converted en masse. So he offers, via Scientific American, a primer on how to critique his theory:

Many physicists have explored various types of parallel universes in recent books, including Sean Carroll, David Deutsch, Brian Greene, Michio Kaku, Martin Rees, Leonard Susskind and Alexander Vilenkin. Interestingly, not a single one of these books (my own included) makes any outright claims that parallel universes exist. Instead, all their arguments involve what logicians know as “modus ponens”: that if X implies Y and X is true, then Y must also be true. Specifically, they argue that if some scientific theory X has enough experimental support for us to take it seriously, then we must take seriously also all its predictions Y, even if these predictions are themselves untestable (involving parallel universes, for example).

In summary, there is no shortage of potential weaknesses in the arguments for parallel universes. Attacking all these weaknesses involves doing interesting experimental and theoretical physics research. If any of the attacks succeed, the corresponding multiverse evidence is discredited. Conversely, if all the attacks fail, then we’ll be forced to take parallel universes more seriously whether we like them or not – such are the rules of science. In this way, parallel universes are no different from any other scientific idea.

Multiverse skeptic Peter Woit fails to find Tegmark’s list of his options for disagreement quite comprehensive enough and a heated exchange follows in the comments, where Tegmark ends up replying,

In my opinion, science shouldn’t be about emotions and sociology, but about logic and experimental facts. So why are you bringing emotions into the discussion (“if I’m not happy”, “enjoy”, “happily continue”)?

Do you really feel that scientific ideas should be judged by how “prominent” their advocates are rather than by the quality of the arguments and evidence? This and your talk of a “publicity campaign” seems to assume a scientific paradigm where you and I have strong emotional preferences for what we want to discover and are guided by these rather than by logic and facts. I’m sorry, but I strongly disagree with this approach. I feel that my job as a scientist isn’t to try to reach conclusions that I find emotionally pleasing or sociologically popular, but to follow the trail of evidence wherever it leads.

Yet the multiverse was never about evidence, and even Tegmark didn’t make that claim.

Woit replies,

I’ve made detailed arguments about exactly what the problem is with your Level IV multiverse in the WSJ review, on my blog, and here. You’ve completely ignored them, in favor of personal attacks on me as “unscientific” and “emotional”, driven by “hate”.

“Hate” is a big one these days. You “hate” people when you identify weaknesses in whatever they are saying or doing.

As I unpack in the Science Fictions series” of posts, multiverse theory exists in order to get around evidence in our universe that points to creation or design. It’s a pretty extravagant alternative, but emotionally very satisfying to its proponents, to judge from their other interests. Tegmark is no different. But he is much better funded.

One senses that mathematician Woit is at the disadvantage of not understanding that the multiverse is a frenzied new religious outlook, and the zeal of its proponents will generally be greater than the zeal of people like him, who like their fields of study to proceed by rationally comprehensible axioms.

See also: Peter Woit, this is your call to conversion

Multiverse skeptic Peter Woit clarifies, he is NOT a creationist

Mathematician wonders about the respectful reception new multiverse book is getting

Science-Fictions-square.gif The Science Fictions series at your fingertips

Follow UD News at Twitter!

14 Replies to “Multiverse advocate defends in SciAm against charges that his claims are “unscientific nonsense”

  1. 1
    Mapou says:

    Tegmark emotes:

    I’m sorry, but I strongly disagree with this approach. I feel that my job as a scientist isn’t to try to reach conclusions that I find emotionally pleasing or sociologically popular, but to follow the trail of evidence wherever it leads.

    The exact opposite is the truth here. The lady does protest too much.

