Cosmological Evolution (Part 5)

OK in the last post I said that…

Energy In is the matter and energy used to create our Parent Black Hole. And Energy Out is the net matter and energy that makes up our universe (matter – antimatter).

…and that our universe must balance the energy equation

Energy In = Energy Out

…such that it consumes an amount of energy equal to the amount of energy being fed into it. This is merely conservation of energy at the inter-universe scale.

So the question is…

Why does the emergent universe, our universe, evolve the way it does – with, matter, stars and us?

Well, let’s consider the range of possible universes by varying or “tuning” the universal physics constants such as the speed of light, vacuum permittivity, Planck’s constant, or the gravitational constant.

It turns out that most possible universes are uneventful, with settings that don’t involve matter that clumps and stars that shine. Thus, they don’t end up balancing the energy equation and therefore, won’t end up emerging. In fact we know of only one setting for the universal physics constants that results in a universe that does involve energy consumption – and it’s the one that we inhabit!

So it’s not an accident that the speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second, or that Planck’s constant is 6.626176 x 10 joule-seconds. This combination of settings results in an “energy eventful” universe that can balance the energy equation.

So – let’s pause and let this idea sink in. Balancing the energy equation drives a very important result:

It tunes the universal physics constants such that matter clumps and stars shine – which gives us an “energy eventful” universe.

Our “energy eventful” universe is not just a random accident. Our universe emerged from an infinite number of possible universes because it’s the one that balances the energy equation. As I said..

There’s a set amount of energy available to our universe from beyond our event horizon, and our universe is the one that requires this exact amount of energy such that the overall system is balanced.

This is a profound idea – but let’s not stop there. What if this requirement to balance the energy equation is also the reason we exist? In the next posts I’d like to explore this concept…

Why did life emerge?

I mean, it’s possible to have an “energy eventful” universe that doesn’t involve abiogenesis – where life doesn’t emerge. But maybe there’s a mathematical explanation for the emergence of animate, self replicating objects!

OK – so let’s explore this question in my next post.

Cosmological Evolution (Part 3)

As I pointed out in the previous post, in scale theory, all possible alternate histories and futures only exist as information at sub Planck scales. And from all of these possible histories and futures, one single actual universe ends up emerging – the one you are in right now. This post series asks the question…

which “single actual universe” has the highest probability of emerging?

Well, I will make the case that the answer to this question has to do with the energy equation – which I promised to discuss.

But before I do, why am I even asking this question? Why do we care about what caused our “verse” to emerge? I mean according to the many worlds interpretation, all possible “verses” exist. Our’s – with matter and stars and life is just as likely to emerge as one with no matter and no stars and no life. Lykken and Spiropulu put it this way in their article titled Supersymmetry and the Crisis in Physics:

In the multiverse scenario, the big bang produced not just the universe that we see but also a very large number of variations on our universe that we do not see. In this case, the answer to questions such as “Why does the electron have the mass that it does?” takes an answer in the form of: “That’s just the random luck of the draw—other parts of the multiverse have different electrons with different masses.

If many worlds is correct then our existence is random – there is no scientific reason for things to be as we experience them. Put bluntly…

The many worlds interpretation of quantum physics says our existence is meaningless – our universe is just one possibility emerging from an infinite number of other possible universes – all equally likely to exist – and all that actually do exist.

But this isn’t what the math we experience tells us. We see a wave function that describes a probability space. Some things are more likely to happen than others. So what determines this probability?

You see, this is an important question because – the answer would reveal a great truth…

why are we here?

Why is our universe set up this way? Why are the physics constants finely tuned to values that allow matter to form and clump into stars that light up and provide elements and energy that ultimately power life?

Scale Theory says that one single “verse” emerges from the quantum foam that contains information about all possible “verses”. And as I said, this post series provides a logical, mathematical explanation to the question…

which “single actual universe” has the highest probability of emerging?

And unlike the many worlds interpretation, Scale Theory makes room for a logical, mathematical, explanation for our existence. That is, there is a mathematically explainable driving force that sets the probabilities described by the wave function.

I’m proposing that…

of the many universes that could exist, there is a mathematical explanation for why our universe, with matter and stars and life is the one, and only one, that in the end, actually does exist.

