http://tech.uk.msn.com/news/article.aspx?c...umentid=6212162
But if all they've proven is that they fit nicely with a number of mathematical conundrums, should they be saying that parallel universes definitely exist?
Tough one. We'll have to wait for AN to enliven the discussion, but how about this:
If an observation causes a collapse of a wave function, the (assumed) cloud of parallel universes existed in the moment before the observation. Sum-over-histories brings us to _a_ now, and there's no way to know _which_ now, any more than what _will_ happen next. If God does play dice, he gets _all_ the rolls at one time... So, there.
If an observation causes a collapse of a wave function, the (assumed) cloud of parallel universes existed in the moment before the observation. Sum-over-histories brings us to _a_ now, and there's no way to know _which_ now, any more than what _will_ happen next. If God does play dice, he gets _all_ the rolls at one time... So, there.
So what happens in the universes where no life is present? If parallel universes come about due to observations, what happens in the universes where there isnt any mechanism present to observe. Afterall, they must exists at some level of probability, right?
An observation in this sense doesn't require that you be present. 
I meant any and all mechanisms to "observe" in the sense of the proposed theory.
The theory itself lends the possibility that a parallel universe could exist where there is no observation present. My question is what happens in that universe?
I would assume that nothing happens and an unobservable universe simply exists not doing anything within itself. It just exists.
The theory itself lends the possibility that a parallel universe could exist where there is no observation present. My question is what happens in that universe?
I would assume that nothing happens and an unobservable universe simply exists not doing anything within itself. It just exists.
The point is that a parallel universe is infinitesimally different from its neighbors at the moment of observation, so nearly the same thing happens 'there' as does 'here'. Discussing 'which' universe we belong to is meaningless.
There is a parallel dimensional rip right inside the center of the Bermuda Triangle, where do you think all those planes and ships disappeared too? Answer = they traveled through a dimensional rip between the parellel dimensions, as Einstein said, our dimensional universe is on parellel beside another dimension similar to ours and a dimensional rip or wormhole is the part that connects the 2 together. What happens in the seperate parallel universe beside ours? well, we can only imagine what our world would be like if Hitler took control of the world, or if Greece didn't conquer Persia, but instead Persia conquered the world instead of the Europeans, thus we might probably all be enslaved under the command of Ahmajinadad, which then the most important event in the U.S. wouldn't be the American Revolution, but the Iraqi Revolution in the Middle-East, Iraq qould be the most powerful democratic nation in the world, and Osama Bin Laden would probably be one of the most important five-star generals trying to maintain the stability in America. As for Israel, it wouldn't be there, because Jesus Christ never existed.
Quick, everybody agree with the dangerous nutcase before he whips out some pyramid BS!
Since when did you become the whako magnet, Sapo?
QUOTE (Gehn+Sep 24 2007, 06:07 PM)
http://tech.uk.msn.com/news/article.aspx?c...umentid=6212162
But if all they've proven is that they fit nicely with a number of mathematical conundrums, should they be saying that parallel universes definitely exist?
Parallel brain cells is whats needed... You're out of luck! since you only have one.
But if all they've proven is that they fit nicely with a number of mathematical conundrums, should they be saying that parallel universes definitely exist?
Parallel brain cells is whats needed... You're out of luck! since you only have one.
QUOTE (Ron+Oct 11 2007, 02:00 PM)
Since when did you become the whako magnet, Sapo?
Thanks, I think. I thought Rabbit needed the help?
Thanks, I think. I thought Rabbit needed the help?
A motorist who has a near miss, for instance, might feel relieved at his lucky escape. But in a parallel universe, another version of the same driver will have been killed. Yet another universe will see the motorist recover after treatment in hospital. The number of alternative scenarios is endless.
is far from being proved experimentally, then disappearing gravitons or sparticles. i think the champagne should be saved until at least after LHC fires up.
if extra dimensions are experimentally detected, can it be assumed that the many-worlds interpretation is correct to the extent that the other dimensions are spatial and temporal ? if there are 3+1 (for the first motorist) and a further n(3+1), then are we not talking about quantization of infinite dimensions?
how is the information transferred to the second, third etc universe ie how does each universe continue the scenario. is an infinite amount of information being created?
is far from being proved experimentally, then disappearing gravitons or sparticles. i think the champagne should be saved until at least after LHC fires up.
if extra dimensions are experimentally detected, can it be assumed that the many-worlds interpretation is correct to the extent that the other dimensions are spatial and temporal ? if there are 3+1 (for the first motorist) and a further n(3+1), then are we not talking about quantization of infinite dimensions?
how is the information transferred to the second, third etc universe ie how does each universe continue the scenario. is an infinite amount of information being created?
QUOTE (ASSBAG+Sep 25 2007, 09:11 AM)
I meant any and all mechanisms to "observe" in the sense of the proposed theory.
The theory itself lends the possibility that a parallel universe could exist where there is no observation present. My question is what happens in that universe?
I would assume that nothing happens and an unobservable universe simply exists not doing anything within itself. It just exists.
Observation does not imply intelligence.
The theory itself lends the possibility that a parallel universe could exist where there is no observation present. My question is what happens in that universe?
I would assume that nothing happens and an unobservable universe simply exists not doing anything within itself. It just exists.
Observation does not imply intelligence.
Sometimes, even a response to an observation can't be evidence of intelligence. 
Sorry, got cut off. Perhaps other dimensions are nothing more then the "legs on a chair". You will not notice them until one is missing. To take into account that which we can not see/hear/smell and assume such things don't exist, can you see smell or feel x-rays, radio? We know such things exist because we can build machines that "convert" that frequency into something we can detect...
Its all QM, let's say that there is an infinite of QM solutions to any possible outcome of an observation. Let's also say that they all exist. From that doesn't follow that every such 'universe' also will have its macroscopic equivalence (us:) . If we only allow it to exist on the QM level it will gain the same status as 'virtual particles' :)
There but not really there ::))
There but not really there ::))
So true. Like many of our esteemed members? No matter. (Pun intended 
)
QUOTE
If an observation causes a collapse of a wave function,
That seems like an old interpretation that has fallen out of favor. It intuitively and logically inconsistant.
QUOTE (3Uo+Oct 14 2007, 02:28 PM)
That seems like an old interpretation that has fallen out of favor. It intuitively and logically inconsistant.
I'm just a really old interpreter, dude. How 'bout some slack?
I'm just a really old interpreter, dude.
How 'bout some slack?
Parallel Universes is crackpot pseudoscience garbage. Really. There is absolutely no evidence for it, and it should be kicked totally into touch.
QUOTE (Farsight+Oct 17 2007, 12:27 PM)
Parallel Universes is crackpot pseudoscience garbage. Really. There is absolutely no evidence for it, and it should be kicked totally into touch.
How would you propose finding or disputing evidence of that? You should be kicked totally in the tush.
How would you propose finding or disputing evidence of that? You should be kicked totally in the tush.
