This question is especially relevant for the scientists who struggle on a daily basis to help us understand the "inner" reality of our universe.
There are some who define reality based on a quantitative mathematical analysis of observations.
For example, Quantum mechanics defines the "reality" or state of a quantum system in terms of the mathematical probability of finding that system in a particular configuration when an observation is made. This "reality" or wave function as it has come to be called gives the probability distribution that a system will be in any one of an infinite number of possible states when it is observed.
However, this wave function cannot tell us anything about the states or "reality" of that system before an observation takes place. This means that every possible or infinite number of quantum state or "realities" must exist for that system before an observation is made.
This may be why Niels Bohr, the farther of Quantum Mechanics said that
"If quantum mechanics hasn't profoundly shocked you, you haven't understood it yet."
However, others define reality in terms of cause and effect.
For example, Newton derived the laws of gravity by observing the effects objects had on other objects as they moved thought space. He then derived a mathematical equation, defining a "reality" which could predict the future movements based on observations of their earlier movements.
Both the wave function of quantum mechanics and Newton's gravitational laws are valid definitions of reality because they allow scientists to predict future events with considerable accuracy.
Nevertheless, the fact that they can make accurate predictions of observations does not mean they define the ultimate reality.
For example, at the time of their discovery Newton's gravitational laws allowed scientists to make extremely accurate predications of planetary movements based on their previous movements. However, they did not define the causality of the forces responsible for those laws.
But Einstein, in his General Theory of Relativity, showed there was room for an "alternative reality", by defining the causality of Newton's gravitational laws in terms of a physical curvature in space-time, which did not conflict with the "reality" of those laws for velocities that were small compared to the velocity of light.
As the NewScientist article, "Not so Spooky" Nov 3 2007 points out "experiments show quantum mechanics to be the most accurate physics theory in history. Not only does quantum theory make all the right predictions, physicists largely agree that modern experiments, combined with quantum theory's mathematics, leave no room for alternatives."
However, just as there was room for an alternative "reality" in Newton's laws, which defined the causality of gravitation, there may be room for an alternative "reality" defining the causality of the predictive powers of quantum theories.
As mentioned earlier the wave function defines the probably that a quantum system will be a certain state when it is observed but is says nothing about the causality of the mechanism responsible for the accuracy of those probabilities.
But the probably of an event occurring, like someone winning a lottery is calculated in part on the number of lottery tickets printed, how many winning tickets there are in that printing and how may tickets a person buys. This means the causality of a person winning a lottery is based on the "reality" or physical existence of certain number of tickets and the how many were bought by that person.
The accuracy of quantum theories may rule out an alternative for its predictive "reality" but it does not rule out an alternative "reality" which would define the causality of its predictive powers.
As mentioned earlier the probability of purchasing a winning lottery ticket is not based on an infinite number of abstract possibilities but on the "reality" of the physical existence of a finite number of tickets and how many a person buys.
Similarly, the probability of a particular event occurring when a quantum system is observed may not be related to an infinite number of abstract probabilities defined by a wave function but to a physical existence of some finite component of space and number of events that can occur in that space.
One possible alternative "reality" that could define the causality of the probability distribution of a quantum system in terms of a finite quantity can be found at http://www.theimagineershome.com/shadows.html
» left by Linda Preston(506) (65 days 17 hours ago.)
Interesting. I offer ponder on the subject myself. The universe is a strange, strange place of which we yet know very little. Respond to this comment
Was
this article helpful to you? Leave a Public Comment or Question:
This Article has been viewed 15 times.
Article added to SearchWarp.com on Monday, June 16, 2008 View other articles written by An Imagineer(0)
If you found this article
interesting, you may want to check out:
Disclaimer: All information on this site is
provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice
provided to you by any health care or other professional or
organization.