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    Scratch on the surface of any multiverse scenario and you will find, not any substantiating evidence as Professor Woit points out in his disagreement with Tegmark, but you will instead find a random infinity that was conjectured in the imagination of an atheist so as to avoid an inference to God.

    for instance from Max Tegmark himself,,,

    Parallel Universes by Max Tegmark – (Ironically subtitled) Not Just A Staple Of Science Fiction Other Universes Are Direct Implications Of Cosmological Observations – May 2003
    http://space.mit.edu/home/tegm....._sciam.pdf

    we find that the ‘Level I multiverse’ is,,

    LEVEL I MULTIVERSE
    THE SIMPLEST TYPE of parallel universe is simply a region of space that is too far away for us to have seen yet. The farthest that we can observe is currently about 4 x 10^26 meters, or 42 billion light-years — the distance that light has been able to travel since the big bang began. (The distance is greater than 14 billion light-years because cosmic expansion has lengthened distances.) Each of the Level I parallel universes is basically the same as ours. All the differences stem from variations in the initial arrangement of matter

    Yet no matter how reasonable it may seem to Tegmark to infer that parallel universes exist outside our ability to observe them, (i.e. outside the Cosmic Background Radiation), he simply is not justified in imagining that they exist apart from our observation of them. Moreover, in his haste to cast ‘observational evidence’ to the side, he has neglected to realize just how important our ‘conscious observation’ is in reality in the first place. Case in point,

    The Scale of The Universe – Part 2 – interactive graph (recently updated in 2012 with cool features)
    http://htwins.net/scale2/scale.....olor=white

    The preceding interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center of all possible sizes of our physical reality (not just ‘nearly’ in the exponential center!). i.e. 10^-4 is, exponentially, right in the middle of 10^-35 meters, which is the smallest possible unit of length, which is Planck length, and 10^27 meters, which is the largest possible unit of ‘observable’ length since space-time was created in the Big Bang, which is the diameter of the universe. This is very interesting for, as far as I can tell, the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions than directly in the exponential middle;

    Also of note: Just as it makes no sense, from a space-time perspective, to ask, ‘What was before the Big Bang?’, it also makes no sense, from a space-time perspective, to ask, ‘What is below the Planck length?’

    Planck length – Theoretical significance
    Excerpt: This implies that the Planck scale is the limit below which the very notions of space and length cease to exist.,,,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.....gnificance

    Max Tegmark goes on to imagine a,,,

    LEVEL II MULTIVERSE
    A SOMEWHAT MORE ELABORATE type of parallel universe emerges from the theory of cosmological inflation. The idea is that our Level I multiverse — namely, our universe and contiguous regions of space — is a bubble embedded in an even vaster but mostly empty volume. Other bubbles exist out there, disconnected from ours. They nucleate like raindrops in a cloud. During nucleation, variations in quantum fields endow each bubble with properties that distinguish it from other bubbles.

    Level II Multiverse (i.e. inflation), as Tegmark himself admits, was invented in the imagination of atheists to ‘explain away’ why we live in a finely tuned universe:

    Evidence – Tegmark
    COSMOLOGISTS INFER the presence of Level II parallel universes by scrutinizing the properties of our universe. These properties, including the strength of the forces of nature (right) and the number of observable space and time dimensions (far right), were established by *random processes during the birth of our universe. Yet they have exactly the values that sustain life. That suggests the existence of other universes with other values.

    *Please note the metaphysical assumption of random

    here are the graphs he listed:

    graph – fine tuning of strength of electromagnetism balanced to strength of strong nuclear force
    http://inspirehep.net/record/7.....alphas.png

    graph – Time vs Space Dimensions
    http://ej.iop.org/images/0264-.....l/img5.gif

    Yet as Dr. Sheldon, others, and even one of the originators of inflation theory itself, have repeatedly pointed out, the observational evidence we do have undermines any claim inflation theory had to being true as to ‘explaining away’ that fine tuning;

    One of cosmic (Rapid) inflation theory’s creators now questions own theory – April 2011
    Excerpt: (Rapid) Inflation adds a whole bunch of really unlikely metaphysical assumptions — a new force field that has a never-before-observed particle called the “inflaton”, an expansion faster than the speed of light, an interaction with gravity waves which are themselves only inferred– just so that it can explain the unlikely contingency of a finely-tuned big bang.
    But instead of these extra assumptions becoming more-and-more supported, the trend went the opposite direction, with more-and-more fine-tuning of the inflation assumptions until they look as fine-tuned as Big Bang theories. At some point, we have “begged the question”. Frankly, the moment we add an additional free variable, I think we have already begged the question. In a Bayesean comparison of theories, extra variables reduce the information content of the theory, (by the so-called Ockham factor), so these inflation theories are less, not more, explanatory than the theory they are supposed to replace.,,, after 20 years of work, if we haven’t made progress, but have instead retreated, it is time to cut bait.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....wn-theory/

