A thought about Quantum States and Role of Observation

[PJay_A]

Just a thought... Assuming any of the theories which calculate that our Universe (or multiverse) is one which exists dimensions greater than scientifically accepted four, could it be possible that the principle of quantum states is best understood as each state being exists in its own fabric of 4D space? To use Shroedinger's (sp?) cat as example of what I am trying to imply here, each existence of the cat (dead or alive) exists within its own four-dimensional space-time and it could only be a fifth dimension (or more) allowing this to be possible. In other words, each quantum state can share the same 3D space at the same time, but cannot share the space at a fifth dimensional level (i.e. separated by 4D membranes of 5D space-time).

If M Theory is correct, then each quantum state has to be its own 4D membrane of space-time. And Einstein's idea of space-time fabric has to be a 4D membrane attached to countless other 4D membranes interconnected to branes in terms of dimensions greater than four. As such, the act of Observing quantum states would (in my thinking here) randomly grab hold of any possible quantum state with each being its own 4D brane or space-time as Einstein would have called it.

Prove me wrong or validate my thoughts.

 

[ramparts]

Prove me wrong or validate my thoughts.

Are those our only options?

 

[Saiph]

yeah, sorry, that didn't make any sense to me, and I've read it 3x now...

I don't even understand what you mean by a quantum state occupying it's own 4d spacetime, let alone how such a thing could interact with other 4d spacetime states...or whatever.

Even if your idea isn't completely out of left field, it's certainly an odd, unfamiliar idea. So you need to do a bit more prep work than a single paragraph before any real sense of what you are saying will come across.

For comparison, most physics textbooks spend 20+ pages (with examples and diagrams) on conservation of linear momentum alone...a subject that most people can at least intuitively grasp. And then they spend several other chapters on various aspects of conservation of momentum...

For something as esoteric as this, you need a bit more than 200 words...

 

[PJay_A]

I understand completely what youare saying. Believe me, I had a hard time coming up with the words above, trying to describe concepts that took years for my brain to fully get a grip on, but almost completely unfamiliar to popularist concepts. Let me try to simplify my thoughts here:

- Quantum theory states that partical can exist in more than one state of existence at the same time. This principle is illustrated in the thought experiment of Shrodinginger's Cat, where before we observe the inside of a closed box with a live cat inside, a partical is sent through a splitter. If the partical goes one one, a vile of poison would leak deadly gas that would kill the cat. If the partical goes the other way, no trigger will set the vile to leak the poisonous gas that would have killed the cat. Quantum theory states that before we make the observation to see which direction the partical went, it went both directions at the same time. So, according to the thought experiment mentioned above, before we observe the cat, the cat would be alive and dead at the same time. As soon as we open the box, whether the cat is alive or dead is realized at random upon first observation.

So, in the above thought experiment, 4 dimensions are used at observation: time and 3 space. All I'm saying is that before observation, there must be at least 5 dimensions at play, each made up of 4 dimensions (time + 3). The sates of the cat being both alive and dead at the same time in the same 3D space can only be possible if a fifth dimension is applied to the situation. Yes, both sates of the cat share a common 3D space in a common time frame, but to make this possible a fifth dimension of being must be at play that neither 4D states of the cat share in common.

Since we live on a 4D brane, as predicted by M Theory (which I am claiming here is no different than Einstein's idea of the fabric of space-time), observations of anything greater than 4D can only result in our limited perspective which is that of..... 4D (3 space + time). Since we can only see one 4D side of a multi-sided 5D coin, we will see just one 4D side of a 5D coin. Since everyone living on our 4D membrane shares the same 5D space of a 4D membrane, the 4D side of the 5D coin observed by one person will be observed by all (people on our 4D membrane).

Am I making more sense or have I done a disjustice and brought more confusion?

yeah, sorry, that didn't make any sense to me, and I've read it 3x now...

I don't even understand what you mean by a quantum state occupying it's own 4d spacetime, let alone how such a thing could interact with other 4d spacetime states...or whatever.

Even if your idea isn't completely out of left field, it's certainly an odd, unfamiliar idea. So you need to do a bit more prep work than a single paragraph before any real sense of what you are saying will come across.

For comparison, most physics textbooks spend 20+ pages (with examples and diagrams) on conservation of linear momentum alone...a subject that most people can at least intuitively grasp. And then they spend several other chapters on various aspects of conservation of momentum...

For something as esoteric as this, you need a bit more than 200 words...

 

[Saiph]

So, in the above thought experiment, 4 dimensions are used at observation: time and 3 space. All I'm saying is that before observation, there must be at least 5 dimensions at play, each made up of 4 dimensions (time + 3). The sates of the cat being both alive and dead at the same time in the same 3D space can only be possible if a fifth dimension is applied to the situation. Yes, both sates of the cat share a common 3D space in a common time frame, but to make this possible a fifth dimension of being must be at play that neither 4D states of the cat share in common.

The above is the crux of the argument...but you merely state it without support. I understand all other parts of your post. Schrodinger's cat (with a superfluous particle splitter there, but still works), and the projection of higher dimensional objects into a lower dimensional reference frame.


But as for your assertion we need an extra dimension to hold the observation...that's all you've done. You need to explain what you mean, and provide support for that. Otherwise I still get nothing from it.

I don't mean to be harsh, just so you know.

 

[PJay_A]

What I said was BEFORE an observation is made, we have five dimensions at play. I do not propose any scientific explanation for this (that is for theoretic physisists to do). By definition, the number of dimensions is the number of coordinates you can place to an object. As such, we have five coordinates before observation:

1. Width
2. Length
3. Depth
4. Time
5. State

To define the fifth dimension of state, let me refer to the Shrodinger cat example, which there are two states of the cat: alive or dead. Therefore, the fifth coordinate reference is either the alive state or dead state. Since we can only wrap our minds and eyes around four dimensions, we can not choose its state, once we observe it.