QUOTE
Farsight Posted: Today at 3:27 AM Parallel Universes is crackpot pseudoscience garbage. Really. There is absolutely no evidence for it, and it should be kicked totally into touch.
an entire universe is a large leap... however if extra dimensions are detected (at LHC), where does it end? 1 extra dimension, 2, 3, maybe enough for an entire universe?
whether the path is theory>experiment or experiment>theory it is classified as science, is it not ? the theory of extra dimensions provides a means for experimental verification, i class this a sound science.
QUOTE (Sapo+Oct 17 2007, 07:06 PM)
How would you propose finding or disputing evidence of that? You should be kicked totally in the tush.
Sorry Sapo. There is no evidence for Parallel Universes. That's the notion that should be totally kicked into touch. Now watch my lips: there is no evidence for Parallel Universes. The idea is crackpot. If you dispute that, show me some.
Sorry Sapo. There is no evidence for Parallel Universes. That's the notion that should be totally kicked into touch. Now watch my lips: there is no evidence for Parallel Universes. The idea is crackpot. If you dispute that, show me some.
QUOTE (Farsight+Oct 18 2007, 09:58 AM)
Sorry Sapo. There is no evidence for Parallel Universes. That's the notion that should be totally kicked into touch. Now watch my lips: there is no evidence for Parallel Universes. The idea is crackpot. If you dispute that, show me some.
Aha! I found some great evidence for you, Farsight -
"The earliest known records describing the concept of a multiverse are found in ancient Hindu cosmology, in texts such as the Puranas. They expressed the idea of an infinite number of universes, each with its own gods, inhabitants and planets, and an infinite cycle of births, deaths, and rebirths of a universe, with each cycle lasting 8.4 billion years. The belief is too that the number of universes are infinite."
- Wikipedia
*gasp*
For you, Farsight, that must be solid evidence.
Here's something a bit more substancial:
Science fiction looks closer to becoming science fact, reports Roger Highfield
Parallel universes really do exist, according to a mathematical discovery by Oxford scientists that sweeps away one of the key objections to the mind boggling and controversial idea.
Time travellers: David Tennant as Doctor Who with Billie Piper as Rose
Time travellers: David Tennant as Doctor Who with Billie Piper as Rose
The work has wider implications since the idea of parallel universes sidesteps one of the key problems with time travel. Every since it was given serious lab cred in 1949 by the great logician Kurt Godel, many eminent physicists have argued against time travel because it undermines ideas of cause and effect to create paradoxes: a time traveller could go back to kill his grandfather so that he is never born in the first place.
But the existence of parallel worlds offers a way around these troublesome paradoxes, according to David Deutsch of Oxford University, a highly respected proponent of quantum theory, the deeply mathematical, successful and baffling theory of the atomic world.
He argues that time travel shifts between different branches of reality, basing his claim on parallel universes, the so-called "many-worlds" formulation of quantum theory.
The new work bolsters his claim that quantum theory does not forbid time travel. "It does sidestep it. You go into another universe," he said yesterday, though he admits that there is still a way to go to find schemes to manipulate space and time in a way that makes time hops possible.
advertisement
"Many sci fi authors suggested time travel paradoxes would be solved by parallel universes but in my work, that conclusion is deduced from quantum theory itself", Dr Deutsch said, referring to his work on many worlds.
The mathematical idea of parallel worlds was first glimpsed by the great quantum pioneer, Erwin Schrodinger, but actually published in 1957 by Hugh Everett III, when wrestling with the problem of what actually happens when an observation is made of something of interest - such as an electron or an atom - with the intention of measuring its position or its speed.
In the traditional brand of quantum mechanics, a mathematical object called a wave function, which contains all possible outcomes of a measurement experiment, "collapses" to give a single real outcome.
Everett came up with a more audacious interpretation: the universe is constantly and infinitely splitting, so that no collapse takes place. Every possible outcome of an experimental measurement occurs, each one in a parallel universe.
If one accepts Everett's interpretation, our universe is embedded in an infinitely larger and more complex structure called the multiverse, which as a good approximation can be regarded as an ever-multiplying mass of parallel universes.
Every time there is an event at the quantum level - a radioactive atom decaying, for example, or a particle of light impinging on your retina - the universe is supposed to "split" into different universes.
A motorist who has a near miss, for instance, might feel relieved at his lucky escape. But in a parallel universe, another version of the same driver will have been killed. Yet another universe will see the motorist recover after treatment in hospital. The number of alternative scenarios is endless.
In this way, the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics allows a time traveller to alter the past without producing problems such as the notorious grandfather paradox.
But the "many worlds" idea has been attacked, with one theoretician joking that it is "cheap on assumptions but expensive on universes" and others that it is "repugnant to common sense."
Now new research confirms Prof Deutsch's ideas and suggests that Dr Everett, who was a Phd student at Princeton University when he came up with the theory, was on the right track.
Commenting in New Scientist magazine, Prof Andy Albrecht, a physicist at the University of California, Davis, said of the link between probability and many worlds: "This work will go down as one of the most important developments in the history of science."
Quantum mechanics describes the strange things that happen in the subatomic world - such as the way photons and electrons behave both as particles and waves. By one interpretation, nothing at the subatomic scale can really be said to exist until it is observed.
Until then, particles occupy nebulous "superposition" states, in which they can have simultaneous "up" and "down" spins, or appear to be in different places at the same time.
According to quantum mechanics, unobserved particles are described by "wave functions" representing a set of multiple "probable" states. When an observer makes a measurement, the particle then settles down into one of these multiple options.
But the many worlds idea offers an alternative view. Dr Deutsch showed mathematically that the bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes. This work was attacked but it has now had rigorous confirmation by David Wallace and Simon Saunders, also at Oxford.
Dr Saunders, who presented the work with Wallace at the Many Worlds at 50 conference at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada, told New Scientist: "We've cleared up the obscurities and come up with a pretty clear verdict that Everett works. It's a dramatic turnaround and it means that people now have to discuss Everett seriously."
Dr Deutsch added that the work addresses a three-century-old problem with the idea of probability itself, described by one philosopher, Prof David Papineau, as a scandal. "We didn't really know what probability means," said Dr Deutsch.
There's a convention that it's rational to treat it for most purposes as if we knew it was going to happen even though we actually know it need not. But this does not capture the reality, not least the 0.1 per cent chance something will not happen.
"So," said Dr Deutsch, "the problems of probability, which were until recently considered the principal objection to the otherwise extremely elegant theory of Everett (which removes every element of mysticism and double-talk that have crept into quantum theory over the decades) have now turned into its principal selling point."
- "The Telegraph"
- Gehn
Aha! I found some great evidence for you, Farsight -
"The earliest known records describing the concept of a multiverse are found in ancient Hindu cosmology, in texts such as the Puranas. They expressed the idea of an infinite number of universes, each with its own gods, inhabitants and planets, and an infinite cycle of births, deaths, and rebirths of a universe, with each cycle lasting 8.4 billion years. The belief is too that the number of universes are infinite."
- Wikipedia
*gasp*
For you, Farsight, that must be solid evidence.
Here's something a bit more substancial:
Science fiction looks closer to becoming science fact, reports Roger Highfield
Parallel universes really do exist, according to a mathematical discovery by Oxford scientists that sweeps away one of the key objections to the mind boggling and controversial idea.
