God or the Multi-verse? – Cosmology’s Big Question

Hey, just finished up this paper for one of the courses I am doing. My objective was to take a difficult subject and translate it into an accurate but easily understandable summary. As Mr. C.S. Lewis was telling me this week,

I have come to the conviction that if you cannot translate your thoughts into uneducated language, then your thoughts were confused. Power to translate is the test of having really understood one’s own meaning.

Seeing as I had just finished reading the Michio Kaku booked (blogged about a bit in previous posts) I thought I'd use some of the themes that were fresh in my mind.

So anyway, let me know if I was successful or not in my "translation".

God or the Multi-verse? – Cosmology’s Big Question

Michio Kaku, an American quantum physicist, in his recent book Parallel Worlds, describes in layman’s terms what has become one of the most significant divergences of thought in the world of cosmology – the field of physics which deals with the origin of the universe and the ultimate nature of reality. On one side you have a growing community of string theorists who are embracing the ideas of M-theory, an idea that says there are an infinite number of universes in existence parallel to ours. On the other side of the debate are the proponents of the consciousness-causes-collapse theory, which maintains that by examining the evidence of quantum theory, one must conclude that the universe we live in is made possible by the existence of a universal consciousness, that observes reality and brings it into being. One sounds wilder than the most outrageous science fiction. The other sounds more like theology. However, both are dealt with in all seriousness as the only two real options for answering the questions raised by the experimental evidence of quantum physics.

The two opposing theories have arisen as a result of the scientific research of the 20th century, beginning essentially with the theoretical advancements of Einstein. Both theories set out to solve the problems of the wave-function. Quantum physicists have found the somewhat shocking and counter-intuitive truth that objects seem to require an observer in order to become what they are. Before observation, objects on the quantum level exist as waves rather than a concrete object. However, when the quantum object is observed or measured in an experiment, the wave-function “collapses” to become a definite, concrete object. This suggests that without interaction with consciousness, objects are nothing more than a bunch of waves. Some scientists, Einstein among them, found this conclusion impossible to accept. He was known to ask his guests, “Does the moon exist because a mouse looks at it?” Einstein believed that the answer had to be “no”, and expected that developments is physics would bear this out. But years of scientific advancement confirmed rather than refuted this odd hypothesis.

Both the multi-verse theory and the consciousness-causes-collapse theory set out to solve the dilemma raised by the mysteries of the wave-function. M-theorists however, reject the notion of a need for a conscious observer. They posit that instead of an observer collapsing a quantum event into one concrete state, the wave-function never collapses. Rather, all possible outcomes of a quantum event do occur – by splitting off into new and parallel universes. This means that any universe that can exist, does – though in a parallel universe inaccessible from ours. As MIT physicist Alan Guth puts it, "There is a universe where Elvis is still alive, and Al Gore is President."

On the other side of the debate are those who suppose that a more likely explanation is that there is a universal “observer” that collapses all wave functions into the one state that we call our universe. Proponents of this theory think that reality requires an external observer. But if I am bringing my cat into reality by observing it, doesn’t that require someone else to observe me, to collapse my waveform as well? Ultimately this line of reasoning suggests a greater consciousness that observes the entire universe, collapsing all waveforms, and bringing about all reality. Among this theory’s adherents were scientists like Nobel Laureate and peer of Einstein, Eugene Wigner, who expressed interest in the Vedanta concept of universal consciousness found in Hinduism. Another is Stanford physicist Andrei Linde, who commented in the June 2002 edition of Discover Magazine, “The moment you say that the universe exists without any observers, I cannot make any sense out of that. I cannot imagine a consistent theory of everything that ignores consciousness.”

While both M-theory and Consciousness-Causes-Collapse attempt to answer the biggest questions of the quantum theory, they haven’t been greeted with equal acceptance. The tendency within the scientific community is to look for answers that don’t rely on an inexplicable God-type resolution. This has resulted in M-theory’s rise to prominence as the current majority view. The problem remains, however, that the deepest questions of a cosmological nature are so theoretical that they lie beyond the realm of testability. For the time being, holding one view over the other will continue to be primarily an educated guess based on one’s own hunches, biases, and life experience.