    A new study,, challenges the inflation model – April 12, 2013
    Excerpt: CfA astronomers Anna Ijjas, Paul Steinhardt, and Avi Loeb have just published a paper arguing that the new Planck results, far from lending credibility to ideas of inflation, actually undermine them. Indeed, they argue that they pose a challenge to cosmology overall. In an ironic and subtle twist, the scientists point out that the results of Planck are actually too good, because they confirm with high precision only the very simplest version of inflation. Yet, they argue, if one believes in the principles of inflation the simplest version is actually by far the most unlikely version. Hence the whole edifice of inflation becomes untenable.
    http://scitechdaily.com/new-st.....k-results/

    Moreover, the fine-tuning, regardless of what Tegmark may think, certainly does not point to ‘random’ processes as to necessitating the inflationary model:

    Fine Tuning Of Universal Constants, Particularly Light – Walter Bradley – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4491552

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Tegmark goes on to,,

    LEVEL III MULTIVERSE
    QUANTUM MECHANICS PREDICTS a vast number of parallel universes by broadening the concept of “elsewhere.” These universes are located elsewhere, not in ordinary space but in an abstract realm of all possible states. Every conceivable way that the world could be (within the scope of quantum mechanics) corresponds to a different universe. The parallel universes make their presence felt in laboratory experiments, such as wave interference and quantum computation.

    Yet many worlds is dependent on the wave function being merely an abstract description of reality. In fact, many worlds gets rid of the axiom of wave function collapse altogether and gives primary consideration to the particle. In fact the particle is given so much unmerited power in the many worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics that every time someone observes a particle, instead of the wave function merely collapsing, the particle instead creates a virtual infinity of parallel universes. i.e. Many worlds is basically saying that, instead of God, the material particle has bestowed within itself the power to create as many universes as it wants or needs to! And I am not overstating the case in the least! Moreover, the wave function is now shown not to be an ‘abstract’ element, as is held in many worlds, but the wave function is now shown to be a ‘real’ entity that cannot be interpreted purely statistically as is required in Many Words:

    Direct measurement of the quantum wavefunction – June 2011
    Excerpt: The wavefunction is the complex distribution used to completely describe a quantum system, and is central to quantum theory. But despite its fundamental role, it is typically introduced as an abstract element of the theory with no explicit definition.,,, Here we show that the wavefunction can be measured directly by the sequential measurement of two complementary variables of the system. The crux of our method is that the first measurement is performed in a gentle way through weak measurement so as not to invalidate the second. The result is that the real and imaginary components of the wavefunction appear directly on our measurement apparatus. We give an experimental example by directly measuring the transverse spatial wavefunction of a single photon, a task not previously realized by any method.
    http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....10120.html

    The following paper mathematically corroborated the preceding experiments and cleaned up some pretty nasty probabilistic incongruities. Particularly incongruities with quantum entanglement that arose from a purely statistical, ‘abstract’, interpretation of the wave function.

