The it does not spontaneously roll backward

    The quantum world has different rules than our classical world that is seen by the human eye.  If one were to throw a ball in the classical world, measurements could be taken and it could be calculated where that ball will land.  In quantum theory this measurement system disintegrates: not only can a particle be in place A at a certain probability, it can also be in place B, and even in place A and B at the same time; this is called superposition.  Though, the phenomenon of the superposition principle conflicts with the idea of realism.  The human mind can only comprehend and experience so much.  When humans look at a ball they can see it in three dimensions – height, width, and depth – and when it is rolled it can only be seen moving forward in time, it does not spontaneously roll backward in time.  This being said, when a person looks at a quantum particle superimposed it will condense (decoherence) to one state either position A or B because humans are only able to comprehend that particle being in one place at one time.  The bigger problem at hand is that in order to make the next big advancement in science and technology, the locations at all times must be known.  A metaphor by Erwin Shrödinger clearly explains the problem at hand in a thought experiment: initially, a cat is placed in an isolated room with no other observer and a contraption that has the potential to release poison.  The contraption is controlled by one particle (for the sake of understanding it will not be explained why).  The particle has a 50% chance of either killing the cat or doing nothing.  The cat is now in the fate of a quantum particle thus proposing that the cat will enter the state of being dead and alive concurrently.  The property of decoherence is then shown by when the observer looks into the room.  Only then will the cat be seen as either dead or alive, not both (Maguire 235).  Thus is it proven that when we cannot directly measure the state of any one particle it must then be deduced logically where is it even when it cannot be seen.  To solve the phenomenon that is the measurement problem through the superposition principle, the many-worlds theory should be claimed as the most practical solution because of constraints of universal laws rather than its counter – determinism (causal principle).    The universe desires to be in a disorderly state (entropy), and because many-worlds theorem relies on superposition states, there is the opportunity for a greater level of entropy.  The innate characteristic of the many worlds theorem is that it is highly open to any type of outcome.  The multiverse would include an individual universe for each probability that a particle can have.  (Santos 358).  Regarding places A and B as spoken about earlier, if there was a 50% of a particle being in place A and a 50% chance of a particle being in place B, then there would be one universe that has the particle in place A, let us call it the original universe, and one universe that splits out from the original placing the particle in place B.  The law of entropy states that everything in the universe, when given the chance, will be prone to a disorderly state.  As noble prize winning physicist Richard Feynman put it – just think of one’s desk, the more time that passes by the more unorganized the desk becomes unless intervened by that person and put back together (32).  In the multiverse, entropy is allowed to do work even more because if there were to be a single universe there would be indeed an infinite amount of probabilities, yet in the multiverse, there would be an infinite of infinite probabilities.  Think of it like this, if a person went to a frozen yogurt shop and all they had was five flavors of yogurt then the chance of that person getting something that someone else has is very likely; however, if the shop added five fruit toppings and then five syrups and then candy toppings the chance of getting what someone else got decreases significantly and there are many more probabilities than were before.      Another example of computing systems shows another in-depth view of the possibility of many-worlds theorem regarding entropy but also the observation of an object.  Marcus Arvan, a computer scientist, explores the difference of a “dedicated server” (universe) and a “peer-to-peer simulation” (435). A dedicated server relates to a single universe in that it has one reality – the main server holds that reality – that pulls information from multiple other computers.  This way none of the computers have any discrepancies because they will just go back to the dedicated server to check if its information is correct.  The peer-to-peer simulation is much different than the dedicated server.  It relates to the multiverse in that there is no dedicated server, there are only separate computers each with a different reality.  Marcus Arvan used a gaming system; however, for the purpose of clarity a simple thrown ball will be sufficient.  First let us explore the scenario of a dedicated server taking information of a ball being thrown.  Each computer will take measurement of the ball as observers and because they all have the same reality give to them by the dedicated server they will all spit out the same end result.  If any error is made then it is simply fixed by that one computer who made the error checking its information through the dedicated server(435).  This is how humans can perceive the world around them in our one universe because we all are in the same reality; however, because humans are composed of many atoms and particles they act differently than a single particle would – enter peer-to-peer simulation.  A peer-to-peer simulation acts like multiple observers but they all perceive to ball act like they individually think it would, thus resulting in different measured positions.  For example if there were three different computers the first may say that the ball started in place A, while the second and third perceive the ball to be in place B.  