Time travellers: David Tennant as Doctor Who with Billie Piper as Rose
Time travellers: David Tennant as Doctor Who with Billie Piper as Rose
The work has wider implications since the idea of parallel universes sidesteps one of the key problems with time travel. Every since it was given serious lab cred in 1949 by the great logician Kurt Godel, many eminent physicists have argued against time travel because it undermines ideas of cause and effect to create paradoxes: a time traveller could go back to kill his grandfather so that he is never born in the first place.
But the existence of parallel worlds offers a way around these troublesome paradoxes, according to David Deutsch of Oxford University, a highly respected proponent of quantum theory, the deeply mathematical, successful and baffling theory of the atomic world.
He argues that time travel shifts between different branches of reality, basing his claim on parallel universes, the so-called "many-worlds" formulation of quantum theory.
The new work bolsters his claim that quantum theory does not forbid time travel. "It does sidestep it. You go into another universe," he said yesterday, though he admits that there is still a way to go to find schemes to manipulate space and time in a way that makes time hops possible.
advertisement
"Many sci fi authors suggested time travel paradoxes would be solved by parallel universes but in my work, that conclusion is deduced from quantum theory itself", Dr Deutsch said, referring to his work on many worlds.
The mathematical idea of parallel worlds was first glimpsed by the great quantum pioneer, Erwin Schrodinger, but actually published in 1957 by Hugh Everett III, when wrestling with the problem of what actually happens when an observation is made of something of interest - such as an electron or an atom - with the intention of measuring its position or its speed.
In the traditional brand of quantum mechanics, a mathematical object called a wave function, which contains all possible outcomes of a measurement experiment, "collapses" to give a single real outcome.
Everett came up with a more audacious interpretation: the universe is constantly and infinitely splitting, so that no collapse takes place. Every possible outcome of an experimental measurement occurs, each one in a parallel universe.
If one accepts Everett's interpretation, our universe is embedded in an infinitely larger and more complex structure called the multiverse, which as a good approximation can be regarded as an ever-multiplying mass of parallel universes.
Every time there is an event at the quantum level - a radioactive atom decaying, for example, or a particle of light impinging on your retina - the universe is supposed to "split" into different universes.
A motorist who has a near miss, for instance, might feel relieved at his lucky escape. But in a parallel universe, another version of the same driver will have been killed. Yet another universe will see the motorist recover after treatment in hospital. The number of alternative scenarios is endless.
In this way, the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics allows a time traveller to alter the past without producing problems such as the notorious grandfather paradox.
But the "many worlds" idea has been attacked, with one theoretician joking that it is "cheap on assumptions but expensive on universes" and others that it is "repugnant to common sense."
Now new research confirms Prof Deutsch's ideas and suggests that Dr Everett, who was a Phd student at Princeton University when he came up with the theory, was on the right track.
Commenting in New Scientist magazine, Prof Andy Albrecht, a physicist at the University of California, Davis, said of the link between probability and many worlds: "This work will go down as one of the most important developments in the history of science."
Quantum mechanics describes the strange things that happen in the subatomic world - such as the way photons and electrons behave both as particles and waves. By one interpretation, nothing at the subatomic scale can really be said to exist until it is observed.
Until then, particles occupy nebulous "superposition" states, in which they can have simultaneous "up" and "down" spins, or appear to be in different places at the same time.
According to quantum mechanics, unobserved particles are described by "wave functions" representing a set of multiple "probable" states. When an observer makes a measurement, the particle then settles down into one of these multiple options.
But the many worlds idea offers an alternative view. Dr Deutsch showed mathematically that the bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes. This work was attacked but it has now had rigorous confirmation by David Wallace and Simon Saunders, also at Oxford.
Dr Saunders, who presented the work with Wallace at the Many Worlds at 50 conference at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada, told New Scientist: "We've cleared up the obscurities and come up with a pretty clear verdict that Everett works. It's a dramatic turnaround and it means that people now have to discuss Everett seriously."
Dr Deutsch added that the work addresses a three-century-old problem with the idea of probability itself, described by one philosopher, Prof David Papineau, as a scandal. "We didn't really know what probability means," said Dr Deutsch.
There's a convention that it's rational to treat it for most purposes as if we knew it was going to happen even though we actually know it need not. But this does not capture the reality, not least the 0.1 per cent chance something will not happen.
"So," said Dr Deutsch, "the problems of probability, which were until recently considered the principal objection to the otherwise extremely elegant theory of Everett (which removes every element of mysticism and double-talk that have crept into quantum theory over the decades) have now turned into its principal selling point."
- "The Telegraph"
- Gehn
QUOTE (Gehn+Oct 18 2007, 10:10 AM)
Aha! I found some great evidence for you, Farsight -
"The earliest known records describing the concept of a multiverse are found in ancient Hindu cosmology, in texts such as the Puranas. They expressed the idea of an infinite number of universes, each with its own gods, inhabitants and planets, and an infinite cycle of births, deaths, and rebirths of a universe, with each cycle lasting 8.4 billion years. The belief is too that the number of universes are infinite."
LOL, Hindu texts? You call that evidence?
Garbage. It's an idea. Not evidence. And don't give me Time travellers: David Tennant as Doctor Who with Billie Piper as Rose because time travel is just more crackpot garbage.
Garbage. It's an idea. Not evidence. And don't give me Time travellers: David Tennant as Doctor Who with Billie Piper as Rose because time travel is just more crackpot garbage.
The work has wider implications since the idea of parallel universes sidesteps one of the key problems with time travel. Every since it was given serious lab cred in 1949 by the great logician Kurt Godel,
No, Kurt Godel proved that time had not passed if you could visit the past. He proved that time travel is nonsense. But airheads who "believe" in time travel read it totally back to front.
Quite right. The result is absurdity. Nonsense.
Quite right. The result is absurdity. Nonsense.
But the existence of parallel worlds offers a way around these troublesome paradoxes, according to David Deutsch of Oxford University, a highly respected proponent of quantum theory, the deeply mathematical, successful and baffling theory of the atomic world.
What paradoxes? There is no time travel because time is an emergent property of motion, like heat. You can't travel to a higher temperature.
DD doesn't understand what a particle is. I've seen his video lecture. He think's it's a point. He doesn't understand wave/particle duality, and non-locality.
DD doesn't understand what a particle is. I've seen his video lecture. He think's it's a point. He doesn't understand wave/particle duality, and non-locality.
"Many sci fi authors suggested time travel paradoxes would be solved by parallel universes but in my work, that conclusion is deduced from quantum theory itself", Dr Deutsch said, referring to his work on many worlds.
Righty, great evidence, sci fi! LOL!
Schrodinger recanted. Didn't you know? And an electron is not a point. You know that thing called "charge" that an electron has? Extending out into space? Well guess what. It's part of what the electron is. It's a topoligcal defect, the result of a distance variation in space tied in a trivial knot.
Schrodinger recanted. Didn't you know? And an electron is not a point. You know that thing called "charge" that an electron has? Extending out into space? Well guess what. It's part of what the electron is. It's a topoligcal defect, the result of a distance variation in space tied in a trivial knot.