So, in the above thought experiment, 4 dimensions are used at observation: time and 3 space. All I'm saying is that before observation, there must be at least 5 dimensions at play, each made up of 4 dimensions (time + 3). The sates of the cat being both alive and dead at the same time in the same 3D space can only be possible if a fifth dimension is applied to the situation. Yes, both sates of the cat share a common 3D space in a common time frame, but to make this possible a fifth dimension of being must be at play that neither 4D states of the cat share in common.

The above is the crux of the argument...but you merely state it without support. I understand all other parts of your post. Schrodinger's cat (with a superfluous particle splitter there, but still works), and the projection of higher dimensional objects into a lower dimensional reference frame.


But as for your assertion we need an extra dimension to hold the observation...that's all you've done. You need to explain what you mean, and provide support for that. Otherwise I still get nothing from it.

I don't mean to be harsh, just so you know.

 

[PJay_A]

Applying my idea that "state" is the fifth dimension to the bizarre nature of Quantum Entanglement, let's say a pair of created particles exists. The pair in actuality exists in each possible state, but we see it existing in just one state, much like a coin, where we see only one face at a time. Like the coin, both sides do exist (and all states do exist with the entangle particle pair), but we see just one state. The other states (of the entangled particle pair) exist in time-space which overlap ours but exist in non-overlapping (unobservable) "state". Not that the unseen states are unobservable, but switch the "state" of one particle of the entangled pair, it is the state of the observer that has actually changed, not the particle, allowing us to see each particle of the entangled pair from its previously "hidden" state. Imagine that both particles are coins sitting on a glass table. When we look down at both coins, we see "heads", but if you look from under the table, we see BOTH as "tails". Naturally, if we see that one coin is "tails" by looking at it from under a glass table, the other one will also be "tails" because both "heads" were facing up. We didn't move any of these coins, we simply changed the state of our observation, causing us to see a different side of not one but both of the coins. I propose that the entangled particles are like these coins. We see only one "side" or state of pairs of entangled particles. Changing the state of one actually causes a change in our (the observers') state, allowing us to see the entangled particle pair from "the other side of the coin" or from its other state.

 

[darkmatter4brains]

If I understood your post, you might like looking into the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, which basically says everything that can happen, does happen. This came about due to the uneasiness many people had over the probablistic nature of quantum mechanics and the bizarre fact that something can possibly exist in a superposition of two different states before the act of measurement (e.g. Schrodinger's cat being both alive and dead). Under the many worlds interpretation there are two parallel universe, one in which the cat ends up alive and one in which the cat ends up dead. I suppose you can start to theorize that these parallel Universes are embedded in a higher dimensional space, ala M-Theory or something, I dunno.

This view has fallen by the wayside for the most part and the Copenhagen interpration has pretty much taken over the show. But, I think its somewhat similar to part of what you were saying???

I always thought the Many Worlds idea was nuts myself. I guess when I bought a lottery ticket the other day the draw happened in over 180,000,000 million parallel Universes and, in one of them, I'm a rich man ... too bad it's not this one :lol:

 

[PJay_A]

Yes, it is the Many Worlds interpretation that I borrow concepts from in part. But that interterpretation would dare not use the word "dimension" in substitute for Parallel Universe. The Many Worlds interpretation introduces the idea of Parallel Universe simply because of a lack of understanding of what is truly going on (in my opinion). To me, the concept of Parallel Universe is a "place holder" to make the things we already know make some form of sense as to not drive us completely mad (or unintentionally the contrary), but more importantly (to me) it's an admission of sorts that there's fundamental dynamics at work here that's not understood, that these dynamics are "major", that just have to be there, that we don't have a complete picture of what's really happening. Once understood, it could radically change what we think we know about everything. All indicators (to me) are pointing to dimensions we've been oblivious to. Each of the theories we discussed here may differ in the exact number of dimensions, or characteristics of these dimensions, but simply realizing that there may be more than 4 - and that we have have to adandon traditional physics orthodoxy in leu of a greater understanding of a much bigger picture - is a major step in the right direction!

If I understood your post, you might like looking into the Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, which basically says everything that can happen, does happen. This came about due to the uneasiness many people had over the probablistic nature of quantum mechanics and the bizarre fact that something can possibly exist in a superposition of two different states before the act of measurement (e.g. Schrodinger's cat being both alive and dead). Under the many worlds interpretation there are two parallel universe, one in which the cat ends up alive and one in which the cat ends up dead. I suppose you can start to theorize that these parallel Universes are embedded in a higher dimensional space, ala M-Theory or something, I dunno.

This view has fallen by the wayside for the most part and the Copenhagen interpration has pretty much taken over the show. But, I think its somewhat similar to part of what you were saying???

I always thought the Many Worlds idea was nuts myself. I guess when I bought a lottery ticket the other day the draw happened in over 180,000,000 million parallel Universes and, in one of them, I'm a rich man ... too bad it's not this one :lol:

 

[captdude]

In my post titled "5+ dimensional particles & other thoughts" I believe my thoughts travel down the same path as this authors thinking.

 

[Ishimura_]

I like your concept of "state". For me, this helps explain "spooky action at a distance", since "state" transcends the four dimensions, and is not bound by concepts such as length, width, or time. Which is why the "communication" between two entangled particles appears from our perspective to happen faster than the speed of light. In other words from our perpective "state" is everywhere at once (i.e. - omnipresent), therefore changes in "state" are instantaneous".