To even further diversify the probabilities the path of a particle is not always consistent and could be in a multiplicity of different places, thus the first and second may say the ball is in place A, but the third says it is in place C (436).  This is the result of the superposition states a particle can have.  Though when each computer communicates with each other they get different information.  This shows that, the peer-to-peer simulation representing the multiverse, is probable with different realities (universes) perceiving the ball in their own way.  This allows for increased entropy due not only the different starting positions but also the different potential paths that the ball takes.  Because even if two realities see the ball starting in place A, afterwards one could see it in place B and the other place C or even vice versa where one sees it beginning at place A and the other at place B, yet they may both see it in the same position at the end of its travel.  This simulation in the end concludes that the multiverse is more probable to a single universe with an increased realities that give way to a more disorderly multiverse.    The arguments of Aristotle and Plato each directly relate to the superposition principle. Quantum physics does not rely solely on facts, it is also rooted philosophy.  Because the technology is not to the level yet of the complexity of the quantum world, theories must sometimes rely on thought and logic.  Many theories can date back to Aristotle and Plato.  Aristotle agreed with realism inferring that what is real is what surrounds us and it is preposterous to think that what is not seen can be concluded to act in different standards (Aristotle).  On the other hand, Plato was all about the things unseen and provided the exact counter-argument to Aristotle suggesting it is ignorant to blindly say that things not seen must follow the standards human are used to.  In quantum physics, Aristotle would agree with determinism while Plato would align with many worlds.  Aristotle suggests that the knowledge of what is unseen need not be understood.  As a theoretical physicist at Oxford University explaining Aristotle’s irrelevance said, “these arguments/ take a minimalist view of the task of physics” (Polkinghorne 46).  Polkinghorne then goes on to say that this is contradictory to most any scientists worldview.  This is absurd due to the fact that is states that humans should not strive to understand the entirety of the universe, but this is how society enlightens itself and how it will produce better technology.    A lack of a multiverse would conclude that there can be no free will; however, on the contrary, because man has a choice he can choose, as an observer of matter,  to have one state over the other (within the confines of realism).  Aristotle as a realist would say an unseen particle can only be in one place at one time.  Thus also implying that if a particle can only be in one place at one time then it will take a specific path and its initial and future positions could always be calculated.  However, this could not be correct if Plato’s theory, relating to the superposition principle, is examined.  The problem with Aristotle’s philosophy is that it is ignorant of what cannot be seen.  Take an example: If one lived in a house with five other people, could it be said that if one person looks into a room that is empty and leaves for 24 hours he can then say that the room is still empty because he cannot see it at that moment? No, because there is potential for another person in that house to have changed the room in some way while that person was gone.  Though ironically to prove Plato’s theory of things that do not act according to normal standards, Aristotle’s realism comes in to play.  Because the standards of particles do not follow the rules that are seen in the macro-world, when humans look at that particle it will be in one consistent real time period and one consistent real place.  So, Aristotle is right to an extent but more and more wrong as the level of complexity becomes deeper.  Aristotle says there is one and only one deterministic event for every object and thought (Aristotle), but this then discredits the ability of man to have a choice.  It is the fate argument, yet it does not suggest that any event is open to change which is what Plato would say.  Man does have a choice and has the ability to change the outcome of any situation.  Hence in the many-worlds theory, there are multiple scenarios that would explore each man’s choice.  Choice is even seen in the observation of the particles themselves.  A person could choose to look at a specific particle, but in the process change its outcome due to him needing to see the particle in one place at one time.  Thus almost giving the particle a choice in that one universe, but still existing in the multiverse by making another choice in another universe.    The many-worlds theorem gives the differences between the macro-verse and the micro-verse a way to coexist without the reality of either “leaking” into one another.   Theoretical physicist Yasunori Nomura gives a theory like they multiverse theory called the inflation theory that gives example into how the separation of probabilities through different universes is likely to happen.  The inflation theory suggests that the universe is expanding into an infinite void of space while traveling faster than the speed of light.  In the process “bubble universes” as he calls them form as they rapidly decreased in speed, creating its own universe (Nomura).  However, there is a problem that needs to be addressed in him hypothesis:  With spontaneous bubble universes forming where are the distinct universes that form surrounding the probability of one particle or decision?  Nomura suggests that, “the quantum states representing eternally inflating space is a superposition of worlds—or branches—representing different universes, with each of these branches including only the region within its own horizon” (Nomura).  What he means by this is that even though there are spontaneous bubbles there are also ones that physically split off from each other in the void they all reside in.  