As I said, this selection process is evolutionary in nature and is driven by the survival of the fittest law. I will show that with “verses”, fitness is defined by the energy equation. Our universe must consume an amount of energy equal to the amount of energy being fed into it..

Energy In = Energy Out

So what is Energy In and Energy Out? Well that’s the topic of the next post…

Cosmological Evolution (Part 2)

As discussed in a previous post, in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics EVERY event is a branch point for a different universe. However, in scale theory, all possible alternate histories and futures only exist as information at sub Planck scales. And it is the quantum classic border pressure that resolves the wave function into a single actual happening. So this post series asks the question…

which “single actual universe” has the highest probability of emerging?

My argument begins with Darwin’s “survival of the fittest.” In biology “fitness” is defined as the ability to win the right to procreate. In the kingdom of life, the ones who reproduce and pass on their genes are the fittest. But what defines cosmological fitness? I propose that “fitness” as it relates to “verses” is define by energy.

The universe that emerges from the wave function probability space is the one that balances the energy equation.

So what exactly is the energy equation and how is it balanced?

Well that’s the subject of this next post…

Cosmological Evolution (Part 1)

In a multiverse paradigm, if you were forced to only create one universe, which ‘verse’ would you create?

In his 1952 lecture, Erwin Schrödinger said that when his equations seemed to describe several different histories, these were “not (merely) alternatives, but all really happening simultaneously.“

In Scale Theory, these “historic alternatives” can be thought of as descriptions of “future possibilities” or potential universes. This post series is an exploration of why the universe we experience is the one that ended up emerging.

I will propose that our universe is the one that balances the energy equation (shown below). Simply speaking, our universe is selected based on its energy level. There’s a set amount of energy feeding into our universe from beyond our event horizon, and our universe is the one that consumes energy at a rate that balances the overall system.

Energy In = Energy Out

So if Schrödinger’s equations predict multiple alternative universes, the one that balances the above energy equation is the one that will emerge. Now I realize that if my theory proves to be right, this would be a big let down. It’s more exciting to believe that our existence is born from some deep cosmic revelation as opposed to the mundane balancing of an algebraic equation. But I’m afraid that after much consideration, this is where I’ve landed. The verse that ends up emerging is the one that balances energy in and energy out.

In the next post I will go into more detail about this idea – but I first wanted to lay out the general idea.

Let’s continue the discussion in this next post…

Many Worlds vs. Scale Theory

In the previous post I examined the Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment from the viewpoint of Scale Theory. In this post I compare the many worlds interpretation with scale theory, as they relate to quantum mechanics. As you will see, I have clear rationale for why scale theory, which says scale is a forth physical dimension, is the correct interpretation. Let’s begin…

Right now many worlds theorists are claiming the high ground (watch this talk by Sean Carroll). They claim that they are letting the theory (quantum mechanics that is) take them to the promise land without having to add additional features or requirements. And while I agree with the approach of not glomming superfluous physics onto quantum theory, I contend that the many worlds interpretation isn’t entirely faithful to quantum theory. As I will explain, the probability distribution of the wave function seems to plays no role in the many worlds interpretation. This sets scale theory apart. Both interpretations don’t glom new physics onto quantum theory, yet scale theory doesn’t require an amputation of the mathematics. Here is my comparison of the two interpretations as they relate to quantum theory.

In the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics every event is a branch point for a different universe. This means that all possible alternate histories and futures represent an actual “world” or “universe”.

In the scale theory interpretation of quantum mechanics all possible alternate histories and futures exist as information at sub Planck scales. And it is the quantum classic border pressure that resolves the wave function into a single actual happening. A single happening that we in this universe actually measure or observe. If you want to understand what I mean by probability density and observation watch this video.

So in both interpretations there is a split or resolution of the wave function which does not require the act of measuring or observing. Many worlds splits or resolves into different universes and scale theory splits or resolves into a single physical universe. Again, no new physics is added to quantum theory with both interpretations. But here’s the rub…

In the many worlds interpretation every possible happening as described by the wave function actually happens regardless of the probability of it happening (as calculated by the wave function squared). Therefore the probability distribution has no affect whatsoever on the outcome. Remember, in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics EVERY event is a branch point for a different universe. This means that ALL possible alternate histories and futures, regardless of the probability as described by the wave function, resolve into an actual “world” or “universe”.

