Antimatter and “many world” interpretation in quantum mechanics

January 22, 2013 § 20 Comments

I just received the best presentation ever on the manyworld interpretation of quantum mechanics. The guy being interviewed is on top of it all very humorous and charming, so it helps to swallow the mysticism. What he actually is saying is that it is an embarresment to physics and the general human race, that we have known for 80 years, what the universe is telling us, but we haven’t grasped it yet.

The good news is that the many world interpretation now has 18% “voters” in the physics department. That’s much more than ten years ago, I guess.

As you have seen on this blog now for two years, I am having the opinion that antimatter is consciousness, and that we as beings live in parallel universes (many worlds) observing our common creation the physical universe. Particles does not exist, the appearances of particles emerges, when wave functions collapse in the quantum fields.

See my videopresentation here:

§ 20 Responses to Antimatter and “many world” interpretation in quantum mechanics

  • Jack Bounce says:

    It would be much better if you write proper English. Your spelling is appalling and detracts from what you want to say.

  • Faisel B says:

    This is neither science nor philosophy. It seems like the only argument you have for your “theory” is that it is “crazy”. The complete abscence of logical reasoning and observational concordance makes it easy to refute. Basically you’re just making stuff up.

    Do you know that we have detected antimatter experimentally back in 1932 and that we have a very clear idea of its properties? It has shown no sign of consciousness.

    You seem to have misunderstood the concept of theoretical prediction. Even if some of your predictions came true (which they won’t), it is in no way evidence for your theory. By the way, a future revision of the standard model does not count as a prediction. Chances are most theories will be revised in the future.

    Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I am really getting tired of home made theories with extra dimensions, parallel universes and quantum consciousness, which basically stems from a lack of understanding and abscence of critical thinking.

    P.s.: I’m from Denmark too.

    • As Sean Carroll says, the math shows that it might be this way. That is the reason for those theories, not somebodies crazy wims. That you are tired of mathematics showing something about the real world, is a petty for you, but quite enjoyable to us, having an open mind, and knowing that new physics is on its way.

  • Faisel B says:

    You are mixing things together. I’m not addressing what Sean Carroll says, but you’re claims of antimatter being consciousness and existing in a different dimension. It is completely unfounded and doesn’t make any sense. And it is based on a lack of understanding of quantum physics. There is a difference between being open minded and dabbling into complete fiction.

    Your claims ave nothing to do with science nor philosophy – it is pseudo science.

  • You haven’t understood my theory.

    If you split the entire universe into the physical universe (positive energy) and infinite separate mental parallel universes (negative energy), the wave collapse might be explainable as where all the universes meet in the quantum field.

    Matter and antimatter is created in this wave collapse, and that gives us the reality we observe.

    When I say that antimatter is consciousness, it’s a way to make it understandable to the many, but I possibly have to find a way to stop doing that, because it makes too much confusion. But the wave function collapse makes the universe as we see it, and a minimal amount of antimatter. The energy used in the separate parallel mental universes, is opposite energy to the energy we know normally in the physical universe.

    The combined energy in the physical universe AND the mental separate parallel universes, is a constant ZERO.

    I am really sorry that it is out of my reach to explain this better, but I am working on a new presentation, where I will do my best.

  • Faisel B says:

    Well, let’s look at your theory scientifically. First of all antimatter has positive energy and thus your universe can’t have zero energy. Second of all what is your argument for the mental universe to consist of antimatter? Antimatter would act exactly like matter. A positron has the exact same properties as an electron except opposite electric charge and lepton number. What property about antimatter makes you think that it would be connected to consciousness any more than matter? It is a complete unfounded statement; a blind guess.

    The idea of every cell being represented in the in the mental universe doesn’t make much sense. It is not the amount of cells that create intelligence or consciousness, but the connections between them.

    What about this universe before life began in this universe? Did it not exist?

    And if such mental universe existed why are all the “antiparticles” not interacting with each other? Why isn’t telepathy possible and used by every one?

    The random number generator experiments have all been refuted. And even if it was possible it doesn’t exactly support your theory as it would be antimatter interacting with matter (which would lead to annihilation).

    Consciousness is a very interesting area and one that we don’t know much about. But just mindlessly filling in the blanks with random guesses and some loosely interpreted quantum mechanics doesn’t lead to any new physics.

    • Hello again, nice to have a follower, it kind of get lonesome here in the bunker.

      First of all, it has not yet been established whether antimatter has negative or positive energy. Experiments are ongoing in present time.

      I am not saying that consciousness is antimatter. I am saying that mental energy consists of opposite energy to the energy we know in the physical universe. The opposite energy exists in close to infinite separate mental parallel universes, so the combined energy of all the universes is zero. When opposite energy and energy meet, antimatter and matter is created. The antimatter produced at CERN annihilates as soon as it is created, as well as virtual particles create and destroy constantly in the quantum field.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_interaction_of_antimatter

      Telepathy has not been confirmed but is probable according to experiments. Our ability to do telepathy, maybe hasn’t evolved in its full yet.

      If the experiments with antimatter shows that antimatter has the same mass as matter, then my theory is falsified. In that case I have a plan B.

      That will keep you busy.

  • Faisel B says:

    Matter and antimatter annihilates and creates high energy photons. They don’t annihilate and disappear. We can actually measure the energy of the photons and calculate the energy of the antimatter given the energy of the matter is known. It turns out that antimatter has the same energy (at rest) as its matter counterpart. This has been known since the thirties.

    The gravitational properties of antimatter has nothing to do with it having negative energy. The reason why it is a matter of interest is because we cannot assume how antimatter will react gravitationally when we haven’t measured it. There are three different predictions of how it would react and all these predictions are based on the fact that antimatter has positive energy.

