An interpretation of quantum mechanics involving multiple dimensions is proposed, as well as a thought experiment that in principle if performed correctly could either prove or disprove quantum randomness. All outcomes, of a particle’s wave function manifest but manifest in more than three dimensions, and when the wave function collapses, we see the outcome of the wave function, which only exist in three dimensions. Furthermore, a particle is a much larger object, and exists physically as a wave across more than three dimensions and our best description of this is the Schrodinger wave, because it only describes it in three dimensions. We cannot observe the particle as a wave because it is spread out as an object in which most of it exists in more than three dimensions, but when we observe the part or outcome of a wave function that does exist in three dimensions, which is when collapse occurs it leads to particle like properties, due to not being able to interact with the rest of the wave because it is confined to just interacting on a three dimensional scale because we are observing it in three dimensions. Furthermore we cannot observe the part of the wave function that exists in more than three dimensions, in three dimensions because of the principle that in order to observe an object in it's entirety it needs to be observed in all of it's dimensions. Strange phenomenon in quantum mechanics such as tunneling, can be explained by saying that there is a probability of finding the part of wave function that exists in three dimensions on the other side of the barrier, which has travelled over that barrier classically and the probability of it travelling over the barrier decreases expontentially to the width of the barrier increasing. Whether the quantum world is random, or is determined by non-local hidden variables, can be determined by a simple deductive thought experiment as outlined in this article.
An interpretation of quantum mechanics involving multiple dimensions is proposed, as well as a thought experiment that in principle if performed correctly could either prove or disprove quantum randomness. All outcomes, of a particle’s wave function manifest but manifest in more than three dimensions, and when the wave function collapses, we see the outcome of the wave function, which only exist in three dimensions. Furthermore, a particle is a much larger object, and exists physically as a wave across more than three dimensions and our best description of this is the Schrodinger wave, because it only describes it in three dimensions. We cannot observe the particle as a wave because it is spread out as an object in which most of it exists in more than three dimensions, but when we observe the part or outcome of a wave function that does exist in three dimensions, which is when collapse occurs it leads to particle like properties, due to not being able to interact with the rest of the wave because it is confined to just interacting on a three dimensional scale because we are observing it in three dimensions. Furthermore we cannot observe the part of the wave function that exists in more than three dimensions, in three dimensions because of the principle that in order to observe an object in it's entirety it needs to be observed in all of it's dimensions. Strange phenomenon in quantum mechanics such as tunneling, can be explained by saying that there is a probability of finding the part of wave function that exists in three dimensions on the other side of the barrier, which has travelled over that barrier classically and the probability of it travelling over the barrier decreases expontentially to the width of the barrier increasing. Whether the quantum world is random, or is determined by non-local hidden variables, can be determined by a simple deductive thought experiment as outlined in this article.
Quantum mechanics provides us most fundamental descriptions of our most early universe, but there is a long-standing debate amongst theoretical physicists about what all these mathematics really mean in real world? The present three-dimensional (3D) universe, we humans experience daily since our birth, is probably just one of an enormous numbers of essentially classical worlds, and all quantum phenomena arise from a universal force of repulsions that prevented many universes (Multiverse) from having identical physical configurations like ours. Probabilities arise only because of our human ignorance as to which in our world an observer occupies a position in space time. This picture is all that is needed to explain bizarre quantum effects such as particles that can tunnel through solid barriers and wave behavior in double-slit experiments or in a warm hole. Our many-interacting-universes approach hinges on our assumption that interactions between deterministically evolving worlds cause all quantum effects. Each world is simply the position of particles in three-dimensional space time, and each would evolve according to Newton’s laws, if there were no inter world interactions. A surprising feature of human approach was that the formulation contains nothing that corresponds to the mysterious quantum wave functions, except in the formal mathematical limit in which the number of worlds becomes infinitely large. Conversely, Newtonian mechanics corresponds to the opposite limit of just one world. Thus, our approach should incorporate both classical and quantum theory. As few as two interacting worlds can result in quantum like effects, such as tunneling through a barrier. Many interacting worlds theory (MIW) explains that rather than standing apart, an infinite number of universes in the early time shared the same space and time as ours. They show that the theory can explain quantum mechanical effects while leaving open the choice of theory to explain the universe at large scales. This is a fascinating new variant of multiverse theory that, in a sense, creates not just a doppelganger of everyone but an infinite number of them all overlaying each other in the same space and time. The fine tuning of parameters required to reproduce our present day universe suggests that our universe may simply be a region within an eternally inflating super-region. Many other regions beyond our observable universe might have existed in earlier times with each such universe governed by a different set of physical parameters and laws. Collision between these regions, if they occurred, should have left signatures of anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) but have not been seen yet. We assess different mechanisms for this residual emission and conclude that although there is a 30% probability that noise fluctuations may cause foregrounds to fall within 3σ of the excess, there is less than a 0.5% probability that foregrounds can explain all the excess. A plausible explanation is that the collision of our universe with an alternate universe, whose baryon to photon ratio is a factor of ∼ 4500 larger than ours, could produce enhanced Hydrogen Paschen-series emission at the epoch of recombination. Future spectral mapping and deeper observations at 100 and 217 GHz are needed to mitigate systematics arising from unknown galactic foregrounds and to confirm this unusual hypothesis. After careful analysis of the spectrum of the CMB, Chary et al. found a signal that was about 4500x brighter than it should have been, based on the number of protons and electrons. Scientists believe that this existed in the very early universe. Indeed, this particular signal, an emission line that arose from the formation of atoms during the era of recombination is more consistent with a universe whose ratio of matter particles to photons is about 65x greater than our own. There is a 30% chance that this mysterious signal is just noise, and not really, a signal at all; however, it is also possible that it is real, and exists as a parallel universe. Keywords : Quantum mechanics, multiverse, Newtonian mechanics Cite this Article Pranab Kumar Bhattacharya, et al . Schrodinger Cat's Experiment's Interpretation and Parallel Universe or Multiple Universes. Research and Reviews: Journal of Space Science and Technology. 2016; 5(1): 35–52p.
