The multiverse is unscientific nonsense - it's all mere speculation

submitted by ZephirAWT from iai.tv

all 15 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]ZephirAWT[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

The multiverse is unscientific nonsense - it's all mere speculation

Everyone from physicists like Michio Kaku to Marvel superheroes propagate the idea of the multiverse - an infinite set of parallel universes. But Jacob Barandes argues that any talk of multiverses is nothing more than wild speculation, be it in quantum mechanics or cosmology, and that physicists and philosophers are not doing the public a service by suggesting otherwise.

In dense aether model universe is random. Dimensionality is the property relying on right-angled Cartesian system of coordinates - random system is an infinitely hyperdimensional system in essence. But lower dimensions are locally more present there than these higher one due to limited information spreading - this leads to abundance of low-dimensional artifacts within observable reality. Providing that we define observable universe as a 3D (which is very reductionist view) then the higher dimensions would behave locally like traces of parallel universes. This is the reason why multiverse idea is pushed mostly by stringy theorists who are also high-dimensions supporters. Of course this is very local view, as a whole our Universe is only one, as its name implies.

This is to say, I'm not very big supporter of extradimensions and simplistic interpretations of observable universe as a low-dimensional slices of multiverse - but under special circumstances these concepts are testable and even observable. The simplest example of multiverse are multiple images of distant galaxies observed through Einsteinian lens. Another plausibly testable scenario is hall of mirror model of dark matter fluctuations.

Within quantum mechanics the many worlds interpretation has some merit, because it describes reality mediated through many tiny gravitational lenses and pilot waves made with objects in relative motion. Each object will therefore observe its own version of observable reality (though modified in very slight extent, of course). Einstein cross is holographically dual version of this effect. When objects get entangled, their pilot waves get synchronized in phase and all objects entangled would then see the same version of reality. We can see the multiverse is just another denomination for effects already recognized under another names - hence the interpretation.

In human society which is complex and highly dimensional the parallel reality has much stronger notion: the progressives and conservatives increasingly live in their alternative - but intrinsically self-consistent - versions of reality in similar way like worlds of quantum mechanics and general relativity. Literally every person can see the world a bit differently than others.

[–]ZephirAWT[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

no experiment has ever actually seen an atom in two places at once, let alone a cat being both alive and dead, and the Dirac-von Neumann axioms do not say such things, either

The objects like boson condensates and black holes are examples of highly delocalized objects. The orbital theory of electrons says, that positions of electrons are highly delocalized and this model works well in explanation of quantum properties of molecules. Of course every electron still remains isolated pin-point particles but they're also surrounded with dense atmosphere - pilot waves which are connected mutually like metaballs. Within such a connected clouds the electrons move relatively freely and their location is objectively indistinguishable for observers from outside.

We can see the analogy of this effect in human society too, which is greatly affected with groupthink and common perceptions. Of course every individual see its own version of reality, but this doesn't mean these individual versions are solely different. The indoctrinated individuals often share common views more than its desirable in fact and their society behaves like amorphous mass which lacks individual opinions.

So that at the end our Universe isn't quite universal but it's also not quite delocalized - it's simply both and the scope of delocalization even depends on individual perspective.

[–]zyxzevn 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

-- No experiment has ever actually seen an atom in two places at once

"Photons" can show up at multiple places at once, or not at all.
The experiments all show that "photons" are just the false interpretation of waves
https://thescienceanalyst.substack.com/p/quantum-physics-has-been-falsified

[–]ZephirAWT[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

"Photons" can show up at multiple places at once, or not at all.

There is a catch though, because photons are massless particles without dense core like neutrinos or even heavier particles. So that photons don't count as an argument too much. In dense aether model even photons have relativistic mass and core (compare also de Broglie's double quantization model in this regard, they're formed with wave function within wave function) so that their location can be defined, but the energy density of this core is low with compare the rest of photon so that it doesn't prohibit delocalization of photon.

[–]zyxzevn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Just drop the whole idea of Photons.
It is a theoretical concept with no basis in reality.
The only reason Photons were invented, was because Einstein misinterpreted the photo-electric effect.
He made a systematic error, and his experiment was falsified.

[–]ZephirAWT[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Just drop the whole idea of Photons

In dense aether model photons are real and they're analogy of Russell's solitons at the water surface. They result from interaction of harmonic Maxwell wave with quantum noise background of vacuum. After all, how would you explain gamma ray photons passing the spark chamber? It's evident that such a highly energetic photons propagate through space more like isolated particles (vortex rings) rather than waves.

[–]zyxzevn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

To inspire a new idea.

Those sparks in the video are cosmic rays. Rays of cosmic particles, like muons.

The first link I posted shows the improved experiment that shows that the photo-electric effect can not be caused by photon-particles.