    The quantum (wave) state cannot be interpreted statistically – November 2011
    http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328

    Quantum Theory’s ‘Wavefunction’ Found to Be Real Physical Entity: Scientific American – November 2011
    Excerpt: Action at a distance occurs when pairs of quantum particles interact in such a way that they become entangled. But the new paper, by a trio of physicists led by Matthew Pusey at Imperial College London, presents a theorem showing that if a quantum wavefunction were purely a statistical tool, then even quantum states that are unconnected across space and time would be able to communicate with each other. As that seems very unlikely to be true, the researchers conclude that the wavefunction must be physically real after all.,,, “This strips away obscurity and shows you can’t have an interpretation of a quantum state as probabilistic,” he says.
    http://www.scientificamerican......vefunction

    On the reality of the quantum state – Matthew F. Pusey, Jonathan Barrett & Terry Rudolph – May 2012
    Abstract: Quantum states are the key mathematical objects in quantum theory. It is therefore surprising that physicists have been unable to agree on what a quantum state truly represents. One possibility is that a pure quantum state corresponds directly to reality. However, there is a long history of suggestions that a quantum state (even a pure state) represents only knowledge or information about some aspect of reality. Here we show that any model in which a quantum state represents mere information about an underlying physical state of the system, and in which systems that are prepared independently have independent physical states, must make predictions that contradict those of quantum theory. (i.e. Any model that holds the Quantum wave state as merely a abstract representation of reality, i.e. as not a real representation of reality, must make predictions that contradict those of quantum theory.)
    http://www.nature.com/nphys/jo.....s2309.html

    The preceding mathematical interpretation was empirically corroborated:

    Of Einstein and entanglement: Quantum erasure deconstructs wave-particle duality – January 29, 2013
    Excerpt: They concluded that since the two entangled systems are causally disconnected in terms of the erasure choice, wave-particle duality is an irreducible feature of quantum systems with no naïve realistic explanation. The world view that a photon always behaves either definitely as a wave or definitely as a particle would require faster-than-light communication, and should therefore be abandoned as a description of quantum behavior.
    http://phys.org/news/2013-01-e.....ructs.html

    The following experiment went even further:

    Quantum theory survives latest challenge – Dec 15, 2010
    Excerpt: Even assuming that entangled photons could respond to one another instantly, the correlations between polarization states still violated Leggett’s inequality. The conclusion being that instantaneous communication is not enough to explain entanglement and realism must also be abandoned.
    This conclusion is now backed up by Sonja Franke-Arnold and collegues at the University of Glasgow and University of Strathclyde who have performed another experiment showing that entangled photons exhibit,, stronger correlations than allowed for particles with individually defined properties – even if they would be allowed to communicate constantly.
    http://physicsworld.com/cws/ar.....-challenge

    The following establishes the quantum wave function as ‘real’ from another angle of logic;

    Does the quantum wave function represent reality? April 2012 by Lisa Zyga
    Excerpt: “Similarly, our result that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the wave function and the elements of reality means that, if we know a system’s wave function then we are exactly in such a favorable situation: any information that there exists in nature and which could be relevant for predicting the behavior of a quantum mechanical system is represented one-to-one by the wave function. In this sense, the wave function is an optimal description of reality.”
    http://phys.org/news/2012-04-q.....ality.html

    Yet, it is also important to note that even the ‘real’ wave function must interpreted in a ‘non-local’, beyond space and time, manner:

    Particle and Wave-Like Behavior of Light Measured Simultaneously – Nov. 1, 2012
    Excerpt: Dr Peruzzo, Research Fellow at the Centre for Quantum Photonics, said: “The measurement apparatus detected strong nonlocality, which certified that the photon behaved simultaneously as a wave and a particle in our experiment. This represents a strong refutation of models in which the photon is either a wave or a particle.”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....141107.htm

    Also of interest, completely contrary to the many worlds materialistic presupposition that holds no beyond space and time actions are possible, without consideration of the particles first, it is now found to be possible to entangle particles without the particles even interacting first!:

    Qubits that never interact could exhibit past-future entanglement – July 30, 2012
    Excerpt: Typically, for two particles to become entangled, they must first physically interact. Then when the particles are physically separated and still share the same quantum state, they are considered to be entangled. But in a new study, physicists have investigated a new twist on entanglement in which two qubits become entangled with each other even though they never physically interact.,,
    http://phys.org/news/2012-07-q.....ement.html

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Tegmark goes on to,,,

    LEVEL IV MULTIVERSE
    THE ULTIMATE TYPE of parallel universe opens up the full realm of possibility. Universes can differ not just in location, cosmological properties or quantum state but also in the laws of physics. Existing outside of space and time, they are almost impossible to visualize; the best one can do is to think of them abstractly, as static sculptures that represent the mathematical structure of the physical laws that govern them. For example, consider a simple universe: Earth, moon and sun, obeying Newton’s laws. To an objective observer, this universe looks like a circular ring (Earth’s orbit smeared out in time) wrapped in a braid (the moon’s orbit around Earth). Other shapes embody other laws of physics (a, b, c, d). This paradigm solves various problems concerning the foundations of physics.

