From: Don Winterstein (dfwinterstein@msn.com)
Date: Sat Jul 05 2003 - 04:24:15 EDT
Richard McGough wrote in part:
>Let me make my point again. Consider a single free proton with energy less than 10^8k. That's one of Tegmark's possible universes. Its Hamiltonian has an infinite number of continuous eigenvalues. The eigenfunctions are plane waves, e^-iEt. Therefore, there are an infinite number of _distinguishable_ states for just this one single-proton universe, i.e. every possible wave packet. Now add the interaction with 10^50 particles and all their states, spins, etc, and you have an infinity of infinities of possibilities.
>The number 2^10^118 as the count of all possible physical configurations in a hubble volume is absurd. Q.E.D.
I see no problem with this argument. Tegmark considers only particle location and not momentum, etc. A universe where the momentum of a single particle differed from that of the corresponding particle in an otherwise identical universe would be a different universe, would it not? If this is a relevant consideration, then, using Tegmark's line of reasoning as I understand it, the nearest Level I universe identical to ours would be infinitely farther away than Tegmark indicates. While this would not eliminate the possibility of identical universes, it would make them less relevant than ever.
So I think we really need to hear what Tegmark has to say in his defense. So, Richard, how about writing a letter to Scientific American? There's at least a chance he would answer in print.
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: Richard McGough
To: asa@calvin.edu
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 8:27 AM
Subject: RE: Predeterminism and parallel universes
Re post http://www.calvin.edu/archive/asa/200307/0055.html
Don said:
>I've had a whole lot more quantum physics than the first year, but what always impressed me was how difficult it was to know exactly how to apply the principles to the real world, especially how to apply them to matters such as cosmological questions that seem quite unrelated to typical topics of grad-school physics. These sorts of applications require a feel for the subject that few students come away with solely from the course work. There are lots of pitfalls. The crux therefore is not what first-year quantum teaches, but how those lessons apply--if at all--to cosmology.
Correct - and that is my fundamental point. To suggest, as Tegmark does, that we can have an acurrate count of all possible configurations by using a binary model of "there is or is not a proton at point (x,y,z)" is patently absurd. It is an utterly unphysical model that does not match any "universe" we are famililar with.
Let me make my point again. Consider a single free proton with enegy less than 10^8k. That's one of Tegmark's possible universes. Its Hamiltonian has an infinite number of continuous eigenvalues. The eignefunctions are plane waves, e^-iEt. Therefore, there are an infinite number of _distinguishible_ states for just this one single-proton universe, i.e. every possible wave packet. Now add the interaction with 10^50 particles and all their states, spins, etc, and you have an infinity of infinities of possibilities.
The number 2^10^118 as the count of all possible physical configurations in a hubble volume is absurd. Q.E.D.
>but just on basic principles I think it's inappropriate for you guys to be talking down to one another.
I agree completely and ask the forgiveness (and understanding) for my inappropriate behaviour. But I also must point out that the "talking down" began with the completely uncalled for, totally unprofessional, and deliberately offensive closing remark in Glen Morton's FIRST RESPONSE to my post, which was followed by another gratuitous insult in his second response, and that George Murphy then attacked me for my "snotiness" with no check nor mention of the PERPETRATOR of that less than edifying interaction. George's choice of a childish metaphor (snotiness) was carefully crafted to put me in my place as a mere child in his adult presence. This perverse tactic was used quite successfully against me the first time I visited this list in 2001 when I naively thought that logic, truth, sincerity, and humility was all that would be needed to be heard. I won't let that happen again. Apparently, this list requires a LOT of salt. But that's ok, since we Christians are called to be the !
Salt of the Earth. I just wonder why I need so much in this forum.
One other point - I just glanced at Glen's latest post and I am happy to announce an apparent cessation of hostilities. The conversation seems to be getting back on topic. It is my hope and true prayer that there will be no more "innappropriate behaviour" by any member of this list, myself included. Truce, George?
>I agree with Richard, incidentally, that the May sciam cover was grossly inappropriate for a scientific magazine. No one has come close to establishing the existence of parallel universes, and I suspect no one ever will. Thus with parallel universes we're on the road back to philosophy again. And maybe sciam is on its way to becoming a tabloid.
Thanks! I really couldn't believe I was the only one ....
B'Shem El Elyon,
--
Richard Amiel McGough
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at http://www.BibleWheel.com
--
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Jul 05 2003 - 04:20:36 EDT