The photon itself is not a thing, and makes a simple thing extremely complicated.

Just think about how the electric field can be constant.
While there is no photon, because there is no electromagnetic wave.
So there is something that transfers force without any photon.
Then why use a photon at all.

[–]ZephirAWT[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

While there is no photon, because there is no electromagnetic wave

You see, dismissal of one concept leads you into dismissal of another ones, even more problematic...

[–]zyxzevn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Let me explain it clearer:

The photon, according to the model, is one or more electromagnetic waves.
The photon is the packet transfer of energy, Can also transfer momentum.
It is used to model the change of an electron-shell in an atom, called the photo-electric effect.
Without the wave there is no photon.

But a photon is also claimed to be a force-particle that transfers force.
But that is a complete different thing.
In a constant electric field, there is no wave and no transfer of energy.
So no photon exists.

To solve this problem, the "virtual photon" was invented.
And the idea is that these come and disappear from random interaction with the quantum foam.
There need to be infinite amounts of virtual photons to make an electron follow a
well defined path around an atom.
Finite random interactions can never create a constant well defined force.
To make the hypothesis work in practice you need a field of virtual photons.

If quantum-foam "randomness" would cause a force, it is not random at all.
But caused by some field, making one direction happen more often than others.
So we get a form of a circular reasoning.
First the photon is used to explain the electric field.
But now we also need random virtual photons that follow a different field of randomness.
So where does that field of randomness come from?
Are there quantum-foam randomness-particles spreading the different distributions of randomness?

Why not simply use the electric field to begin with?

And based on all observational data from experiments:
Why ever use photons at all?

The only experiment that was used to claim the existence of photons
was falsified using high-energy photons.
The photo-electric effect does not work anymore at high energy levels.
So photons do not exist..

[–]ZephirAWT[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So photons do not exist

OK, thanks for elucidation, you had a points. So virtual photons do not exist you wanted to say. Don't throw the bathwater out with the baby..

[–]ZephirAWT[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Although Werner Heisenberg and Albert Einstein were usually on opposite sides in debates over quantum theory, one thing they agreed on was that they both strongly disliked Schrödinger’s view. In his early papers on quantum theory in the late 1920s, Erwin Schrödinger took the view that wave functions are physical things.

Wave function shares many aspects with pilot wave, i.e. wake wave of vacuum which massive objects make around themselves like boats floating along surface of river. In this regard wave function is real thing, albeit simplified one. The shape of atoms is pretty real (it can be even observed under AFM microscope) and represented by geometry of electron orbitals which are nothing else than interferrence lobes of pilot wave of electrons wiggling around atoms. See also:

Wave function directly measured Canadian team achieves quantum feat that makes the intangible a little more tangible The word "directly" is a bit contrived and exaggerated here, but it still supports the notion that pilot wave and its wave function is physical artifact - not just mathematical one. But because every observer interact with reality and pilot waves of observed object by its own pilot wave too, the experimental notion of pilot wave is strongly statistical and observer dependent.

[–]zyxzevn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They are simply measuring the EM wave.

We all know it, but the invalid mainstream theories make it into something big.

[–]doginventer 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Quality post, much appreciated. Thank you ZephirAWT.

[–]ZephirAWT[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Is the assumption of the existence of entities in a mathematical model required for science to work?

Yes and no. This is typical question working in probability interval <0, 1> so it has no meaning to vote about it.

The "existence of entities" can be quite contrived concept even for quite trivial things like the gravity, magnetic field and/or atoms. On the other hand, the solely abstract models tend to remain, well - untestable and abstract. From physical perspective it's always better to use observable and tangible concepts for to keep theories falsifiable and testable. One abstract postulate in otherwise physical theory still isn't a big problem, but multiple ones already are. See also:

Hartry H. Field: Science without Numbers. Is the assumption of the existence of entities in a mathematical model required for science to work?

Yes and no. This is typical question working in probability interval <0, 1> so it has no meaning to vote about it.

The "existence of entities" can be quite contrived concept even for quite trivial things like the gravity, magnetic field and/or atoms. On the other hand, the solely abstract models tend to remain, well - untestable and abstract. From physical perspective it's always better to use observable and tangible concepts for to keep theories falsifiable and testable. One abstract postulate in otherwise physical theory still isn't a big problem, but multiple ones already are. See also:

Hartry H. Field: Science without Numbers. Hartry Field argues that we can explain the utility of mathematics without assuming it true. He already demonstrated that Newtonian theory could be formulated in the way that no abstract entities is needed (assuming spacetime points are real then).

[–]ZephirAWT[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The Simulation Hypothesis: Vopson's Second Law of Info Dynamics Bridging Physics and Metaphysics: Vopson's Law Points to the Simulation Hypothesis