    Why sure, if an atheist imagines another random infinity I guess he can imagine he has ‘explained away’ mathematics too. Personally, methinks Tegmark needs to ask himself just what he has REALLY ‘explained away’ with all his random infinities, especially his additional one that is suppose to explain mathematics?:

    Mathematics and Physics – A Happy Coincidence? – Dr. Craig – video
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/9826382/

    1. If God did not exist the applicability of mathematics would be a happy coincidence.
    2. The applicability of mathematics is not a happy coincidence.
    3. Therefore, God exists.

    “Geometry is unique and eternal, a reflection from the mind of God. That mankind shares in it is because man is an image of God.”
    – Johannes Kepler

    “Either mathematics is too big for the human mind or the human mind is more than a machine.”
    – Kurt Gödel

    Alan Turing and Kurt Godel – Incompleteness Theorem and Human Intuition – video (notes in video description)
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8516356/

    But Who Needs Reality-Based Thinking Anyway? Not the New Cosmologists – Denyse O’Leary – January 2, 2014
    Excerpt: “Multiverse theory is designed for one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is to defend atheism. It makes no predictions, it gives no insight, it provides no control, it produces no technology, it advances no mathematics, it is a science in name only, because it is really metaphysics.”
    Dr. Robert B. Sheldon – PhD Physics

    “These multiverse theories all share the same fundamental defect: They can be neither confirmed nor falsified. Hence, they don’t deserve to be called scientific, according to the well-known criterion proposed by the philosopher Karl Popper. Some defenders of multiverses and strings mock skeptics who raise the issue of falsification as “Popperazi” — which is cute but not a counterargument. Multiverse theories aren’t theories — they’re science fictions, theologies, works of the imagination unconstrained by evidence.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....80281.html

    The Absurdity of Inflation, String Theory and The Multiverse – Dr. Bruce Gordon – video
    http://vimeo.com/34468027

    Also of note: The materialistic/atheistic conjecture of an infinity of universes to ‘explain away’ the fine tuning of this universe also insures, through the ontological argument, the 100% probability of the existence of God:

    God Is Not Dead Yet – William Lane Craig – Page 4
    The ontological argument. Anselm’s famous argument has been reformulated and defended by Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole, Brian Leftow, and others. God, Anselm observes, is by definition the greatest being conceivable. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being, a maximally great being. So what would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and he would exist in every logically possible world. But then we can argue:

    1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.
    2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
    3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
    4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
    5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
    6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
    7. Therefore, God exists.

    Now it might be a surprise to learn that steps 2–7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God’s existence is even possible, then he must exist. So the whole question is: Is God’s existence possible? The atheist has to maintain that it’s impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square. But the problem is that the concept of God just doesn’t appear to be incoherent in that way. The idea of a being which is all-powerful, all knowing, and all-good in every possible world seems perfectly coherent. And so long as God’s existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist.
    http://www.christianitytoday.c.....ml?start=4

    Where this argument has gained purchase is in the materialist/atheist appeal to the multiverse (an infinity of possible worlds) to try to ‘explain away’ the extreme fine tuning we find for this universe. The materialist/atheist, without even realizing it, ends up conceding the necessary premise to the ontological argument and thus guarantees the success of the argument and thus insures the 100% probability of God’s existence!

    I like the concluding comment about the ontological argument from the following Dr. Plantinga video:

    “God then is the Being that couldn’t possibly not exit.”