This then renders the wave function inconsequential. So if the wave function distribution is inconsequential, it has no reason to exist. According to many worlds the wave function should be a digital distribution with places where the electron can possibly be found and places where it will never be found. But the wave function is not digital – see below.

As far as I can tell, the many worlds interpretation amputates or at least alters the wave function and its predictions of probability from quantum mechanics.

This is why I claim that scale theory is more faithful to quantum theory than the many worlds interpretation. As with many worlds a measurement is not required to drive the process and yet with scale theory the wave function has impact.

There is one “cherry on top” (non-scientific) advantage to scale theory. All things being equal (and as I’ve pointed out – they aren’t), scale theory is much easier on the psyche than many worlds. In scale theory there are no alternate versions of ‘me’ running around doing things I just don’t see myself doing.

So there you have it. A comparison of the two interpretations as they relate to quantum mechanics and the rationale for why scale theory is the correct one.

So now the question is – what drives the wave function probability? Which universe is the one most likely to emerge? This next series of posts sets out to answer this question. See you there.

Post Script: For a deeper explanation of the difficulty with the concept of probability in the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI), read Chapter 4.1 of The Many Worlds Interpretation in the Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

In the Stanford article the point is made this way: “If I am going to perform a quantum experiment with two possible outcomes such that standard quantum mechanics predicts probability 1/3 for outcome A and 2/3 for outcome B, then, according to the many worlds interpretation (MWI), both the world with outcome A and the world with outcome B will exist. It is senseless to ask: “What is the probability that I will get A instead of B?””

As I pointed out in my post this is the central problem with the MWI. The MWI of quantum mechanics requires a flat wave function where all probabilities of an event are equally likely. And this is not what we see.

In order to resolve this problem the many worlds theorist impose several strained alternate interpretations such as The Many Minds Interpretation and the Illusion of Post Measurement Probability. All of these are just desperate attempts to plaster over the fact that the MWI of quantum mechanics is wrong.

The correct interpretation is the one that is consistent with the entirety of quantum mechanics – not just parts of it. Scale Theory has the advantage, being that it’s consistent with all of quantum theory. In addition, it offers an explanation for dark matter and dark energy.

Let me know your thoughts…

Scale Theory

Abstract: Scale Theory proposes that there is a fourth spatial dimension in the direction we perceive as scale. Scale Theory also proposes that the warping of space time in this fourth spatial dimension gives rise to phenomena such as dark matter, dark energy, quantum effects, quantum entanglement, the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe.

Is Scale a Dimension?

When you move in the three spatial dimensions, such as when traveling from Phoenix to Hawaii or from Earth to a Black Hole, you are able to experience different things. In Phoenix you can golf in the desert, and in Hawaii you can surf in the ocean. And on Earth you experience one G of gravity, while at a Black Hole you experience massive gravity. Why? Because you are in a different place – dimensionally. The same seems to be true when you shift between scales from the very large to the very small. At large scales you experience Einstein’s Relativity. At very small scales you experience Quantum Mechanics. The equations of General Relativity are incompatibility with the equations of Quantum Mechanics. This is what is meant when physicists say we have not yet discovered the theory of everything. I believe the solution might be found if we consider scale itself as a fourth spatial dimension.

My theory is that there is a fourth spatial dimension in the direction we associate with scale.

And if there is a “scale dimension”, this could explain some of the observed physical phenomena we are currently unable to understand such as Dark Energy and Dark Matter. Just as three dimensional space separates Phoenix from Hawaii and Earth from a Black Hole, the very small may be separated from the very large. These may be completely different places – dimensionally.

What is Scale?

With model trains, scale is the ratio of the model to the real-life train. For example, O Scale is 1:48 Scale where 1 inch on the model equals 48 inches in real life. Thus, a 48′ freight car would be 12″ on your model railroad.

The scale my theory refers to is similar to this idea, but instead of train scales, we are talking about the different scales or levels at which physical events take place. For example, chemical reactions take place at the molecular level, while the level at which we encounter planetary orbits is at ‘solar system’ scales. Each of these levels or scales requires a different type of analysis for modeling physical phenomena. And although you can measure scales in terms of the three familiar spatial dimensions, length, width and height, my proposal is that scale itself is a dimension. And because scale is a dimension, you are able to experience different phenomena at different scales. And although we know that certain phenomena dominate at different masses and speeds, I’m proposing that…

There is a fourth spatial dimension in the direction we perceive as scale.