In the traditional brand of quantum mechanics, a mathematical object called a wave function, which contains all possible outcomes of a measurement experiment, "collapses" to give a single real outcome.
"The earliest known records describing the concept of a multiverse are found in ancient Hindu cosmology, in texts such as the Puranas. They expressed the idea of an infinite number of universes, each with its own gods, inhabitants and planets, and an infinite cycle of births, deaths, and rebirths of a universe, with each cycle lasting 8.4 billion years. The belief is too that the number of universes are infinite."
LOL, Hindu texts? You call that evidence?
QUOTE
Here's something a bit more substancial:
Science fiction looks closer to becoming science fact, reports Roger Highfield
Parallel universes really do exist, according to a mathematical discovery by Oxford scientists that sweeps away one of the key objections to the mind boggling and controversial idea.
Science fiction looks closer to becoming science fact, reports Roger Highfield
Parallel universes really do exist, according to a mathematical discovery by Oxford scientists that sweeps away one of the key objections to the mind boggling and controversial idea.
Garbage. It's an idea. Not evidence. And don't give me Time travellers: David Tennant as Doctor Who with Billie Piper as Rose because time travel is just more crackpot garbage.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Here's something a bit more substancial: Science fiction looks closer to becoming science fact, reports Roger Highfield Parallel universes really do exist, according to a mathematical discovery by Oxford scientists that sweeps away one of the key objections to the mind boggling and controversial idea. |
Garbage. It's an idea. Not evidence. And don't give me Time travellers: David Tennant as Doctor Who with Billie Piper as Rose because time travel is just more crackpot garbage.
The work has wider implications since the idea of parallel universes sidesteps one of the key problems with time travel. Every since it was given serious lab cred in 1949 by the great logician Kurt Godel,
No, Kurt Godel proved that time had not passed if you could visit the past. He proved that time travel is nonsense. But airheads who "believe" in time travel read it totally back to front.
QUOTE
..many eminent physicists have argued against time travel because it undermines ideas of cause and effect to create paradoxes: a time traveller could go back to kill his grandfather so that he is never born in the first place.
Quite right. The result is absurdity. Nonsense.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ..many eminent physicists have argued against time travel because it undermines ideas of cause and effect to create paradoxes: a time traveller could go back to kill his grandfather so that he is never born in the first place. |
Quite right. The result is absurdity. Nonsense.
But the existence of parallel worlds offers a way around these troublesome paradoxes, according to David Deutsch of Oxford University, a highly respected proponent of quantum theory, the deeply mathematical, successful and baffling theory of the atomic world.
What paradoxes? There is no time travel because time is an emergent property of motion, like heat. You can't travel to a higher temperature.
QUOTE
He argues that time travel shifts between different branches of reality, basing his claim on parallel universes, the so-called "many-worlds" formulation of quantum theory. The new work bolsters his claim that quantum theory does not forbid time travel. "It does sidestep it. You go into another universe," he said yesterday, though he admits that there is still a way to go to find schemes to manipulate space and time in a way that makes time hops possible.
DD doesn't understand what a particle is. I've seen his video lecture. He think's it's a point. He doesn't understand wave/particle duality, and non-locality.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| He argues that time travel shifts between different branches of reality, basing his claim on parallel universes, the so-called "many-worlds" formulation of quantum theory. The new work bolsters his claim that quantum theory does not forbid time travel. "It does sidestep it. You go into another universe," he said yesterday, though he admits that there is still a way to go to find schemes to manipulate space and time in a way that makes time hops possible. |
DD doesn't understand what a particle is. I've seen his video lecture. He think's it's a point. He doesn't understand wave/particle duality, and non-locality.
"Many sci fi authors suggested time travel paradoxes would be solved by parallel universes but in my work, that conclusion is deduced from quantum theory itself", Dr Deutsch said, referring to his work on many worlds.
Righty, great evidence, sci fi! LOL!
QUOTE
The mathematical idea of parallel worlds was first glimpsed by the great quantum pioneer, Erwin Schrodinger, but actually published in 1957 by Hugh Everett III, when wrestling with the problem of what actually happens when an observation is made of something of interest - such as an electron or an atom - with the intention of measuring its position or its speed.
Schrodinger recanted. Didn't you know? And an electron is not a point. You know that thing called "charge" that an electron has? Extending out into space? Well guess what. It's part of what the electron is. It's a topoligcal defect, the result of a distance variation in space tied in a trivial knot.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The mathematical idea of parallel worlds was first glimpsed by the great quantum pioneer, Erwin Schrodinger, but actually published in 1957 by Hugh Everett III, when wrestling with the problem of what actually happens when an observation is made of something of interest - such as an electron or an atom - with the intention of measuring its position or its speed. |
Schrodinger recanted. Didn't you know? And an electron is not a point. You know that thing called "charge" that an electron has? Extending out into space? Well guess what. It's part of what the electron is. It's a topoligcal defect, the result of a distance variation in space tied in a trivial knot.
In the traditional brand of quantum mechanics, a mathematical object called a wave function, which contains all possible outcomes of a measurement experiment, "collapses" to give a single real outcome.
No, you have to think in these terms: the wave function is the particle. A photon really is a wave, of distance variation propagating through space. Tie it in a knot and voila, an electron.
QUOTE
Everett came up with a more audacious interpretation: the universe is constantly and infinitely splitting, so that no collapse takes place. Every possible outcome of an experimental measurement occurs, each one in a parallel universe.
An audacious crackpot interpretation. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Everett came up with a more audacious interpretation: the universe is constantly and infinitely splitting, so that no collapse takes place. Every possible outcome of an experimental measurement occurs, each one in a parallel universe. |
An audacious crackpot interpretation.
If one accepts Everett's interpretation, our universe is embedded in an infinitely larger and more complex structure called the multiverse, which as a good approximation can be regarded as an ever-multiplying mass of parallel universes.
If one accepts Everett's interpretation, our universe is embedded in an infinitely larger and more complex structure called the multiverse, which as a good approximation can be regarded as an ever-multiplying mass of parallel universes.
Oh geddoutofit.
LOL!
LOL!
A motorist who has a near miss, for instance, might feel relieved at his lucky escape. But in a parallel universe, another version of the same driver will have been killed. Yet another universe will see the motorist recover after treatment in hospital. The number of alternative scenarios is endless. In this way, the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics allows a time traveller to alter the past without producing problems such as the notorious grandfather paradox.
Total, total, garbage.
Yep, and it's nonsense too.
Yep, and it's nonsense too.
Now new research confirms Prof Deutsch's ideas and suggests that Dr Everett, who was a Phd student at Princeton University when he came up with the theory, was on the right track. Commenting in New Scientist magazine, Prof Andy Albrecht, a physicist at the University of California, Davis, said of the link between probability and many worlds: "This work will go down as one of the most important developments in the history of science."
No, it doesn't confirm anything. It's just more garbage pseudoscience B/S.
It ain't strange once you understand it. And then you realise how all this not-existing unless observed is just utter tripe.
