Parallel Universes: No longer science fiction

[Immortal]

This may not be science fiction anymore, but its the same gibberish to me.

 

[Padma]

I haven't kept up with physics as well as col has, but, yes, if our current theories about the observable universe are even close to true, we have to accept at least level 3 multiverse, and probably level 4.

I am reminded of a lecture years ago by Stephan Hawking, shortly after he came up with the "Law of Cosmic Censorship" (any singularity will always be "clothed" by an appropriate black hole, because in the vicinity of a "naked" singularity, *anything* is possible: cause & effect are non-existant!) The title of the lecture was "The Breakdown of Physics in the Vicinity of a Singularity". However, the title slide he used was "The Breakdown of Physicists in the Vicinity of a Singularity". Accompanied by an eerie chuckle from him....

 

[CenturionV]

i quit after the first few sentences.....if its based on the big bang its likely to be flawed and not worht my time.

 

[smalltalk]

CenturionV. the clou of this thread is, that is is not based on one assumption but on four different ones, from different angles of science.

 

[Perfection]

Am very much convinced that Levels 1&3 are true as they have expirimental evidence. I can accept levels 2&4 via anthropic principle.

I agree very good article

 

[EdwardTking]

There are a number of other theories for universes.

Our 3 dimensional universe is created by the collision
of two four dimensional universes; and when they
untangle - yes - we dissappear.

 

[MummyMan]

If you want to understand multiple universes, you should read Michael Crichton's Timeline, he has a very simple explanation that uses actual experiments done many times. Of course, with Crichton's books you start to question the validity of some of the things he talks about, obviously its fiction but usually its jsut a fictional storyline based on reality. Check it out, its a good read.

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by nihilistic


What I'm saying is:

1. There may not be every possibility however wide space is. One example of it is the space that contains nothing. Another is the space that contains what we can observe and nothing else (which is by far nowhere near "every possibility").

2. The proof that something must be repeated an infinite number of times is quite trivial in topology, but presenting it in plain english is well ... difficult. Let me give it with a translation:

[MATHSPEAK]
The union of a finite number of totally-bounded (think of it as being able to be contained within a block of finite lengh, width, etc.) subspaces (areas) is still totally bounded and thus cannot cover the totality of our universe, which was assumed to be unbounded. Suppose there are N states in which a particular totally-bounded subspace S can be in, then within k*N+1 dictinct subsets of our universe thyat congruent to S in area, there must be one state that is repeated k+1 times. Since we can choose k to be arbitrarily large, there is an arbitrarily large (or infinite) number of repititions of some configuration of subspaces congruent in area to S.
[/MATHSPEAK]

In short, if you have to choose a integer from 1 to n (where n is a integer, therefore obviously finite) a infinite number of times, you will inevitably end up choosing some integer an infinite number of times.

But if something is drawn at random (such as an integer), wouldn't it be possible (ulthough highly unlikely) that nothing is repeated? If not, then I don't see why it is not possible for everything to be drawn at least one time. However, I didn't understand the "mathspeak," which I imagine I would have to understand to get the full gist of what you're saying...

Originally posted by erez87
I very belive in parel universes in all levels' even the level 4.
BUT I belive that we couldn't move trough universes for a long long time, more 1000000000 years should pass befor...

Unless it is possible to travel faster than the speed of light (and it's not, is it?), no one could enter another universe because our own universe is expanding at the speed of light.

Originally posted by EdwardTking
There are a number of other theories for universes.

Our 3 dimensional universe is created by the collision
of two four dimensional universes; and when they
untangle - yes - we dissappear.

I thought most physicists think that there were once nine dimensions, and something caused our universe to have three dimensions. (I can't remember what, though.)

Edit: And thanks for the good website, Aphex Twin. I'll finish reading it in a little while.

 

[nihilistic]

Originally posted by WillJ
But if something is drawn at random (such as an integer), wouldn't it be possible (ulthough highly unlikely) that nothing is repeated? If not, then I don't see why it is not possible for everything to be drawn at least one time. However, I didn't understand the "mathspeak," which I imagine I would have to understand to get the full gist of what you're saying...

The assumption is that the number of arrrangements of subatomic particles are however large, but finite. If you repeatedly had to choose between a finite number of states an infinite number of times, at least one of those states will be chosen an infinite number of times.

 

[smalltalk]

nihilistic, otherwise, the number of states is so immense, that all permutations would not have been reached before the protons decay. (If something like that really occurs.)

 

[nihilistic]

Originally posted by smalltalk
nihilistic, otherwise, the number of states is so immense, that all permutations would not have been reached before the protons decay. (If something like that really occurs.)

It's not about time at all. It's the state of the supposedly infinite universe at any given frame of time. You are not counting as time progresses, you are taking everything into account at one time and saying that if an infinite number of things can only exhibit a finite number of states, then a certain state must be exhibited by a infinite number of things. I know that it may be difficult between very large numbers and an arbitrarily large number, but there is still a difference, and the difference is still arbitrarily large.

 

[smalltalk]

I hope, we are speaking of level 1 multiverses, else I'm terribly off.

Originally posted by nihilistic
The union of a finite number of totally-bounded ... subspaces is still totally bounded

I guess, Multiverse type 1 would only work with the union of an infinite number of universes.

 

[gael]

Does Quantum Mechanics have any practical use or goal, or is it just impressive sounding garble that intellectuals like to pass the time arguing about?

 

[EdwardTking]

Originally posted by gael
Does Quantum Mechanics have any practical use or goal, or is it just impressive sounding garble that intellectuals like to pass the time arguing about?

Actually there is a very real practical impact.

If you believe that there is only one universe and you are the only one Premier ***** with lots of biobombs/nukes etc; you may be much more reluctant to go to the very edge in brinkmanship ("careful - don't want to destroy the world; it is the only one we have") than if you believe this is just one of many realities ("it really doesn't matter if I press the button; because if I do the button won't be pressed by my counterpart in a parallel reality; and if I don't my counterpart will press it; and it is just a trivial matter of detail as to whether this version of me or another version of me is destroyed in the ensuing holcaust.")

 

[smalltalk]

Applications of quantum physics:

How about lasers, computers (i.e. transitors), electron microscope, nuclear magnetic resonance (medicin), superconductivity ...

 

[gael]

Originally posted by smalltalk
Applications of quantum physics:

How about lasers, computers (i.e. transitors), electron microscope, nuclear magnetic resonance (medicin), superconductivity ...

All of those came out of that bull...em...I mean Quantum Mechanics?

 

[smalltalk]

As for the BS part of quantum mechancis:
it is still a descriptive, mathematical thing. People are arguing about its meaning since the late 1920th Copenhagen Interpretation.

... the world is more freaky a place than the old sages ever prophecied.


EDIT:
oops, I forgot to mention solar panels in my above list.

 

[Sayounara]

Pretty neat stuff

 

[Furry Spatula]

I don't mean to bump this from the second page, But i find the poll results very intersting. People here bash religion based on its lack of proof and reliance on faith, Yet here we are with a resouding 22 ppl compared to the other options, at the time i wrote this, who are claiming they believe in parallel universes with no empirical evidence what so ever, none at all. Very interesting.

 

[col]

No empirical evidence?? There is hard, experimental, repeatable evidence supporting quantum mechanics.

Science at its very heart accepts that it is unprovable. The purpose of science is to disprove theories and scientists work very hard to do this. No-one has been able to find any evidence contradicting quantum mechanics in its current form. QM is not just BS - it's predictions check out with experiments to an amazing degree of accuracy in every respect.

"Parallel universes" is just a headline making convenient way to describe some of the implications of quantum mechanics.