What is so significant about this is that this allows the micro-verse to not corrupt the macro-verse.  If this corruption were to happen then the reality of humans would be incomprehensible and a possible implosion of the universe or multiverse could collapse.  Thus, Nomura’s example shows that the multiverse allows for the freedom of particles to act as they desire without the negative implications of the macro-verse taking on a superimposed state of its own.    The counter-argument, determinism, says that every particle and decision has a single and specific course.  Arguments for determinism include the laws of nature, philosophy of realism, and the interaction of how an observer affects a particle.  Someone who might believe in determinism might say they there are always laws that are followed.  This is seen in the world that surrounds people; such as the law of gravity or the law of conservation of mass and energy.  Because these laws exist in the macro-verse, then it could be presumed they there are specific laws that must always exist in the quantum world and thus those laws dictate the movement and positions of all particles.  The philosophy of determinism is rooted in realism, first suggested by Aristotle centuries ago.  The multiverse is improbable due to the unrealistic behavior of more than one universe existing in an undefined space.  Rather one universe would exist in one distinct void.  Also because there exist humans each with thought, there also must be certain outcomes that happen due to there minds to interact with matter such as people using their brains to send electrical signals to move their legs or raise their arms (Polkinghorne 51). Moreover, it is unrealistic to suggest that when an observer looks at a superimposed particle it does not choose based on some law, this was meant to happen and its future outcome cannot be changed.  Lastly, the reason that humans cannot predict all outcomes of all particles yet is simple: the computing power to do so does not exist.  Thus it can still be reasoned that there is a cause for each particle even though technology cannot prove it.      The first reason determinism does not work lies in its philosophy.  The human element can have no major impact on the outcomes of nature.  Because humans have not already made a choice, there is no set future.  Like a particle, a human can choose whatever he should desire, such as one choosing to have vanilla or chocolate ice cream.  However, depending on the person, that person will have a 50% chance of choosing either flavor. Like this can it not be reasonably said that in one place he chose vanilla and in one place he chose chocolate? If the outcomes of choice or particles were even attempted to be predicted then as theoretical computer physicist Scott Aaronson said, “it would lead us to predict wrongly” (268).  Aaronson suggests that the universe will always be random and predicting such outcomes would result in likely wrong information because there would be only one universe where whatever was predicted would be right within the vast and infinite multiverse.    Determinism does not work because every particle is not simultaneously seen by an observer.  Whether or not a human affects certain outcomes may not even be pertinent.  The fact is is that there remains a massive amount of empty space, planets, and solar systems that are not occupied by any humans or life forms.  Thus there are trillions of trillions of atoms and particles that are in superimposed states that have the potential to never in an infinite amount of time condense into one state.  Because of this, its probable positions cannot be determined and its interactions with others particles then cannot be determined and hence one particle affects more and more resulting in a pattern that continues to expand.  This makes too many holes in the data and predicting all probabilities becomes impossible.    Lastly, to speak to the laws that determinism prides itself on in the process determinism breaks a law of its own: the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. This principle states that one can never know the position and velocity of a particle at the same time.  This is due to the observation and measurement of the particle.  The measure where a particle is light is used to see it; however, at the quantum level light is being used in its smallest level in order to interact with these particles.  Light at its smallest level is a photon and when a photon is used to see the measurement of where the particle is it collides with it while pushing into a new direction and therefore an unknown velocity.  This also works the other way around where the measurement of the velocity makes unknown the measurement of the position (Polkinghorne 32).  Determinism would suggest that all position of velocities could be determined, but this cannot be the case.  Even if snapshots could be taken of time the particles could not be measured because first, they would have to be moving due to their uncertainty and second, particles do not act within the linear confines of time.  Thus determinism would have to be altered to say it upholds some laws, but also break others which refutes its innate principle of realism and contradicts itself altogether.    The complexity of quantum physics is intriguing and wildly confusing.  As Richard Feynman once said, “I think I can safely say that no one understands quantum mechanics” (qtd. in Polkingthorne 1).  This argument is a problem that may last for many more decades, but when it comes to an end the strides made in science will be extraordinary.  The many worlds theory, though there are many others theories addressing the measurement problem, is the most likely solution.  Determinism is a good theory, yet it seems that it is one that is too good to be true.  One universe with a purpose for every particle, person, and choice is one that is desirable, but it simply cannot happen with all the laws that physics follows. Thus we turn to many-worlds interpretation in hope of enlightening the human race to greater knowledge.  The only question now is where do we go from here?