It ain't strange once you understand it. And then you realise how all this not-existing unless observed is just utter tripe.
Until then, particles occupy nebulous "superposition" states, in which they can have simultaneous "up" and "down" spins, or appear to be in different places at the same time.
Because they are in different places at the same time. Like a shout is in different places at the same time. Try thinking in terms of "shout particles" and you end up with parallel-universe time-travelling babble like all this.
True. Because the particles are not points.
True. Because the particles are not points.
But the many worlds idea offers an alternative view. Dr Deutsch showed mathematically that the bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes. This work was attacked but it has now had rigorous confirmation by David Wallace and Simon Saunders, also at Oxford.
Oh right, "showed mathematically". Oh right, that's evidence is it then? Garbage.
Crackpot.
Crackpot.
Dr Deutsch added that the work addresses a three-century-old problem with the idea of probability itself, described by one philosopher, Prof David Papineau, as a scandal. "We didn't really know what probability means," said Dr Deutsch.
Yes we do.
Oh cringe. David Deutsche. King of the Crackpots.
And still not a scrap of evidence, Gehn.
i can detect the first 3 if walk to my front door, turn left into the elevator and go down to the ground floor.
i can detect the first 3 if walk to my front door, turn left into the elevator and go down to the ground floor.
heretic Posted on Yesterday at 2:28 PM How do you suppose you detect an "extra" dimension?
my-walk-to-the-shop-atron is not set up to experiment with potential extra dimensions because funding went here http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007hep.ph....1186A ...
QUOTE
Every time there is an event at the quantum level - a radioactive atom decaying, for example, or a particle of light impinging on your retina - the universe is supposed to "split" into different universes.
LOL!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Every time there is an event at the quantum level - a radioactive atom decaying, for example, or a particle of light impinging on your retina - the universe is supposed to "split" into different universes. |
LOL!
A motorist who has a near miss, for instance, might feel relieved at his lucky escape. But in a parallel universe, another version of the same driver will have been killed. Yet another universe will see the motorist recover after treatment in hospital. The number of alternative scenarios is endless. In this way, the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics allows a time traveller to alter the past without producing problems such as the notorious grandfather paradox.
Total, total, garbage.
QUOTE
But the "many worlds" idea has been attacked, with one theoretician joking that it is "cheap on assumptions but expensive on universes" and others that it is "repugnant to common sense."
Yep, and it's nonsense too.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But the "many worlds" idea has been attacked, with one theoretician joking that it is "cheap on assumptions but expensive on universes" and others that it is "repugnant to common sense." |
Yep, and it's nonsense too.
Now new research confirms Prof Deutsch's ideas and suggests that Dr Everett, who was a Phd student at Princeton University when he came up with the theory, was on the right track. Commenting in New Scientist magazine, Prof Andy Albrecht, a physicist at the University of California, Davis, said of the link between probability and many worlds: "This work will go down as one of the most important developments in the history of science."
No, it doesn't confirm anything. It's just more garbage pseudoscience B/S.
QUOTE
Quantum mechanics describes the strange things that happen in the subatomic world - such as the way photons and electrons behave both as particles and waves. By one interpretation, nothing at the subatomic scale can really be said to exist until it is observed.
It ain't strange once you understand it. And then you realise how all this not-existing unless observed is just utter tripe.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Quantum mechanics describes the strange things that happen in the subatomic world - such as the way photons and electrons behave both as particles and waves. By one interpretation, nothing at the subatomic scale can really be said to exist until it is observed. |
It ain't strange once you understand it. And then you realise how all this not-existing unless observed is just utter tripe.
Until then, particles occupy nebulous "superposition" states, in which they can have simultaneous "up" and "down" spins, or appear to be in different places at the same time.
Because they are in different places at the same time. Like a shout is in different places at the same time. Try thinking in terms of "shout particles" and you end up with parallel-universe time-travelling babble like all this.
QUOTE
According to quantum mechanics, unobserved particles are described by "wave functions" representing a set of multiple "probable" states. When an observer makes a measurement, the particle then settles down into one of these multiple options.
True. Because the particles are not points.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| According to quantum mechanics, unobserved particles are described by "wave functions" representing a set of multiple "probable" states. When an observer makes a measurement, the particle then settles down into one of these multiple options. |
True. Because the particles are not points.
But the many worlds idea offers an alternative view. Dr Deutsch showed mathematically that the bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes. This work was attacked but it has now had rigorous confirmation by David Wallace and Simon Saunders, also at Oxford.
Oh right, "showed mathematically". Oh right, that's evidence is it then? Garbage.
QUOTE
Dr Saunders, who presented the work with Wallace at the Many Worlds at 50 conference at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada, told New Scientist: "We've cleared up the obscurities and come up with a pretty clear verdict that Everett works. It's a dramatic turnaround and it means that people now have to discuss Everett seriously."
Crackpot.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Dr Saunders, who presented the work with Wallace at the Many Worlds at 50 conference at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada, told New Scientist: "We've cleared up the obscurities and come up with a pretty clear verdict that Everett works. It's a dramatic turnaround and it means that people now have to discuss Everett seriously." |
Crackpot.
Dr Deutsch added that the work addresses a three-century-old problem with the idea of probability itself, described by one philosopher, Prof David Papineau, as a scandal. "We didn't really know what probability means," said Dr Deutsch.
Yes we do.
QUOTE
There's a convention that it's rational to treat it for most purposes as if we knew it was going to happen even though we actually know it need not. But this does not capture the reality, not least the 0.1 per cent chance something will not happen. "So," said Dr Deutsch, "the problems of probability, which were until recently considered the principal objection to the otherwise extremely elegant theory of Everett (which removes every element of mysticism and double-talk that have crept into quantum theory over the decades) have now turned into its principal selling point."
Oh cringe. David Deutsche. King of the Crackpots.
And still not a scrap of evidence, Gehn.
QUOTE (kjw+Oct 17 2007, 09:19 PM)
an entire universe is a large leap... however if extra dimensions are detected (at LHC), where does it end? 1 extra dimension, 2, 3, maybe enough for an entire universe?
whether the path is theory>experiment or experiment>theory it is classified as science, is it not ? the theory of extra dimensions provides a means for experimental verification, i class this a sound science.
How do you suppose you detect an "extra" dimension? For example, how does someone detect the first three spatial that we are familiar with?
whether the path is theory>experiment or experiment>theory it is classified as science, is it not ? the theory of extra dimensions provides a means for experimental verification, i class this a sound science.
How do you suppose you detect an "extra" dimension? For example, how does someone detect the first three spatial that we are familiar with?
QUOTE
heretic Posted: Yesterday at 2:28 PM For example, how does someone detect the first three spatial that we are familiar with?
i can detect the first 3 if walk to my front door, turn left into the elevator and go down to the ground floor.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| heretic Posted: Yesterday at 2:28 PM For example, how does someone detect the first three spatial that we are familiar with? |
i can detect the first 3 if walk to my front door, turn left into the elevator and go down to the ground floor.
heretic Posted on Yesterday at 2:28 PM How do you suppose you detect an "extra" dimension?
my-walk-to-the-shop-atron is not set up to experiment with potential extra dimensions because funding went here http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007hep.ph....1186A ...
