It’s my understanding–and boy could I be wrong about this–that the “many worlds” hypothesis didn’t merely posit other realities where Gore was president or the South won the Civil War, but posited a new Universe for every single quantum event. In other words, in the Universe Next Door, Bush is still president, the North still won, everything is exactly the same as it is in this universe, except one millisecond ago on a tiny moon in the Andromeda Galaxy, an ice outcropping emitted a photon, while in this universe it didn’t. You’d have to go through 10^(some huge number)^(some even bigger number)^(some number so big it actually has mass) universes before you found one with a measurable difference from ours, like said ice outcropping weighing a milligram more than it does here.
I’ll tell you yesterday.
You may be wrong, but if you are, so am I. This is how it was explained to me. It renders the notion pointless, IMHO.
vison writes:
> I have an awful time with Quantum Physics, that “hot and happenin’” field of
> modern science.
Quantum physics was hot and happening about ninety years ago. As I said in my post above, if someone really wants to learn about it, they should read a popular introduction to the subject (and completely ignore anything in Crichton). Nobody has suggested such books so far, so I’ll give a list of such books that I found online:
Fritjof, Capra The Tao of Physics
Gell-Mann, Murray The Quark and the Jaguar: Adventures in the Simple and the Complex
Greene, Brian The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory
Gribbin, John In Search of Schrödinger’s Cat: Quantum Physics and Reality
Gribbin, John The Matter Myth: Dramatic Discoveries That Challenge Our Understanding of Physical Reality
Hawking, Stephen A Brief History of Time
Kaku, Michio and Thompson, Jennifer Trainer Beyond Einstein: The Cosmic Quest for the Theory of the Universe
Thorne, Kip S. Black Holes and Time Warps: Einstein’s Outrageous Legacy
I call on those more knowledgeable about the subject than I to improve this list.
With due respect, I’d wastebin Capra and the Gribbin books (I haven’t read the second, but In Search of Schrödinger’s Cat contains a number of conceptual errors and tends to promote one interpretation of QM over others without basis). If the intent is to get an actual, if superficial, grounding in the fundamentals of modern physics, I’d start with Richard Feynman’s Six Easy Pieces, followed by Six Not So Easy Pieces, which are drawn from his more complete Feynman Lectures on Physics; the first covering basic atomic physics, the concepts of energy and gravitation, and (in the last section) the fundamentals of quantum mechanics; and the second going into detail on special relativity. These are presented in a somewhat conversational manner without too much math, but will provide a much better foundation for understanding physical behavior than pop science books (especially those that attempt to tie in physics with philosophy or theology).
Stranger
Yes, that is a book, and I’m sure you found it online. I made the mistake of reading it back in the mid 1980s, and I want that couple of weeks of my life back. That book is rubbish.
It basically makes the point that Quantum Mechanics is weird, and eastern philosophies are weird, therefore the ancient orient philosophers seemed to know about the Truth of the universe that “Western” science is only just now uncovering.
Pure rubbish.
I’ve read 2 of those books: Brian Greene’s and Stephen Hawking’s. I thought Greene’s was easier to understand. Somewhere I have the Feynman book Six Easy Pieces, but I confess I was a bit intimidated when I began it. I’ll dig it out and try it again.
Thanks for the list, Wendell Wagner.
Understand that Feynman isn’t (for the most part) a science popularizer, per se; Six Easy Pieces come from his now-famous lectures (compiled and put in published form by Robert Leighton and Matthew Sands) which were intended as an attempt to present a basic foundation on physics from classical mechanics through modern physics (quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, relativity) for an undergraduate audience. As such, he introduces concepts, and then moves into more rigorous mathematical descriptions. Like any classwork they require some study to ingest, but the basics, especially in Six Easy Pieces are pretty simple.
Of the science popularizers listed above, my favorite is Greene (despite his overarching obsession with Simpsons metaphors he stays pretty grounded, and qualifies his speculations when he does get away from accepted and tested theory), but if you approach the topic without starting out from a grounding in basic physics, it becomes kind of mystical nonsense rather than just a shift in thinking. To understand why relativity and QM are so revolutionary, you first need to understand the classical view of how things work and why the discovery that, on scales outside of normal experience, they don’t actually work that way is so extraordinary.
Stranger
It’s getting increasingly unlikely that I, personally, will ever get hold of a time machine. I tend to get upset when forced to deal with uncertainty. If I got a time machine, I would go back to uncertain times in my past (like when I had applied to colleges and was worried about where I would get in) and tell my past self how things turned out, especially if they turned out OK. I would have told my past self that she would get into the University of Maryland, and do well there, for example. That hasn’t happened, so…
Of course, it’s possible that I just happen to be the version of myself in the universe that no time travelling version of myself managed to get to. I do rather like the parallel worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
It’s also possible that I will eventually become convinced that being upset about uncertainty was somehow good for me, so I shouldn’t go back and tell myself how things turned out. Unlikely- I deeply believe that the whole “suffering builds character” idea is absolute rubbish. Even if it weren’t, I’d rather not suffer and have a weaker character, given the choice.
CurtC writes:
> Yes, that is a book, and I’m sure you found it online. I made the mistake of
> reading it back in the mid 1980s, and I want that couple of weeks of my life
> back. That book is rubbish.
Thanks for the warning. Could you now recommend some good introductory books about quantum physics? As you may notice, I asked people more knowledgeable about quantum physics than I to recommend some books back in post #16. I waited two days, but no one posted any recommendations, so I grabbed a list from a website on quantum physics. In any case, it’s better to read any of those books than some Michael Crichton novels, which are utter junk scientifically.
Backwards time travel violates causuality, so it is very likely impossible. Forward time travel is indeed possible, but owing to the huge amount of energy necessary, will also be impossible. I would propose a third idea:if space-time is indeed a continuum, then there ought to be some way to communicate along world lines-such that the likelyhood of future events could be predicted.
unfortunately, i don’y know how information could be transmitted along a world line.
that is for next week (stay tuned)
Brilliant.
I also enjoy Brian Greene. He goes to enormous lengths to get you to understand what he’s trying to explain, and his enthusiasm just carries you along. I would also recommend The Fabric of the Cosmos by him.
Marcus Chown is also very readable: in particular, Quantum Theory Cannot Hurt You.
While I am sure that Stranger is correct, as a beginner, I find Richard Feynman a little too difficult. I am working my way up to him. 
I find Stephen Hawkins a little dry, and I am puzzled by the amount of time he brings God into the equation. I’m not sure if he believes in him or not.