Is our universe the creation of a dachshund's nap?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Petronius
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the novel "SCHRÖDINGER’S DACHSHUND," which explores the implications of many-worlds scenarios through the actions of a dachshund named Maestoso. The author queries whether the universe could split into two based on Maestoso's choice to nap or not, suggesting that one world owes its existence to this decision. The narrative raises philosophical questions about the nature of existence and the potential for a universe created by a dog's actions. The conversation touches on the compatibility of these ideas with many-worlds interpretations, emphasizing the vast number of possible universe splits based on quantum mechanics. Ultimately, the author uses fiction to engage with profound existential questions, inviting readers to ponder the implications of such a whimsical premise.
Petronius
I'm publishing a novel titled SCHRÖDINGER’S DACHSHUND. In it, a physics student goes around the bend from figuring out the existential consequences of many-worlds scenarios. This is eclectic literary fiction, but I'd like to check with card-carrying physicists about something:

1) Is it compatible with at least one many-worlds scenario that when Maestoso the Dachshund chose between taking a nap or not, the universe split in two? In one, he napped. In the other he didn't.

2) If this be true, the residents of one of the worlds were creatio ex Dachshund. They “owe” their existence to the actions of a hound in another dimension.

3) It is possible that this is our world. Our universe was created by Maestoso the Dachshund.

Determining whether 3 is good news or bad news may constitute the greatest intellectual challenge of all time. That's why I use fiction to grapple with Big Questions. The physicist in SCHRÖDINGER’S DACHSHUND develops a religion around this discovery. Who can blame him?

Generally speaking, how compatible are 1, 2, 3 with many-worlds scenarios?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think the most reasonable number of splits happening in anyone instant depends on the number of possible "states" of each point of space-time and the number of points. There are good reasons (whether they are correct or not is a different question) to believe the fundamental length of a point is about 1E-35 meters, making a point the cube of that, or about 1E-104 m^3. If you assume each point is independent and can be one of the 61 elementary particles (probably not right) then the possible states are 61^(1E+104) per cubic meter. So, limiting us to a volume about 10000m cubed (the Earth) you need to change that to 61^(1E116) per Planck time unit, which is about 1E-44 seconds. Or there are about 61^(1E116) splits in an instant and 1E44 times that in a second. Feel free to reduce the 61 to a lesser number anything between 2 and ∞ is possible, but hey, if you want try 1.00000000001, it won't matter.
 
According to Many-worlds, each world is the product of many billions of choices like that. You are now living in a universe created by my choice to respond to you. Worship will be generously accepted- no human sacrifices please.
 
I wonder how much stories were written, that involve space fighters, and arent so soft as Star wars. I dont think missiles totally make fighter craft obsolate, for example the former cant escort shuttles if one wants to capture a celestial body. I dont insist fighters have to be manned (i enjoyed Enders game about someone control the events for afar) but i also think it isnt totally unjustifiable.
I thought I had discovered a giant plot hole in Avatar universe, but apparently it's based on a faulty notion. So, the anti-gravity effect that lifts whole mountains into the sky is unrelated to the unobtanium deposits? Apparently the value of unobtanium is in its property as a room temperature superconductor, which enables their superluminal drive technology. Unobtanium is found in large deposits underground, which is why they want to mine the ground. OK. So, these mountains - which...
So far I've been enjoying the show but I am curious to hear from those a little more knowledgeable of the Dune universe as my knowledge is only of the first Dune book, The 1984 movie, The Sy-fy channel Dune and Children of Dune mini series and the most recent two movies. How much material is it pulling from the Dune books (both the original Frank Herbert and the Brian Herbert books)? If so, what books could fill in some knowledge gaps?
Back
Top