Groan.
"We study the production and decay of Kaluza-Klein (KK) gravitons at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC), in the framework of a warped extra dimension in which the standard model (SM) fields propagate. Such a scenario can provide solutions to both the Planck-weak hierarchy problem and the flavor puzzle of the SM. In this scenario, the production via qq¯ annihilation and decays to the conventional photon and lepton channels are highly suppressed. However, we show that graviton production via gluon fusion followed by..."
"We study the production and decay of Kaluza-Klein (KK) gravitons at the CERN Large Hadron Collider (LHC), in the framework of a warped extra dimension in which the standard model (SM) fields propagate. Such a scenario can provide solutions to both the Planck-weak hierarchy problem and the flavor puzzle of the SM. In this scenario, the production via qq¯ annihilation and decays to the conventional photon and lepton channels are highly suppressed. However, we show that graviton production via gluon fusion followed by..."
Philosophical Meandering Alert: Read at own risk: Nausea may result
Everything I say is pure conjecture with no math or even philosophical formalism to back it up. Look up Penrose interpretation on wikipedia for an example of a scientific approach.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_interpretation
I just have this arm wavey notion that sort of limits quantum effects to regions of space-time. Kind of like quantum fuzziness. Think of fuzziness moving through time, but always resolving itself. It's always fuzzy at the moment, but leaves a trail of "whatever happened". Everything at the quantum level is a mess of interacting probabilities ever changing in spacetime. The end effect is the illusion of stability, continuity, and consistency. Most of the time (on average?) the most probable things happen, so here we are in a stable reality.
I see the multiverse theories as an incorrect application of quantum superposition to a macro level, and it just doesn't cut it for me. It solves no issues, it just pushes the unexplained one step further away, but really explains nothing.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
I just have this arm wavey notion that sort of limits quantum effects to regions of space-time. Kind of like quantum fuzziness. Think of fuzziness moving through time, but always resolving itself. It's always fuzzy at the moment, but leaves a trail of "whatever happened". Everything at the quantum level is a mess of interacting probabilities ever changing in spacetime. The end effect is the illusion of stability, continuity, and consistency. Most of the time (on average?) the most probable things happen, so here we are in a stable reality.
I see the multiverse theories as an incorrect application of quantum superposition to a macro level, and it just doesn't cut it for me. It solves no issues, it just pushes the unexplained one step further away, but really explains nothing.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Thus, according to Tegmark, paradoxically the multiverse scenario is more parsimonious than that of a single verse.
That is, it fails occam's razor
Of course, I could be (and probably am, actually) wrong about all of it. it could even be belly lint in the navel of the great spaghetti monster..
I'm studying quantum computing right now, because it will give me some insights into how quanta interact. (and because its cool). QCL is a language for simulating Quantum circuits and algorithms.
http://tph.tuwien.ac.at/~oemer/qcl.html
A place to start is here:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/li...uant.html#h7555
The way that things interact at the quantum level is at the foundations of how the Universe works.
Regarding rabbitch -- imagine a universe were rabbitch actually posts something intelligent ----- naw --- could never happen, so that proves there are not infinite multiverses.
"According to quantum mechanics, nothing at the subatomic scale can really be said to exist until it is observed. Until then, particles occupy nebulous "superposition" states, in which they can have simultaneous "up" and "down" spins, or appear to be in different places at the same time.
Observation appears to "nail down" a particular state of reality, in the same way as a spinning coin can only be said to be in a "heads" or "tails" state once it is caught.
According to quantum mechanics, unobserved particles are described by "wave functions" representing a set of multiple "probable" states. When an observer makes a measurement, the particle then settles down into one of these multiple options.
The Oxford team, led by Dr David Deutsch, showed mathematically that the bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes."
(me)
If something has a potential for splitting into variables, does that mean it has executed that split?
Alas it may just mean that the potential is there and nothing has been set into motion to cause such a parallel split or reality.
Here is a physorg article I found today...or was that yesterday or tomorrow...or both and possibly next week as well? I might read it again next week...will that be finding it all over again? Parallel reality goes deeper than that I think. The truth of it may be subjective...or subliminal?
http://www.physorg.com/news118241154.html
I think the observing imagining mind has to actually play a part in parallel effect/affect. I believe the potential has to be given observation by the quantum mind. If we never take notice that a split or alternative thing may have happened (not very realistic for anyone to be so bland) then maybe there is no alternate possession or occurrence. If the person who was in a near accident says...wow I could have been paralyzed, maimed, or killed! Does that set off a potential for an alternate thing to occur in a different dimension....sending off competing messages to a parallel form of life/lives in another dimension or other dimensions?
I think that things happen at differing levels of interpretation...as in, I had a soul-mate who I left in the islands, but sometimes I see him ( his face, looking at me in shadows as I go to sleep at night) so...are we still living a connected life if I speak to the shadow that appears to be him and his shadow returns a message that I can decipher....Isn't that a form of a parallel reality? We have not communicated at a level many would respect, these days, and they would rather see this act...of communing between minds, as pure "imagining" but who is to say he and I were not still connected by the plasma of the universes and the words that passed between his shadow world and my reality....were not also a true reality? A parallel existence, or reality... caught between "worlds" where we do not ever talk at all.
I am open to this sort of thing being my vivid imaginings but I seem to know that more is going on than meets the eye.
In the physorg article they say:
"There are several competing and overlapping theories about parallel universes, but the most basic is based on the simple, if mind-boggling, idea that if the universe is infinite then logically everything that could possible occur has happened or will happen. "
I think that is a bit too open-ended. But I have stood looking in the mirror before, and watched my face change into hundreds of other faces....if I was not in a state called "insanity" I might have spoken to more in Science about it, but science wants to keep this in the rhelm of psychology, and keep this at a distance (I believe) even though the observed universe IS their forte... I observed myself becoming, or changing into countless other people of unknown origins.... in a mirror...and at the time I wondered who these faces were, why this was happening, and if it could be faces from past lives I had lived, or from people I may one day become or of my ancestors...etc. I wonder if the things I thought of were a potential for splitting off and new realities? One can only guess at this.
For everything to be possible and to potentially be happening it would mayhaps need be thought of, explored mentally or imagined by our (quantum) mind I say.
In fact in this light we are Gods, as i have said many times and as was told by the example called Christ, isn't there a place or two in that bible where he demands that we come to the understanding that we all have the potential to be as he is...even to the point of miracle working and healing through faith? That we are potentially the same phenomenal creatures that he was.
I am no longer a practicing Christian but I remember this as something I connected to at the time I read certain passages in my youth.
Potential...is a very big word...parallel potentialities of a human in variable realities, is a big idea. Some cannot wrap their heads around it until it is better explained. And the explaining is leaving a lot of ideas out. There is so much to think about and perhaps create as we go...it seems that we may observe something before it happens, cause it to come to pass, then observe it as past... and even observe that different potentials may have, or could one day occur, coming from that event horizon.