    Ontological Argument – Dr. Plantinga (3:50 minute mark)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXvVcWFrGQ

    Verse and Music:

    2 Peter 1:16
    For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

    Rachel Lampa I live for You
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsQ5hQ2WFFU

  5. 5
    Mapou says:

    bornagain77 @2:

    Evidence – Tegmark
    COSMOLOGISTS INFER the presence of Level II parallel universes by scrutinizing the properties of our universe. These properties, including the strength of the forces of nature (right) and the number of observable space and time dimensions (far right), were established by *random processes during the birth of our universe. Yet they have exactly the values that sustain life. That suggests the existence of other universes with other values.

    How does Tegmark know that the properties of the universe “were established by random processes during the birth of our universe?” Where is the science?

    Tegmark is a typical atheist crackpot. There are a lot of those in the physics community. They’re a dime a dozen.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Exactly Mapou, the randomness postulate of atheists is always the metaphysical add on that never has any substantiating evidence (or clear definition). In fact, when their base randomness postulate is examined closely it is always found to undermine our ability to practice science rationally. This is found to be true in both the Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism and in Boltzmann’s Brain (to name falsifications two right off the top of my head):

  7. 7
    ronvanwegen says:

    A fascinating “error” from…
    4 bornagain77 February 9, 2014 at 4:51 pm …

    I like the concluding comment about the ontological argument from the following Dr. Plantinga video:

    “God then is the Being that couldn’t possibly not exit.”

    Ontological Argument – Dr. Plantinga (3:50 minute mark)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXvVcWFrGQ

  8. 8
    Mung says:

    “Unscientific” is too benign.

    “Creationist Nonsense” is better at grabbing headlines.

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    There is no “error” in the logic since the premise of the argument is granted in the atheist’s appeal to an infinite number of possible worlds to explain the fine tuning of this one! i.e. If the premise of the argument is granted the conclusion follows necessarily! For the atheist to deny the premise of the argument he undercuts his own argument for a multiverse. i.e. Dog meet tail!

  10. 10
    equate65 says:

    Regarding randomness and chance, ran across this assertion:

    “Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is the last classical theory in physics where everything is deterministic. Quantum Mechanics is based on a fundamental inescapable randomness. Einstein argued against this; there is his famous quote, “God does not play dice.” After several debates on the issue, all of Einstein’s objections were defeated. The fundamental randomness of QM is supported by plenty of evidence. Chance does exist and there is evidence for it.”

    Any thoughts?

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    equate65, IMHO, they are confusing what drives the randomness, i.e. information and free will, with the entirely random aspect resultant from information and free will:

    In the beginning was the bit – New Scientist
    Excerpt: Zeilinger’s principle leads to the intrinsic randomness found in the quantum world. Consider the spin of an electron. Say it is measured along a vertical axis (call it the z axis) and found to be pointing up. Because one bit of information has been used to make that statement, no more information can be carried by the electron’s spin. Consequently, no information is available to predict the amounts of spin in the two horizontal directions (x and y axes), so they are of necessity entirely random. If you then measure the spin in one of these directions, there is an equal chance of its pointing right or left, forward or back. This fundamental randomness is what we call Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle.
    http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_.....302101.php

    So, unlike the entropic randomness of space-time which is governed/bounded by Boltzmann’s constant, the ‘unbounded’ randomness found in Quantum Mechanics is a necessary consequence of the fact that the universe is ‘quantized information’ at it most foundational level, and we may only freely choose how we may consciously observe a particle for any one particular characteristic at any given time.

