Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The Multiple Worlds theory- it contradicts itself

  1. Jul 6, 2012 #1
    I'm new here. So, I might be unfamiliar with many things that have been talked about here. However, I noticed something about the Multiple Worlds theory-the fact that it contradicts itself. In the following paras, I'm going to express myself about this.

    If I'm not wrong, the theory claims the existence of multiple(infact, infinite realities) at the same time. We can only experience one of these realities at a time. This conclusion has been reached by taking the examples of subatomic particles like electrons that can make the transition from one energy state to another. Similarly, the theory says that it is possible for us to experience a reality totally different from what we experience all the time by making a transition from one reality to another. The number of possible realities is infinite, depending upon the point in history where events had taken a different turn from what actually happened in our very own reality.

    The lack of determinism in quantum theory, a consequence of the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, is used to conclude that since an electron's position with respect to a certain velocity can't be exactly determined(or vice versa), it is possible for it to be in many places at one time, although it will be in only one place at a specific time. The number of possibilities is huge. Similarly, if this was true at the macroscopic level, we could possibly experience an infinite number of realities, only one of them at a particular time.

    However, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle has very little effect at the macroscopic level as the error in the determination of one physical quantity with respect to another is very little, almost negligible. So, the theory, in a certain way, says that what is true for the microscopic level must have little effect on the macroscopic level(since at the macroscopic level, one physical quantity can be determined with respect to another while this is not possible at the microscopic level). So, it follows from this that if separate realities are possible at the microscopic level, the same must not apply at the macroscopic level, i.e., it must have such a little effect at the macroscopic level that it can be neglected. This is something that is hard to understand because if any event changes at the macroscopic level, the whole course of history takes a different turn. Thus, there can be no negligible change at the macroscopic level. If anything at all changes, the change produced is always drastic. Thus, the theory contradicts itself.

    Some might say that the properties of macroscopic objects are based on those of the microscopic objects that make them up. However, the interactions between these microscopic objects changes the properties of these macroscopic objects. So, the behaviour experienced is not the same.

    I am not even going to talk about the strange behaviour of the indeterminate number ∞. It causes major problems for this hypothesis because it is not a useful number for modern physics, however useful a number it might be for mathematics. The concept of ∞ is always going to be a hypothetical one.

    I would conclude by saying that if there is any lack of determinism at all, it is in this theory itself. The theory hardly determines anything. I would rather consider it as science fiction rather than science fact.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 6, 2012 #2
    Close to no effect doesn't equal no effect, and it's not proven in any way so there's no reason to have to question whether it's science-fiction or not. Even though there isn't much evidence of the multiple worlds theory, it's still in the mathematics of physics that you could randomly teleport to a different room, even if it is highly improbable. And besides, just because you can't "observe" these effects on the macroscopic level don't mean they have no effect, quantum physics drives all chemistry and thus all of life.
  4. Jul 6, 2012 #3
    Well, if even a slight thing such as a person going five minutes late to his office can have a drastic effect as he might miss an important meeting and not be able to forward his suggestions to the board of his company. That might lead to a change in the policies of the company and that will definitely change the lives of many. So, all I'm saying is that there can be no negligible change at all at the macroscopic level. Any change that takes place will be drastic.
  5. Jul 6, 2012 #4
    But the reason they made the decision to spend an extra 5 minutes and be late is related to cells which are already pretty small, which function based of off molecules which are even smaller.
  6. Jul 6, 2012 #5
    There's also fractials which keep their shape on an infinite number of levels which many things in nature work off of. If a fractal is a particular shape at a very small level, it will have a similar shape at a bigger level in the macroscopic world. Just look at how crystals are structured. The way the molecules are built and fit together repeats so perfectly that the pattern repeats until you have a macroscopic crystal.
  7. Jul 6, 2012 #6
    Crystals usually have just one constituent.

    Humans are made up of so many different things that they can't be compared with crystals. After all, we are talking about this theory having an effect on the lives of humans at all.
  8. Jul 6, 2012 #7
    Energy distribution fractalizes , cells fractalize, molecular structures fractalize...the multiple worlds theory isn't suppose to have an "effect", it's suppose to be how reality is already working.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook