Astrophysics
Space-Time And All That Jazz
I tend to write quick drafts — ideas, thoughts, feelings, information, meeting minutes, almost everything. The reason is not to prepare notes but to bring forth the subconscious and dig into the psyche (inspired by Meditations by Marcus Aurelius). I then collate it on my birthday to get an understanding of where I’ve been and where I aim to go. The past year was nothing short of a wild ride. Starting a venture fund has been a long dream I thought to pursue probably many years down the line. It came and I ran with it. The situation was not all roses but more than worth the while. This year I returned to the building side of things with renewed zest.
Running through the previous year’s transcript I was blown away revisiting these hypotheses, despite my writing it. Firstly, it’s a bit perplexing to merge concepts in physics with life and people. If there’s one thing that excites me the most — the juxtaposition of totally diverse concepts such as psychology and physics — think of the “Quantum Mind”. Secondly, all seem to connect immaculately yet doesn’t make sense to view it with our worldview.
Sharing one concept from my aide-memoire. Possibly I’ll arrange the rest in a more readable format to share — as either it’s too technical whilst trying to decipher concepts or mostly jotted late at night in a hallucinatory way (am an early bird).
Recently, my cognitive thoughts have turned to quantum physics, a subject that inevitably sparks uninhibited debate. We hold deeply held views about how our reality functions, yet quantum mechanics (a fundamental theory that describes the behaviour of nature at and below the scale of atoms) questions it all.
“The enigma at the heart of quantum reality can be summed up in a simple motto: what we see when we look at the world seems to be fundamentally different from what actually is.” ― Sean Carroll, Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime
Sean Carroll is a proponent of the Everettian interpretation of quantum mechanics, generally known as the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI). Hugh Everett in 1957, postulated the existence of branching timelines, or alternate realities in which our decisions play out differently, sometimes even producing wildly different outcomes. Carroll offers the most austere interpretation of the Multiverse, in terms of mathematical postulates. The main thesis of his work — what happens if quantum systems evolve and when do they collapse?
1. Branching universe
The fundamental principle is that, instead of collapsing, the wave function entangles itself with the waves of other quantum systems (i.e. worlds don’t collapse, they get entangled). In experiments, interacting particles only get entangled rather than collapsing. Additionally, scientists have succeeded in isolating and maintaining ever-larger molecules in quantum superposition. The original quantum system’s superposition continues to spread out and never collapses. Though other versions of us in different branches of the wave function (i.e. universes) look at the various possibilities, we in this world see it as having collapsed since it has spread to us and we have become the version of ourselves gazing at one specific outcome.
Hold that thought for a minute. We constantly evolve, becoming versions of ourselves that ultimately become “the outcome” feeding the other realities. Now the key question — in that case, shouldn’t we spend our every moment becoming the version of ourselves that we’re in awe looking at? Assume the only purpose of life, in this case, is to be the absolute best we are. Suddenly, makes you assess the small decisions — people, environments and all things we interact, involve and engage with. Most interestingly, in the book Carroll addresses a common question — if reality is branching in this way, then where are all these branches found? Carroll responds to this — there is no location for the branches. They’re all right here, just not in a style that they can interact with each other.
Food for thought — what if they do interact but not in a way we can engage with alternate realities? How else to define lucid dreaming, synchronicities that seem almost otherworldly, instances of telepathy or what we call luck? Perhaps it could all be working behind the scenes if we take action in an aligned manner.
2. Concept of time
Next, is the concept of time. Every conceivable cosmos at every conceivable time is described by the single-wave function. However, there’s no flow to time. Everett’s parameter, referred to as a state vector, describes a universe where humans exist and all the traces of its past, such as our memories, fossils, and light that comes to us from far-off galaxies, exist. Another world that is identical to this one will also exist — but, it will have a “time step” advance of, say, one second (or one hour, or one year). However, there is no indication that a universe advances from one time step to the next. In this parallel reality, there will be a “me” that is represented by the universal wave function and includes all of my memories from the first instant in addition to those from a subsequent second (or hour, year, etc.). However, it is impossible to claim that these “me”s are the same individual. Whilst the distinct time states remain constant across different states, they can be arranged according to the events they represent, such as the past and future. Every state is just there. In Everett’s MWI, time does not “flow” in the sense that we are used to conceiving it in our world.