The many Worlds Interpretation postulates that the universal wave function exists and never collapses unlike the Copenhagen Interpretation. Instead, all possible outcomes of the measurement are realized in isolated parts of the wave function. These parts create the “worlds”. There must be an infinite number of these worlds due to the probabilistic paradoxes caused by having equally real worlds. On the other hand, each spatial dimension consists of an infinite number of the lower spatial dimension. Meaning an n dimensional world consists of an infinite number of (n-1) dimensional worlds. The universal wave function could be 4 dimensional which would explain why these 3-dimensional worlds are isolated. This claim will be further supported with Schrödinger Equation simulations. The 4-dimensional Schrödinger Equation will present a better fit to the Many Worlds Interpretation than the 3-dimensional Schrödinger Equation since it will provide a solution to the statistical paradoxes posed by the interpretation by postulating an infinite number of worlds.
The basic mathematical structure, QM-A, of the many worlds interpretation consists solely of the linear mathematics plus the Hilbert space properties of the state vectors. There is no collapse and there are no particles or hidden variables. It is remarkable that QM-A alone can account for all our observations except probability. There is no need for particles, hidden variables or collapse to explain perception of only one classical version of reality, the photoelectric effect, localized effects from a spread-out wave function in scattering and interference experiments, wave-particle duality, and so on. But probability cannot be defined within QM-A. Nevertheless, because of its astonishing success, it seems reasonable to require (1) that the mathematics of an interpretation be limited to the highly successful QM-A and (2) that "matter" be composed of state vectors alone. But the probability law requires, in essence, that one version of the observer be singled out. The most straightforward way to accomplish this under (1) and (2) is to assume there is an aspect of the observer-the Mind-which is outside the laws of quantum mechanics and perceives just one version of reality. Under that assumption, the probability law can then be derived. Thus we have an interpretation, QM-A plus "outside" observer, which explains all our perceptions.
An interpretation of quantum mechanics is presented in which there is one hidden variable. While this number of hidden variables is insufficient to explain Bell nonlocality, it can help solve the measurement problem. It also provides an explanation of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment that is more intuitive than current explanations. In addition, a theory of nonlocality emerges directly from its assumptions. The key idea is that from the perspective of an outside observer, not correlated with an observed system, we treat all interactions within the system as unitary. However, from the perspective of an “observer” inside the system, we treat all new entanglements as “micro-measurements” and as a projection onto some basis of measurement. One particle can “measure” another. Thus, particles will have a defined value on one measurement basis from an inside perspective. This means that the wave function, from the outside view, will at times describe an objective uncertainty, at other times a subjective uncertainty and at yet other times a combination of both. The standard wave function describes the total uncertainty, the minimal uncertainty that is present for any observer outside of the system, while for an “observer” inside the system, only the objective part of the uncertainty remains, and this can be described by an inner wave function. The hidden variable is invisible to the outside observer.
An interpretation of quantum mechanics is presented in which there is one hidden variable. While this number of hidden variables is insufficient to explain Bell nonlocality, it can help solve the measurement problem. It also provides an explanation of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment that is more intuitive than current explanations. In addition, a theory of nonlocality emerges directly from its assumptions. The key idea is that from the perspective of an outside observer, not correlated with an observed system, we treat all interactions within the system as unitary. However, from the perspective of an “observer” inside the system, we treat all new entanglements as “micro-measurements” and as a projection onto some basis of measurement. One particle can “measure” another. Thus, particles will have a defined value on one measurement basis from an inside perspective. This means that the wave function, from the outside view, will at times describe an objective uncertainty, at other times a subjective uncertainty and at yet other times a combination of both. The standard wave function describes the total uncertainty, the minimal uncertainty that is present for any observer outside of the system, while for an “observer” inside the system, only the objective part of the uncertainty remains, and this can be described by an inner wave function. The hidden variable is invisible to the outside observer.
An interpretation of quantum mechanics is presented in which there is one hidden variable. While this number of hidden variables is insufficient to explain Bell nonlocality, it can help solve the measurement problem. It also provides an explanation of the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment that is more intuitive than current explanations. In addition, a theory of nonlocality emerges directly from its assumptions. The key idea is that from the perspective of an outside observer, not correlated with an observed system, we treat all interactions within the system as unitary. However, from the perspective of an “observer” inside the system, we treat all new entanglements as “micro-observations” and as a projection onto some basis of measurement. One particle can “observe” another. Thus, particles will have a defined value on one measurement basis from an inside perspective. This means that the wave function, from the outside view, will at times describe an objective uncertainty, at other times a subjective uncertainty and at yet other times a combination of both. The standard wave function describes the total uncertainty, the minimal uncertainty that is present for any observer outside of the system, while for an observer inside the system, only the objective part of the uncertainty remains, and this can be described by an inner wave function. The hidden variable is invisible to the outside observer.