Sambo the Elephant, who survived the Khmer Rouge

Language evolution...

This semester I listened to a lot of John McWhorter's stuff, a linguist from the Manhattan Institute. I think I mentioned it before, but he was the guy who blew my mind by expressing extreme contempt for people whose tendency is toward being grammar-slammer-bammers by showing how grammar rules and vocabulary in any language are fluid and ever-changing - in fact, that is how we get new languages. In particular, his demonstration of how double negatives were once not considered wrong sent my high-school-grammar-teacher mind reeling.

So in class today we were noticing just how words migrate back and forth. Someone said, "Stoppu" when I told them to respond in English, to which I responded that "stoppu" isn't English, but a Japanization of the English word "stop". But that's where language transfer gets really fuzzy. My students would say that when they use the phrase "sei-fu-chi-do-rai-bu" they are using English, though I'll bet that any English speaker reading this blog outside of Japan has no idea what that might mean. It's the Japanese pronunciation of "safety drive" (a direct translation of the JP phrase "anzen unten"), by which they are trying to say "drive safely".

So, safe to say that phrase has become a Japanese one. The reverse is also true. Japanese people rarely understand when a native English speaker says "karate". We say something like "ka-RA-dee" whereas the JP pronunciation is "KA-RA-TEH" (with the "ra" being pronounced in a way that I can't spell in roman letters).

Language evolution gets even more comic with words like "karaoke". When the Japanese coined the word they took what they considered to be the shortened version of the word "orchestra" (o-ke-su-to-ra) and added "kara" to the front, which means "empty" in Japanese. An empty orchestra. Then they export the term to the west where we say something like "kerry okie", which no uninitiated JP speaker ever understands.

So most Japanese feel they are using a foreign word when they say "karaoke". I would say that it's actually about as unique a Japanese word as you will find!

Christmas Collaboration

Almost Christmas time so time for another Christmas collab. Details in the video.

In the video I make it sound like I only am asking for videos from people in Japan, but I am thinking "Christmas in the World" might be more fun, so wherever you are from, feel free to participate...

Japan fun with mental math

Drives me nuts!!

This is the third time this has happened. I am at the grocery store. The bill is, say, 735 yen, so I lay down 1235 yen so I can get back a 500 yen coin - less change in the change purse.

Well once again the cashier reacts with impressed surprise, praising me for my ability to do math in my head and concluding with a remark something to the effect that "I didn't think gaijin can do that!"

Like I said, third time I've heard that remark. Apparently the "Asians are good at math" stereotype runs both ways....

Schrodinger's Cat

One thing that has to be said when reading about the world of theoretical physics - it gets weirder than a lot of science fiction. And the current problem is that much of the theory is entirely divorced from any experimental verification - but it must be this way, because the ideas that the theories are dealing with are just not testable with current technology.

Schrodinger's Cat and the Copenhagen School are kind of like that. You have to read it through a few times to really believe that our best scientists are serious about this; that at the highest levels of science things become so very counter-intuitive and just generally Star Trek-y. Apparently Gene Rodenberry had his finger carefully on the pulse of modern physics. But at some points some of the theories that Kaku deals with enter so heavily into the realm of conjecture that you tend to start rolling your eyes a little. I know it's speculation based on current theory, but it starts to feel like just so much guesswork. One wonders how any physicist can look down his or her nose at a theologian!

Anyway, an attempt at a simple explanation (if there is such a thing):

The Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment deals with a problem caused by quantum physics that radically changes how we think about reality. With Newton and classical physics, for example, a tree is a tree. It exists whether you look at it or not. But at the smallest levels of reality, quantum physicists found experimentally that this wasn't the case. An electron before being measured, or observed, was only a wave function", essentially existing in many places at once. It could only be spoken of in terms of probability. However, when observed, the wave function would "collapse" and the electron would become the one existing and concrete thing of classical physics. But for existence, it requires an observer, an interaction with consciousness.

