Might-Have-Been Worlds
Margaret: Daddy, what is a "might-have-been"?
Dearth: A "might-have-been"? They're ghosts, Margaret! I daresay I "might-have-been" a great swell of a painter, instead of just this uncommonly happy nobody - or again I might have been a worthless idle waster of a fellow.
Margaret: You?
Dearth: Who knows? Some little kink in me might have set off on the wrong road. And that poor soul I might so easily have been might have had no Margaret. I'm sorry for him.
Margaret: And so am I! The poor old daddy, wondering the world without me.
Dearth: There are other "might-have-beens" - lovely ones, but intangible. Shades, Margaret, made of sad folks' thoughts.
- Dear Brutus, Act II, by J. M. Barrie.
Is it possible that this author of Peter Pan also invisioned, in this lesser-known work first performed in 1917, the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics?
What follows is an extreme simplification of the theory, and is about all I understand of it, not being a physicist myself, and therefore might be wrong.
Elementary particles behave in a random fashion. How they behave is, by some degree, determined by chance. For instance, there may be a 10% chance that a particular neutron will decay within a particular second, and a 90% chance that it won't.
The problem this presents for physicists is that in physics thing's aren't really random. For instance, if you were to toss a coin, you might think that there is a 50% chance that the coin will be heads-up when it stops. The truth is that chance is illusory, in this and in every case. The illusion of chance is created by the fact that we, as humans, couldn't possibly know, measure, or calculate all of the variables that will decide whether the coin will land heads or tails. If we could know everything about the coin, the pressure being applied to it by the person flipping it, the weight variable caused on the two sides by the impressions on the coin, etc., and knew how all of those factors would weigh on the outcome and how to calculate it, it would be theoretically possible to predict with 100% accuracy which way the coin would land every time. In other words, it only looks random because we don't know all the facts.
But elementary particles are just that - elementary. They consist of nothing smaller but pure energy, which has no further characteristics. So, if there is a 10% chance that the neutron will decay, why is it that sometimes it will decay, and sometimes it won't? Is it true, then, that some parts of the universe are left to pure chance, while everything else has a root cause? The concept lacks aesthetic appeal to physicists, and is one of the reasons why Albert Einstein didn't like quantum theory, stating famously that "God doesn't play dice."
So enter the Many Worlds Interpretation. The Many Worlds Interpretation posits that every time there is a chance that a quantum particle may behave one way or another, the universe splits off into two parallel versions of itself, one in which the neutron decayed, and one in which it didn't. Since these quantum variations are happening around us all that time, that means that based on the theory, there are infinite numbers of parallel universes branching out all the time.
We can think of MWI as positing that universes are "created" every time an elementary particle could randomly do one thing or another, but of course that would require unfathomable amounts of energy to come out of nowhere all of the time. Rather, these universes exist already, and we are reaching them by following various paths along the probability matrices of the quantum particles.
It's important to note that proponents of MWI don't just like the theory for its aesthetics. It also solves a number of paradoxes famous to quantum physics, such as the Schrödinger's Cat paradox. In that thought experiment, a device is set up to kill a cat in a box if a radioactive atom decays. There is a quantum probability that the atom may or may not decay, and we won't know which it was until we look in the box. So, until we look in the box, is the cat alive, dead, or some bizarre, mixture of the two, since we don't know yet what the result of the cosmic dice shoot was? By applying the Many Worlds theory to the problem, the simple answer is that in one universe the cat is alive, and in the other universe the cat is dead. Looking in the box simply confirms to us which universe we're in.
For science fiction fans such as myself, where MWI becomes interesting is when it is extrapolated to the macro level. The decaying of a single atom, with the exception of the poor cat, has little effect on whether any of us live or die, or make it to work on time, or even win the Lotto. Taken in the agregate, however, quantum effects make all the difference in the world, literally. In other words, every event that happens that could have gone one way or another, came out the way that it did because of a general drift in the quantum probabilities that ultimately effected that event.
So, if I notice that the light has turned red too late and slam on the brakes, there are a myriad of factors that will determine whether I slam into another car trying to cross the intersection or whether I slide on through, unharmed. Ultimately, those factors boil down to quantum probabilities, and so in some universes I slid on through the intersection. In this one, I T-boned someone. In fact, anything that is possible, no matter how improbable, happens in at least some of the universes.
Dear Brutus explores these ideas, realizing that our choices lay out ahead of us like a myriad branching paths. We think that we are making a choice, but in fact universes exist in which we take each of these paths, though some universes are more prevalent than others. The universe we are in now is the result of paths taken, and paths not taken are lost to us forever.
Dearth: Three things they say come not back to men nor women--the spoken word, the past life and the neglected opportunity.
- Act I
Those of you who have read the Golden Compass recently will recognize the theory explained nicely there, as well. In Dear Brutus, the characters get to visit those "might-have-been" worlds, shades made of sad folks thoughts, lovely, and intangible.
Comments
Paxton: I have a "Might-have-been" quote that has stuck with me since High School (you know, when those nasty dinasaurs were always trying to break into the school grounds and carry away some lunch! Although why I say that, I don't know. I'm only 42. Lol. I guess because High School really is a lifetime ago). Anyways, the quote that stuck with me was:
--------------------------------------------------------
"I'd rather be a *has-been* than a *might-have-been*, by far
For a *might-have-been* has never been.....
While a *has-been* was an *are*."