How hard is it to decide that our imagination may in fact be very important instead residing only of the land of fantasy then? How important is it then, to think of positive futures and potentials for life, for the future of our sciences, our medicine, our planet? I think that the secret lies in making/keeping our potential parallel realities awash in positivity!
aloha
~t.k.
That seems like an old interpretation that has fallen out of favor. It intuitively and logically inconsistant.
Everything I say is pure conjecture with no math or even philosophical formalism to back it up. Look up Penrose interpretation on wikipedia for an example of a scientific approach.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose_interpretation
QUOTE
"Penrose hypothesised that the transition between macroscopic and quantum begins on the scale of dust particles, which could exist in more than one location for as long as one second "
I just have this arm wavey notion that sort of limits quantum effects to regions of space-time. Kind of like quantum fuzziness. Think of fuzziness moving through time, but always resolving itself. It's always fuzzy at the moment, but leaves a trail of "whatever happened". Everything at the quantum level is a mess of interacting probabilities ever changing in spacetime. The end effect is the illusion of stability, continuity, and consistency. Most of the time (on average?) the most probable things happen, so here we are in a stable reality.
I see the multiverse theories as an incorrect application of quantum superposition to a macro level, and it just doesn't cut it for me. It solves no issues, it just pushes the unexplained one step further away, but really explains nothing.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| "Penrose hypothesised that the transition between macroscopic and quantum begins on the scale of dust particles, which could exist in more than one location for as long as one second " |
I just have this arm wavey notion that sort of limits quantum effects to regions of space-time. Kind of like quantum fuzziness. Think of fuzziness moving through time, but always resolving itself. It's always fuzzy at the moment, but leaves a trail of "whatever happened". Everything at the quantum level is a mess of interacting probabilities ever changing in spacetime. The end effect is the illusion of stability, continuity, and consistency. Most of the time (on average?) the most probable things happen, so here we are in a stable reality.
I see the multiverse theories as an incorrect application of quantum superposition to a macro level, and it just doesn't cut it for me. It solves no issues, it just pushes the unexplained one step further away, but really explains nothing.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
Thus, according to Tegmark, paradoxically the multiverse scenario is more parsimonious than that of a single verse.
That is, it fails occam's razor
Of course, I could be (and probably am, actually) wrong about all of it. it could even be belly lint in the navel of the great spaghetti monster..
I'm studying quantum computing right now, because it will give me some insights into how quanta interact. (and because its cool). QCL is a language for simulating Quantum circuits and algorithms.
http://tph.tuwien.ac.at/~oemer/qcl.html
A place to start is here:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/li...uant.html#h7555
The way that things interact at the quantum level is at the foundations of how the Universe works.
Regarding rabbitch -- imagine a universe were rabbitch actually posts something intelligent ----- naw --- could never happen, so that proves there are not infinite multiverses.
"According to quantum mechanics, nothing at the subatomic scale can really be said to exist until it is observed. Until then, particles occupy nebulous "superposition" states, in which they can have simultaneous "up" and "down" spins, or appear to be in different places at the same time.
Observation appears to "nail down" a particular state of reality, in the same way as a spinning coin can only be said to be in a "heads" or "tails" state once it is caught.
According to quantum mechanics, unobserved particles are described by "wave functions" representing a set of multiple "probable" states. When an observer makes a measurement, the particle then settles down into one of these multiple options.
The Oxford team, led by Dr David Deutsch, showed mathematically that the bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes."
(me)
If something has a potential for splitting into variables, does that mean it has executed that split?
Alas it may just mean that the potential is there and nothing has been set into motion to cause such a parallel split or reality.
Here is a physorg article I found today...or was that yesterday or tomorrow...or both and possibly next week as well? I might read it again next week...will that be finding it all over again? Parallel reality goes deeper than that I think. The truth of it may be subjective...or subliminal?
http://www.physorg.com/news118241154.html
I think the observing imagining mind has to actually play a part in parallel effect/affect. I believe the potential has to be given observation by the quantum mind. If we never take notice that a split or alternative thing may have happened (not very realistic for anyone to be so bland) then maybe there is no alternate possession or occurrence. If the person who was in a near accident says...wow I could have been paralyzed, maimed, or killed! Does that set off a potential for an alternate thing to occur in a different dimension....sending off competing messages to a parallel form of life/lives in another dimension or other dimensions?
I think that things happen at differing levels of interpretation...as in, I had a soul-mate who I left in the islands, but sometimes I see him ( his face, looking at me in shadows as I go to sleep at night) so...are we still living a connected life if I speak to the shadow that appears to be him and his shadow returns a message that I can decipher....Isn't that a form of a parallel reality? We have not communicated at a level many would respect, these days, and they would rather see this act...of communing between minds, as pure "imagining" but who is to say he and I were not still connected by the plasma of the universes and the words that passed between his shadow world and my reality....were not also a true reality? A parallel existence, or reality... caught between "worlds" where we do not ever talk at all.
I am open to this sort of thing being my vivid imaginings but I seem to know that more is going on than meets the eye.
In the physorg article they say:
"There are several competing and overlapping theories about parallel universes, but the most basic is based on the simple, if mind-boggling, idea that if the universe is infinite then logically everything that could possible occur has happened or will happen. "
I think that is a bit too open-ended. But I have stood looking in the mirror before, and watched my face change into hundreds of other faces....if I was not in a state called "insanity" I might have spoken to more in Science about it, but science wants to keep this in the rhelm of psychology, and keep this at a distance (I believe) even though the observed universe IS their forte... I observed myself becoming, or changing into countless other people of unknown origins.... in a mirror...and at the time I wondered who these faces were, why this was happening, and if it could be faces from past lives I had lived, or from people I may one day become or of my ancestors...etc. I wonder if the things I thought of were a potential for splitting off and new realities? One can only guess at this.
For everything to be possible and to potentially be happening it would mayhaps need be thought of, explored mentally or imagined by our (quantum) mind I say.
In fact in this light we are Gods, as i have said many times and as was told by the example called Christ, isn't there a place or two in that bible where he demands that we come to the understanding that we all have the potential to be as he is...even to the point of miracle working and healing through faith? That we are potentially the same phenomenal creatures that he was.
I am no longer a practicing Christian but I remember this as something I connected to at the time I read certain passages in my youth.
Potential...is a very big word...parallel potentialities of a human in variable realities, is a big idea. Some cannot wrap their heads around it until it is better explained. And the explaining is leaving a lot of ideas out. There is so much to think about and perhaps create as we go...it seems that we may observe something before it happens, cause it to come to pass, then observe it as past... and even observe that different potentials may have, or could one day occur, coming from that event horizon.
How hard is it to decide that our imagination may in fact be very important instead residing only of the land of fantasy then? How important is it then, to think of positive futures and potentials for life, for the future of our sciences, our medicine, our planet? I think that the secret lies in making/keeping our potential parallel realities awash in positivity!
aloha
~t.k.
QUOTE ((3Uo @ Oct 14 2007+ 02:28 PM))
That seems like an old interpretation that has fallen out of favor. It intuitively and logically inconsistant.
QUOTE (Sapo+Oct 14 2007, 02:42 PM)
I'm just a really old interpreter, dude. How 'bout some slack?