To resolve the discrepancy between waves of probability and our commonsense notion of existence, Bohr and Heisenberg assumed that after a measurement is made by an outside observer, the wave function magically “collapses,” and the electron falls into a definite state—that is, after looking at the tree, we see that it is truly standing. In other words, the process of observation determines the final state of the electron. Observation is vital to existence. (Kaku, Loc. 2206-10)

Here's Kaku's explanation of the actual thought experiment. Einstein could see this was the logical end of the quantum theory, but he thought it must be nonsense:

[Schrodinger] confessed to Bohr that he regretted ever proposing the wave concept if it introduced the concept of probability into physics. To demolish the idea of probabilities, he proposed an experiment. Imagine a cat sealed in a box. Inside the box, there is a bottle of poison gas, connected to a hammer, which in turn is connected to a Geiger counter placed near a piece of uranium. No one disputes that the radioactive decay of the uranium atom is purely a quantum event that cannot be predicted ahead of time. Let’s say there is a 50 percent chance that a uranium atom will decay in the next second. But if a uranium atom decays, it sets off the Geiger counter, which sets off the hammer that breaks the glass, killing the cat. Before you open the box, it is impossible to tell whether the cat is dead or alive. In fact, in order to describe the cat, physicists add the wave function of the live cat and the dead cat—that is, we put the cat in a nether world of being 50 percent dead and 50 percent alive simultaneously. Now open the box. Once we peer into the box, an observation is made, the wave function collapses, and we see that the cat is, say, alive. To Schrödinger, this was silly. How can a cat be both dead and alive at the same time, just because we haven’t looked at it? Does it suddenly spring into existence as soon as we observe it? Einstein was also displeased with this interpretation. Whenever guests came over to his house, he would say: look at the moon. Does it suddenly spring into existence when a mouse looks at it? Einstein believed the answer was no. But in some sense, the answer might be yes. (Loc. 2288-98)

More quotes about it later, but the thing is, subsequent experimentation proved that Einstein was wrong. Reality may really be that weird.

Michio Kaku - Parallel Worlds

So here is the first book I want to focus in on: Michio Kaku - Parallel Worlds. Kaku is, as quoted from his Wikipedia page, "an American theoretical physicist specializing in string field theory, and a futurist." He holds a chair and professorship in theoretical physics at CCNY, so basically, he knows what he is talking about.

I got reading this book as a break from all the C.S. Lewis I have been reading for next year's thesis. In fact, science reading was suggested to me by Lewis himself. I can't remember which book it was in, but Lewis makes note that it is vital to keep informed on scientific thinking and advancements, so I thought I'd follow his advice.

The thing that impresses me about Kaku is just how even he is when dealing with the big questions. The book is primarily about cosmology, and in dealing with the "biggest" questions of or origins, reality, and God, he is meticulous about presenting both or all sides of a given issue. In fact, he keeps you guessing as to what his own views are until the final chapter of the book, where he makes his own beliefs plain, but until that point it is impossible to guess what he thinks from an obvious bias in the book. That is impressive in this age of polarized fundamentalists of both theist and atheist stripe condescending to one another from very safe distances.

Much of what outlines in the book is the two emerging schools of thought in physics regarding the nature of reality itself. He deals a lot with the "Schroedinger's cat" problem, which I'll find a quote for, because I can hardly explain it myself. But in subsequent posts, I'll try to deal in more detail and with a lot more clarity about this main theme:

... this paradox goes to perhaps the deepest question in the quantum theory: how can a cat be dead and alive at the same time? To answer this question, physicists have been forced to entertain two outrageous solutions: either there is a cosmic consciousness that watches over us all, or else there are an infinite number of quantum universes. (Loc. 2107-9)

More coming soon.