--------------------------------------------
Just something that came to mind when I read your little blip on the Daily Neighborhood Update email that said, "Daddy, what is a might-have-been?"
You know what? I think I'm going to put that on my Home Page. Thanks for bringing back the memory. And like I said before, it's so nice to see the cute little face again rather the nasty character photo you had posted during the Christmas season. I'm glad you had fun with the production, and I wish you many more such experiences. It's good to get out of oneself and become a totally different person for a change.....as long as you DO come back. Lol. Take care.
This totally reminds me of an older sci-fi book, about multidimensional travel in a specially equipped car. The driver would rotate several knobs and at first glance, never moved from inside the garage. Except someone made note that after one such shift, the letters of the alphabet were different on some drawer labels in the garage. Will have to go find that story again and let you know.
Very interesting note about Schrodinger's cat too. Must give more thoiught on that later.
I like that. It's like a little poem.
it's so nice to see the cute little face again rather the nasty character photo you had posted during the Christmas season.
Ha! Thank you. I've had a couple of comments like that, so I don't think I'll be using pics of myself in stage makeup for my avatar anymore. :-P
That is good! For a long time, Strix was signing off her emails at work with this:
"Honey, what did you do to the cat? It looks half-dead!" - Mrs. Schrödinger.
Quantum physics is better defined as metaphysics, which opens up a whole new can or worms, or cats, if you will :-) It goes beyond the world of the physical and into the theoretical and philosophical, wearing a lab coat rather than a tweed jacket with patches at the elbows. We have seen atomic bombs explode, and we can rely on atomic clocks, but how and why the bombs have exploded and the clocks keep ticking is still just a theory that the majority of those in the field agree on in this time and space....which is a continuum:-)
I've always found it a bit odd that the supercolliding-superconductor--designed to split the neutrino, which was thought to contain the face of god--placed a massive hole in the ground and was well on its way to the final stages when world events pulled money away from the project, stopping it in its miles of dug tracks. Despite the pleas of international physicists for somebody, anybody, to fund the project, the money wasn't available. Perhaps there are some lines we are not allowed to cross? Perhaps artists are the ones who cross those lines, see and know, then come back to tell the tales in metaphors?
We've got a long way to go yet before we'll know if all of quantum physics is a might-have-been world.
Indeed, one of the problems with MWI is that it is fairly untestable. Scientifically speaking, that's a very bad thing for a theory. On the other hand, applying it to classical quantum theory cleans up the math nicely, which is one of the measures used for good theory in this area. It makes Occam's Razor happy. Still, it will never be accepted by most physicists until it can be demonstrated more directly, and rightly so.
All of it is theory and nothing is tangible.
Tangible or not, all science is theory. The concept of a theory is that it is a set of hypotheses that explains observable data. As new data is applied, and the theory continues to explain it (and preferably, predict it) accurately, then the theory holds, as you point out. Otherwise, it collapses and has to be replaced or modified. Science is an incremental process toward greater knowledge. The fact that we cannot see atoms and electrons doesn't mean they don't exist. While theories evolve over time as new data is uncovered, we know that something makes my computer run and the lights turn on when I flip the switch. Current theories calling for the existence of electrons work very well to explain electricity, and has done so very well for quite a while.
Besides, I've never been to Peru. To me, Peru is intangible. Should I assume that it doesn't exist until I actually set foot there? There is plenty of indirect evidence of Peru, so I think I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.
Quantum physics is better defined as metaphysics... It goes beyond the world of the physical and into the theoretical and philosophical....
I disagree. The difference between quantum physics and metaphysics is that quantum physics still relies on measurable events. This isn't just guys sitting around thinking and doing everything on paper. Theories are tested by using them to predict what will result form various experiments, and while we cannot see elementary particles, we can measure the effects of them, making QP just as much a physical science as biology or meteorology, both of which often deal with phenomenon which have to be measured by effect rather than directly.
Another difference... practicians of metaphysics don't know what calculus is, let alone how to use it in the pursuit of their philosophies. All theoretical physics is mathematically based. Philosophy is not, beyond basic logic arguments.
The fact that many people apply concepts of quantum theories to philosophy, often to humorous effect, doesn't make the theories any less scientific.
I've always found it a bit odd that the supercolliding-superconductor--designed to split the neutrino, which was thought to contain the face of god....
I'm not even sure what that means... except that supercolliding superconductors can possibly provide clues into the origins of the universe by measuring (see? observable) the results of experiments done with elementary particles. That freaks a lot of people out, though I don't know why it should.
Perhaps artists are the ones who cross those lines, see and know, then come back to tell the tales in metaphors?
Personally, I would much rather my doctor have a degree in medicine than philosophy. It is poetic to think that our bodies are full of "humors" that effect our health, but germ theory was much more useful for attacking diseases, even before we had the technology to view bacteria and viruses directly.
As much as I appreciate and even participate in the art of the written word, poets and artists will never hold a candle to science for gaining knowledge of the physical world. The reason is that science is based on rationality and measurement of observable data, peer reviewed, and revised over time to match reality. Art just has to effect people, and it doesn't take much looking around to see that people believe lies all the time.
I think the only thing that lack of funding for science shows is that we'd rather spend money on conquering and dominating other countries than gaining answers about the fundamental questions of the universe. After all, the Bible already tells us all we need to know, right? Might was well spend that money on blowing people up, instead. Now that's tangible.
I adore science fiction and read the golden compass (and rest of the series).
I am much more likely to take my spoon full of physics if its sweetened with fiction!