    To solidify this theistic claim for the importance of free will in driving the ‘randomness’ inherent in quantum mechanics,,,

    Can quantum theory be improved? – July 23, 2012
    Excerpt: Being correct 50% of the time when calling heads or tails on a coin toss won’t impress anyone. So when quantum theory predicts that an entangled particle will reach one of two detectors with just a 50% probability, many physicists have naturally sought better predictions. The predictive power of quantum theory is, in this case, equal to a random guess. Building on nearly a century of investigative work on this topic, a team of physicists has recently performed an experiment whose results show that, despite its imperfections, quantum theory still seems to be the optimal way to predict measurement outcomes.,
    However, in the new paper, the physicists have experimentally demonstrated that there cannot exist any alternative theory that increases the predictive probability of quantum theory by more than 0.165, with the only assumption being that measurement (*conscious observation) parameters can be chosen independently (free choice/free will assumption) of the other parameters of the theory.,,,
    ,, the experimental results provide the tightest constraints yet on alternatives to quantum theory. The findings imply that quantum theory is close to optimal in terms of its predictive power, even when the predictions are completely random.
    http://phys.org/news/2012-07-quantum-theory.html

    *What does the term “measurement” mean in quantum mechanics?
    “Measurement” or “observation” in a quantum mechanics context are really just other ways of saying that the observer is interacting with the quantum system and measuring the result in toto.
    http://boards.straightdope.com.....p?t=597846

    So it is found that a required (axiomatic) assumption of ‘free will’ in quantum mechanics is what necessarily drives the completely random (non-deterministic) aspect of quantum mechanics. Moreover, it was shown in the paper that one cannot ever improve the predictive power of quantum mechanics by ever removing free will as a starting assumption in Quantum Mechanics!

  12. 12
    bornagain77 says:

    also of note: in the following experiment, the claim that past material states determine future conscious choices (determinism) is falsified by the fact that present conscious choices effect past material states:

    Quantum physics mimics spooky action into the past – April 23, 2012
    Excerpt: The authors experimentally realized a “Gedankenexperiment” called “delayed-choice entanglement swapping”, formulated by Asher Peres in the year 2000. Two pairs of entangled photons are produced, and one photon from each pair is sent to a party called Victor. Of the two remaining photons, one photon is sent to the party Alice and one is sent to the party Bob. Victor can now choose between two kinds of measurements. If he decides to measure his two photons in a way such that they are forced to be in an entangled state, then also Alice’s and Bob’s photon pair becomes entangled. If Victor chooses to measure his particles individually, Alice’s and Bob’s photon pair ends up in a separable state. Modern quantum optics technology allowed the team to delay Victor’s choice and measurement with respect to the measurements which Alice and Bob perform on their photons. “We found that whether Alice’s and Bob’s photons are entangled and show quantum correlations or are separable and show classical correlations can be decided after they have been measured”, explains Xiao-song Ma, lead author of the study.
    According to the famous words of Albert Einstein, the effects of quantum entanglement appear as “spooky action at a distance”. The recent experiment has gone one remarkable step further. “Within a naïve classical world view, quantum mechanics can even mimic an influence of future actions on past events”, says Anton Zeilinger.
    http://phys.org/news/2012-04-q.....ction.html

    i.e. The preceding experiment clearly shows, and removes any doubt whatsoever, that the ‘material’ detector recording information in the double slit is secondary to the experiment and that a conscious observer being able to consciously know the ‘which path’ information of a photon with local certainty, is of primary importance in the experiment. You can see a more complete explanation of the startling results of the experiment at the 9:11 minute mark of the following video

    Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment Explained – 2014 video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6HLjpj4Nt4

  13. 13
    fossil says:

    I am approaching this whole topic with some mixed feelings. Please correct if I am wrong but from what I have read Einstein’s theory of relativity was born out of pure mathematics without any real evidence as was quantum mechanics. Even the Higgs boson was entirely theoretical until experimentation with the large hadron collider. So I wonder if everyone is really justified in condemning the theory because there is no evidence at this point. In fact as has been stated the likelihood of it ever being proven seems rather doubtful and perhaps on that point we can nix the whole thing.

    To me it seems more appropriate at this point, though harder to prove, to reject it on the grounds of the intent of the theory as a matter of religion as the article points out.

  14. 14
    Peter says:

    Wouldn’t it be simpler to just ask: ‘Where did the multiverse come from?” Without a God you fall into an infinite regress, which acccording to Dawkins is a sufficient discredit the idea.

Leave a Reply