Warped Scale-Time

So if scale is a dimension, what is different at the scale extremes? I am proposing that…

The properties of space are fundamentally different at the scale extremes because space time is warped there.

I propose that the warping of space time in the scale dimension accounts for the strangeness of quantum effects at submicroscopic levels and observations of a singularity (microwave cosmic background) at the outer edge of our universe.

As I said, at the scale extremes space time is curved. Therefore at the scale extremes, we should perceive something equivalent to a gravitational force. Why? Well, space time is warped by the earth and on the earth we experience a pull we call gravity. So it stands to reason that if space time is warped at the edges of the scale dimension, we should observe a pull there too. And while we might attribute this “pull” to something called Dark Matter, or at the edge of our universe, something called Dark Energy, I propose that…

Dark Matter and Dark Energy are a result of the warping of space time in the scale dimension at the scale extremes.

It would follow that at the two scale extremes, space time is curved so severely that they present a border or boundary, much like the event horizon of a black hole.

And, given this theory proposes quantum effects of the very small are a result of warped space time in the scale dimension, this may be why, according to Stephen Hawking, the event horizon of a black hole has quantum-like characteristics.

How to Visualize this?

Here is a way to visualize this. Before Columbus sailed the ocean blue the earth was thought to be flat. In essence, the known universe was imagined to be roughly two-dimensional. Then of course we discovered that in fact the earth was spherical and our imagination expanded to the notion that the known universe was three-dimensional. This shift can be visualized as someone looking down on the earth and concluding it is a flat disc. Then when we rotate our view around, the extra (previously hidden) dimension is revealed. Next it took Einstein to explain how the fourth dimension of time fits into the picture and now we imagine space time as a fabric. And since it is a dimension, we can rotate around and see its true shape. Space time is bendable.

So now all you have to do is take this idea one step further and imagine that scale is a dimension and rotate yourself around so that you can see this dimension. Look to the left where we experience the very very small and now look the right where we view the very very large. And now imagine that to the left space time is curved or warped giving rise to quantum effects, and in the middle space time flattens out, allowing for classical/relativistic effects. Then, to the right near the edge of our universe, where we observe the echo of the Big Bang, space time is again curved or warped. By the way, the thing that is attractive to me about this theory is that it is elegant and symmetrical. This single idea seems to explain both Dark Energy and Dark Matter.

Space time is bent at both extremes of the scale dimension. At the one end we primarily perceive quantum effects and at the other we see the Big Bang.

This post describes the theory inasmuch as I understand it to date. The posts below are explorations of how the theory might explain physics concepts and observed properties of the universe.

Index

• The Big Bang
• Dimension Tunnel Vision
• Universe Expansion Rate
• Schrodinger’s Cat
• Many Worlds
• Scale Theory Ruminations
• Cosmological Evolution

Quantum Bottleneck

A Quantum Bottleneck is like a many-worlds weigh station.

I would like to coin a term: Quantum Bottleneck.

A Quantum Bottleneck is a place where all possible universes lead up to one eventuality and resolve down to one singular outcome.

My Quantum Bottleneck concept is based on the Many-Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics which implies that all possible outcomes or futures are real, each representing a world or universe. This means that every time you flip a coin, both outcomes take place. In one universe the coin comes up heads and in the other, it comes up tails. A Quantum Bottleneck is encountered when all of the universes converge back to a single situation that then results in only one possible outcome. In other words, it’s where all of the universes collapse or bottleneck, and then pass through one reality. 

In the movie, The Matrix Reloaded, Morpheus describes a Quantum Bottleneck as,

What happened happened and couldn’t have happened any other way. 

If the Many-Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is correct, then there is a possibility that Quantum Bottlenecks exist. Maybe this is where we get or ideas about fate, or predestination. 

Well, if Quantum Bottlenecks do exist, maybe we will someday use them for time travel. Maybe they will serve as time travel nodes, through which we will be able to pass. Think of them as weigh stations through which multiple universes must pass. 

Well it’s just a theory, but who knows, maybe you have experienced passing through a Quantum Bottleneck, where what happened, had to happen, exactly as it happened. Anyway, if you haven’t yet passed through one, keep a lookout for them – you just might be headed for one right now.