    There is no evidence of telepathy, yet there have been many claims. The most likely conclusion of this is that telepathy is something we humans want to believe in. We are a gullible species.

    Basically what you are proposing is that every being has a parallel universe where our thoughts are. And then you try to impose the idea that the energy in total is zero. What about before there was life in the universe?

    Instead of coming up with a plan B I suggest you ask questions. Ask questions and consider all the different answers instead of just making one up. That would be a scientific approach.

  • “Matter and antimatter annihilates and creates high energy photons. They don’t annihilate and disappear.” Off course, I have never claimed anything else.

    “The gravitational properties of antimatter has nothing to do with it having negative energy.” e=mc2 is probably correct, so negative energy must give at least negative matter. It has to be confirmed whether that leads to negative gravitation.

    “What about before there was life in the universe?” That is a very good question. I am a strong believer, and I believe in eternity. There must have been physical universes before this one. Life (consciousness) has created this one, so why shouldn’t life have created universes before this?

    “Instead of coming up with a plan B I suggest you ask questions.” Oh, but I do. I am about making 8 TV shows about natural science, and a lot of questions to theorethical physicists, will be answered. Wait with patience, and they will be revealed on this blog, and fortunate for you, you will even be able to understand it, as you are a dane.

  • Faisel B says:

    Well actually you have claimed that antimatter has negative energy thus canceling out the energy of matter. In such case they would annihilate and disappear (assuming they have exact opposite energies). We know this not to be the case.

    You could at least have done a bit of research on this beforehand. You could also have learned the difference between gravity and energy before you use them in a theory.

    Your problem is as you mention that you are a believer. You already know which conclusions you want to reach and you manipulate facts and interpret things loosely to make it fit those conclusions.

    Your claims about consciousness having created this universe is not only completely unfounded, it is pseudo scientific claim made by people who don’t have the slightest clue about quantum mechanics.

    I rarely watch science programs on TV as I often find them to be superficial, inaccurate and sensationalistic.

  • Einstein was a believer too. I am sure that he believed in his theories before they became mainstream. A lot of researchers has the idea that consciousness has been here all along. The most renowned is Stuart Hameroff, an apprentice of Sir Roger Penrose.

    • Faisel B says:

      Einstein’s beliefs were founded in profound observations and their logical conclusions. It can in no way be compared to unfounded beliefs purely based on faith. I suggest you read his special relativity to see how he DEDUCTS the theory from the simple observation that the speed of light is measured the same whether we travel towards it or away from it. There is no guessing or personal beliefs involved.

      Everett’s Many World Theory has not formed consensus in the scientific community and it has lot’s of problems. Sean Carroll accuses other scientists of not giving it enough thought, but his own arguments for the many world interpretation aren’t convincing. Furthermore the many world interpretation does not account for entanglement.

      You claim that consciousness was here before life. What is that based on?

      • “You claim that consciousness was here before life. What is that based on?”

        A strong belief in eternity. My belief is that consciousness, life and universes has existed eternally. So if I have stated that consciousness was here before life, I will restate it this way. Life, consciousness and universes has been here in eternity. Life is 50% physical universe and 50% spirit. Entanglement shows that we are connected (one) in the physical universe. My basic assumption is that we are separate in spirit, parallel universes. I am not you. Hopefully we can agree on that.

    • Faisel B says:

      I have watched some of the video now. Everything points towards consciousness being a high complexity property. In his dismissal of this Hameroff makes two mistakes. He assumes that complexity is a matter of computational power when it is clearly not. Secondly he assumes that consciousness automatically arises when a system gets complex enough. There is no reason to assume that. We only know that consciousness can arise under these circumstances.

      Consciousness is a property that exists because of millions of years of evolution. Just because we can’t replicate it with a binary computational system does not in any way refute the theory that consciousness is property that can arise in a high complexity system and it does not support the theory of consciousness being fundamental or prior to the existence of universe.

      Furthermore he is contradicting himself when he talks about quantum computers. Quantum computers can be simulated on classical binary computer. And according to his logic we’ll then be able to simulate the brain on a classical computer. This is evidence in favour of consciousness being a high complexity property of nature.

      Hameroff here speaks of quantum mechanics which he obviously doesn’t know much about.

      • It is easy to contradict oneself in these highly philosophical questions. Hameroff doesn’t know much about quantum mechanics, but who does?. Bohr said that those who claimed to having understood it, definitely hadn’t understood one inch, or something like that.

  • Faisel B says:

    “It is easy to contradict oneself in these highly philosophical questions. Hameroff doesn’t know much about quantum mechanics, but who does?”

    You seem to set a very low standard for yourself. It is easy to contradict yourself when you don’t know the subject matter and you’re not really interested in discovering an underlying truth.

    You admit to your hypothesis being based on beliefs. This leads back to my initial statement, that this is neither science nor philosophy.

  • Name one single person who knows quantum mechanics and what it means. Those saying they know it, are mostly fanatic fundamentalists, and not part of scientific community.

    All new inventions and discoveries has been on the basis of a belief in the original idea. The ideas that can be proven and observed survive, the ideas that can’t be proven die eventually.

    Time will show whether my idea will die or survive.

  • Lou says:

    Very interesting theory. Your theory may actually be on the right track for what we know.
    I have a theory of my own: Science will never know the truth about the creation, for God has reserved that for (him/it)self. Could you imagine we crazy humans with such knowledge? Not happening!
    Keep working hard and using math to create new theories that go beyond the mainstream thinking. Mathematics and science will prove you right one day. Remember that many great thinkers have been called crazy at some point, so don’t let that get to you. Keep working!!!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Antimatter and “many world” interpretation in quantum mechanics at The Crestroyer Theory,.

meta

%d bloggers like this: