Antimatter in the Multiverse

[greenfred]

Hello everyone.

 

Having read many different explanations as to why the quantum universe behaves the way it does, I am most drawn to the Many Worlds interpretation. It seems to me to best answer the largest range of experimental phenomena. However, I am still a bit hazy on how antimatter fits into it.

 

The main reason I ask is because of the recent CERN breakthrough where they managed to isolate antimatter(!)

 

Any light on the subject would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks.

 

 

[DrRocket]

Hello everyone.

 

Having read many different explanations as to why the quantum universe behaves the way it does, I am most drawn to the Many Worlds interpretation. It seems to me to best answer the largest range of experimental phenomena. However, I am still a bit hazy on how antimatter fits into it.

 

The main reason I ask is because of the recent CERN breakthrough where they managed to isolate antimatter(!)

 

Any light on the subject would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

Fermilab has been conducting proton-antiproton experiments for years.

 

http://www.fnal.gov/

 

What do you perceive as the issue with anti-matter in a many worlds interpretation of quantum theory ?

[greenfred]

What do you perceive as the issue with anti-matter in a many worlds interpretation of quantum theory ?

 

Thanks for answering. It probably isn't an issue actually. I think I might have just temporarily confused 'shadow' electrons with anti-electrons. Just that it isn't clear in my head and it would be nice if someone could spell it out.

 

So for example, you have an electron, and also 'shadow' electrons that temporarily interact with *our* electron, but only when they are doing the same thing. Do you also have shadow anti-electrons that act in the same way? And if so, what's the difference between antimatter and 'shadow' matter? Sorry if this is a stupid question, I'm not a physicist.

 

 

[greenfred]

Anyone?

 

Is it a reasonable question, or is no one answering because it's so stupid and obvious that people feel it's beneath them?

 

Thanks.

 

 

[swansont]

Anyone?

 

Is it a reasonable question, or is no one answering because it's so stupid and obvious that people feel it's beneath them?

 

Thanks.

 

I'm not sure what connection you're looking for between antimatter and the MWI, nor what "shadow matter" is. The question is too vaguely worded for me to answer.

[greenfred]

I'm not sure what connection you're looking for between antimatter and the MWI, nor what "shadow matter" is. The question is too vaguely worded for me to answer.

 

Hello swansnot. (Good name BTW.)

 

Okay, I'll try to explain as best I can what I mean. If it's okay, I'll start with our old friend the double slit experiment. Okay - and if you don't mind I'm going to stick with electrons for this example because its counterpart - the anti-electron (positron) is a different sort of thing (i.e. it has a +ve charge), whereas an anti-photon and a photon are the same thing entirely (and there are all sorts of issues with the directionality of time, that I don't properly understand,).

 

So, we fire an electron through the first slit. It then somehow makes its way through the two slits on the next screen and ends up at the back at a point which is consistent with a uniform pattern of interference. In other words, the electron has acted as though something has interfered with it and has deflected it accordingly. In the MWI the 'somethings' that are interfering with the electron are other (shadow) electrons, tangible only when they are following the same path of reality. They act in the same way as the electron that we can detect, and are only evident through inference after seeing how our detectable electron behaves (i.e. as though it was being deflected by other particles with the same physical properties).

 

My question is, does this apply to anti-electrons too (I think it probably must,) or are anti-electrons another way of explaining 'shadow' electrons, but within a different interpretation of interference phenomena?

 

Cheers.

 

 

 

P.S I hope it doesn't annoy everyone too much that I keep calling positrons 'anti-electrons'. It's just so that it's as clear as possible what I mean when comparing them to shadow electrons.

 

[Edited to change a 'which' to a 'with'.]

Edited March 7, 2011 by greenfred

[swansont]

AN interpretation is just that — an interpretation. It's a bridge to help understand quantum mechanics, but it is not a scientific model since it can't be tested.

 

Antimatter exists. The MWI has nothing special to say about that, as far as I know. MWI is an interpretation regarding the probabilities present in QM. If an electron can end up in two places, then there is a "world" in which it shows up in each place.

 

I still don't know what you mean by a shadow electron.