Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > quark_cognition > Quark Cognition |
|
Hugh Everett III That's not my name, nor do I even know the guy. He died in 1982 of heart failure, due to excessive drinking and poor eating habits. I finished reading his biography, which came out in 2010. Hugh Everett III was born in 1930 and challenged the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics, much to the irritation of Niels Bohr. The Copenhagen Interpretation proposes that reality exists only when it is being observed by a conscious organism, such as a human. This was accepted by almost every scientist, which made it "orthodox". Hugh Everett didn't like it and made his own interpretation, which proposed that reality exists whether it is being observed or not (I agree with that). What Mr. Everett theorized in 1957 is now called the Many Worlds Interpretation or Parallel Universes. It posits that there is no such thing as a preferred observer and everything that can happen does happen. It is not *really* a theory, as it is nearly impossible to test it. Testing it would necessitate leaving the universe and no one is sure how to do that. My mom asked me the following question (in email): >>What about bugs and animals? Do their decisions create worlds? I answered: According to Mr. Everett, even non-living objects create worlds. He completely disagreed with the orthodox view (Copenhagen Interpretation) that observers must be conscious. Prior to 1957, almost every physicist agreed with Niels Bohr - reality exists because it is observed by conscious organisms. Mr. Everett's new theory was not approved by Bohr (he almost didn't receive his doctorate) and his thesis adviser (John Wheeler) tried to wash his hands of the whole incident many years later. Niels Bohr was against the theory because it doesn't require that observers exist. Reality happens regardless of whether it is being observed or not, according to Everett. It doesn't matter whether a human or a camera observes a scientific experiment - both are valid observers, according to Everett (but not to Bohr). Everett essentially said that there is no such thing as a preferred observer. And that observers are part of the quantum world. Everett said of his theory: "It can lay claim to a certain completeness, since it applies to all systems, of whatever size, and is still capable of explaining the macroscopic world. The price, however, is the abandonment of uniqueness of the observer, with its somewhat disconcerting philosophical implications." Everett said of the Copenhagen Interpretation: "The Copenhagen Interpretation is hopelessly incomplete because of its a priori reliance on classical physics (excluding in principle any deduction of classical physics from quantum theory, or any adequate investigation of the measuring process), as well as a philosophical monstrosity with a 'reality' concept for the macroscopic world and denial of the same for the microcosm." Everett was saying that the quantum world (microcosm) makes our world (macrocosm) real. Bohr argued for the reverse, and specifically believed that the worlds were somehow "separated". Today, we call this separation the "mesoscale". The mesoscale is the purported barrier where on one side, the laws of quantum physics are valid, and on the other side, the laws of classical physics are valid. I stated this of Everett's theory, on a message board where people thought it could be an alternative to belief in God: [The multiverse theory, propounded by Hugh Everett in 1957, was intended to solve the logical inconsistency inherent in the Copenhagen interpretation of the collapse of the wave function. Mr. Everett was an atheist and did not make the theory to compete with religion, as he was not concerned with religion. He did it because he disagreed with the Copenhagen interpretation, which posits that reality requires an observer in order to exist. That leads to infinite regression, since observers are real, which means each observer must also be observed, ad infinitum. There can be no preferred observer, so all possible observers exist. Hence, the multiverse. In summary, the multiverse theory is intended to explain quantum mechanics. You're right that we can't get any evidence, because in order to do so, we would have to leave the universe. In some sense, it's not a theory, because it can't be tested. It's more so an "interpretation".] This is a quote that really gets to the crux of the matter: "Everett thought it absurd to say that the consciousness of a single observer can collapse the wave function of a quantum system that includes other observers. Where would the "real" collapse occur then? Which conscious being is responsible for the collapse?" Another thing of interest in his biography, which I found ironic, is that his thesis adviser (John Wheeler) coined the words "black hole" and "wormhole", yet he criticized Everett for using the words "branching" and "splitting". Everett was required to remove every instance of the word "split" from his thesis when referring to other universes. Another piece of irony is that Wheeler stated (in 1973): "We can believe that we will first understand how simple the universe is when we recognize how strange it is." Well, Everett had already told him! |
|||
|
hmmm.. if a thing to be real must be observed then where does it stop after all the planets & the stars in the universe that we 'observe' is existing.. there must be someone or something out there that 'observes' the universe to make it all real and that must be God.
| ||
12/11/2010 12:32 am |
hmmm.. if a thing to be real must be observed then where does it stop after all the planets & the stars in the universe that we 'observe' is existing.. there must be someone or something out there that 'observes' the universe to make it all real and that must be God. Logic is fun.
| ||
|
oh so what you are really saying is that 'seeing is believing' and since we don't see God then He does not exist? there are many things we do not see with our limited vision but that does not mean it does not exist. science and nature has proven that.
| ||
12/12/2010 1:45 am |
oh so what you are really saying is that 'seeing is believing' and since we don't see God then He does not exist? there are many things we do not see with our limited vision but that does not mean it does not exist. science and nature has proven that. My post is physics oriented, but I can't help to stick my nose into ontology (study of being) and epistemology (study of knowledge). It's rather unavoidable. As for God, I am saying that He can't break the rules. If the universe is everything that exists, then He can't observe it. That would require Him to leave the universe, which is impossible, whether He is omnipotent or not. Think about it. If the universe is everything that exists, does it make any sense that anyone, God included, could observe it? There is no way to "get outside" of the universe and observe it. It makes no sense.
|
×
×