“The minus sign in the proper-time formula (6.2) opens up an interesting possibility. If we consider a straight path that traverses equal amounts of space and time, (Δx)2 = (Δt)2, we will have τ = 0. So the object moves, but no proper time elapses along its journey.” Sean Carroll, The Biggest Ideas in the Universe: Space, Time, and Motion
Imagine multiple timelines exiting, only for us to decide which aligns with us the best. Let’s take an example, someone is dealing with a conflicting situation knowing there’s a way out only then they figure a resolution that shifts them from one timeline to another because they choose to. On the other hand, if someone calls to stay in a situation because they think/feel it’s best even when it might be unhealthy for them, they choose to stay in that timeline.
3. Energy conservation
The next interesting concept — the subject of energy conservation. Where is the source of energy for each of these different universes? Carroll responds that the universe’s initial energy is constantly dispersed across all the branches, although not uniformly, but following “the amplitude of each outcome in the wave function”. Mind-blowing—the higher the amplitude of the action the more energy one can harness from the energy source.
Think of times when our world’s in a more prosperous environment — we tend to feel energised. Now think of the times of war or lockdowns — we all tend to mirror the same energy levels. We can also think of it in “micro” terms such as company culture where motivation levels align almost automatically. Or consider a group or friends dynamics where individuals act and behave in acquired patterns due to exchanged values and principles which may be occurring on an energetic level. The question we all need to ask — do we feel energised in our environment and our interactions and what could be done to make that better as we’re constantly evolving?
Carroll does clarify one thing: branching is not caused by our individual choices. Quantum events are the cause of the branching. There may be realities where we make different decisions since, of course, in some of those branches, we make different decisions. However, this might not be the case always. Most branches have the same macroscopic appearance, with the distinctions occurring only at the microscopic quantum level (makes me think of our everyday choices and the idea of the butterfly effect that small, seemingly trivial decisions may ultimately result in something with much larger consequences). The thought of an endless number of other universes, with different fundamental constants or different physics, is intriguing. Because it helps address philosophical queries, this is the reason why individuals take these views seriously.
The multiverse is a topic of debate among physicists. Some claim that it cannot even be objectively tested because a multiverse is by definition unreachable and apart from our current world reality. Nothing direct has been observed to imply the presence of a multiverse, despite certain aspects of the cosmos appearing to hint at its existence. The very hypothesis of a multiverse is currently only theoretically supported by the available data. Though (a thought of many) maybe the appropriate tests still need to be determined.
Will we ever find out if there are other universes outside our own? Maybe or maybe not. However, multiverses are among the hypotheses that can be tested further and if those theories hold up to all of the reviews then perhaps the multiverse can be verified as well. Of course, the actuality of a subatomic particle is strange and doesn’t always translate into a larger sense of reality. Scientists still have to report the facts and look for empirical evidence to back up their findings. Philosophers continue to exchange views on whether discussing one or more objective realities makes sense.
It’s viewed as a long-standing debate between materialism and naturalism in philosophy. Naturalism is the school of thought that maintains that natural laws and causes can account for all phenomena. Materialism is the belief that matter is the only thing that exists and that anything else, including mental experiences, can be reduced to matter. Carroll's view—materialists hoped to explain the world in terms of objects obeying rules, rather than being driven by an underlying “purpose.”
For me, it’s a concept that philosophically and to a certain extent spiritually holds weight. To quote Carl Sagan, “Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.” To further conclude, I’ll end with another quote by Sean Carrol.
“The person you are right now is not exactly the same as the person you were a year ago, or even a second ago. Your atoms are in slightly different locations, and some of your atoms might have been exchanged for new ones. (If you’re eating while reading, you might have more atoms now than you had a moment ago.) If we wanted to be more precise than usual, rather than talking about “you,” we should talk about “you at 5:00 p.m.,” “you at 5:01 p.m.,” and so on.”
Are you playing the cosmic game well? Happy Evolving! To being and living the absolute best version of yourselves.