Hmmm.
How 'bout some slack? Hmmm.
QUOTE (Farsight+Oct 18 2007, 04:58 AM)
Sorry Sapo. There is no evidence for Parallel Universes. That's the notion that should be totally kicked into touch. Now watch my lips: there is no evidence for Parallel Universes. The idea is crackpot. If you dispute that, show me some.
How would you propose finding or disputing evidence of that? You should be kicked totally in the tush.
Hmmm.
QUOTE ((Sapo @ Oct 17 2007+ 07:06 PM))
How would you propose finding or disputing evidence of that? You should be kicked totally in the tush.
Hmmm.
HI All,
QUOTE (Recap of the idea+)
Monday, 24 September 2007
Parallel universes exist - study
Parallel universes really do exist, according to a mathematical discovery by Oxford scientists described by one expert as "one of the most important developments in the history of science".
The parallel universe theory, first proposed in 1950 by the US physicist Hugh Everett, helps explain mysteries of quantum mechanics that have baffled scientists for decades, it is claimed.
In Everett's "many worlds" universe, every time a new physical possibility is explored, the universe splits. Given a number of possible alternative outcomes, each one is played out - in its own universe.
A motorist who has a near miss, for instance, might feel relieved at his lucky escape. But in a parallel universe, another version of the same driver will have been killed. Yet another universe will see the motorist recover after treatment in hospital. The number of alternative scenarios is endless.
It is a bizarre idea which has been dismissed as fanciful by many experts. But the new research from Oxford shows that it offers a mathematical answer to quantum conundrums that cannot be dismissed lightly - and suggests that Dr Everett, who was a Phd student at Princeton University when he came up with the theory, was on the right track.
Commenting in New Scientist magazine, Dr Andy Albrecht, a physicist at the University of California at Davis, said: "This work will go down as one of the most important developments in the history of science."
According to quantum mechanics, nothing at the subatomic scale can really be said to exist until it is observed. Until then, particles occupy nebulous "superposition" states, in which they can have simultaneous "up" and "down" spins, or appear to be in different places at the same time.
Observation appears to "nail down" a particular state of reality, in the same way as a spinning coin can only be said to be in a "heads" or "tails" state once it is caught.
According to quantum mechanics, unobserved particles are described by "wave functions" representing a set of multiple "probable" states. When an observer makes a measurement, the particle then settles down into one of these multiple options.
The Oxford team, led by Dr David Deutsch, showed mathematically that the bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes.
http://tech.uk.msn.com/news/article.aspx?c...umentid=6212162
Parallel universes exist - study
Parallel universes really do exist, according to a mathematical discovery by Oxford scientists described by one expert as "one of the most important developments in the history of science".
The parallel universe theory, first proposed in 1950 by the US physicist Hugh Everett, helps explain mysteries of quantum mechanics that have baffled scientists for decades, it is claimed.
In Everett's "many worlds" universe, every time a new physical possibility is explored, the universe splits. Given a number of possible alternative outcomes, each one is played out - in its own universe.
A motorist who has a near miss, for instance, might feel relieved at his lucky escape. But in a parallel universe, another version of the same driver will have been killed. Yet another universe will see the motorist recover after treatment in hospital. The number of alternative scenarios is endless.
It is a bizarre idea which has been dismissed as fanciful by many experts. But the new research from Oxford shows that it offers a mathematical answer to quantum conundrums that cannot be dismissed lightly - and suggests that Dr Everett, who was a Phd student at Princeton University when he came up with the theory, was on the right track.
Commenting in New Scientist magazine, Dr Andy Albrecht, a physicist at the University of California at Davis, said: "This work will go down as one of the most important developments in the history of science."
According to quantum mechanics, nothing at the subatomic scale can really be said to exist until it is observed. Until then, particles occupy nebulous "superposition" states, in which they can have simultaneous "up" and "down" spins, or appear to be in different places at the same time.
Observation appears to "nail down" a particular state of reality, in the same way as a spinning coin can only be said to be in a "heads" or "tails" state once it is caught.
According to quantum mechanics, unobserved particles are described by "wave functions" representing a set of multiple "probable" states. When an observer makes a measurement, the particle then settles down into one of these multiple options.
The Oxford team, led by Dr David Deutsch, showed mathematically that the bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes.
http://tech.uk.msn.com/news/article.aspx?c...umentid=6212162
The idea that there are "Parallel Universes" existing alongside our Universe has two big problems... First... There appears no place to put them. Second... Another difficulty is macroscopic phenomena are far more difficult to "co-exist" in superposition you don't really see Schrodinger's Cat in superposition as apparently attractive that idea is. While single particles can exist in superposition states up to about the size of a grain of "dust", anything larger cannot easily retain this coherence in space and in time for long periods. The upshot of this is we are not surrounded by "walk through" parallel quantum Universes existing alongside our world. Though we are seeing our Quantum Computers apparently working and according to some theories these must have parallel Universes alongside of our Universe for them to work at all. There are indications that quantum states do indeed exist in macroscopic objects, you need only look at BEC's... these exhibit a single quantum state for fermions. So these could be big enough to see provided the quantum noise is kept low. It is difficult to think that an entire Universe could be found existing in that state... these entities last only short periods of time in our world. All in all there appears to be no parallel Universe.
There could be another line of approach. This certainly could have a great deal of experimental support. The Universe is not big but very small... the order of the size of a quantum. That it is not made of fermions relate to our Universe but composed of bosons... ordinary bosons like light. Light has totally different properties to fermions... the most important property is the boson can superimpose their presences all in the one space at the same time. Could we possibly envision a reciprocal Universe co-inhabiting our Universe on a smaller scale than our own. If instead of photons we spoke of de Broglie Matter Waves then indeed there are theories that allow for such an eventuality through "Condo Phantoms". Practically speaking on this microscopic level of a "Quantum Corral" Looking Glass Matter does exist which is linked to events and things occurring in a "parallel existence". You can "see" this process as part of the overall "Quantum Corral" process in this IBM research simulation image.
... Click to enlarge...
This is not a theoretical idea it is a practical fact that experiments have shown that an "exact mirror copy" of atoms can be made without any penalty or creation reaction from a primary "image". This secondary "image" on a one to one scale can even enter into chemical reactions with "real matter". Mirror matter (that costs nothing in energy to make) can form oxides with "real" oxygen atoms. In order to view these matter wave duplicates you need a pretty sophisticated setup to "break" temporal and spatial symmetry and to reveal the character of these quasi-particles. Usually these "events" are hidden from our World by the strange temporal properties of this "material". It can't normally be seen and it's persistence would be fleeting beyond the imaging zone of the particles in these matter wave cavities. The "images" of the original are fermions just like the originals themselves and are existing in the same space as their fermion "cousins". There is no macroscopic equivalent of these "ghosts". The larger the source the less likely that an image will form since the "image planes" are formed due to matter wave lenses and not optical lenses. Their very character forces these tiny corrals to be only a "practical demonstration" of the possibilities that seem to exist there.
So how might such a Universe exist ... I mean an entire Universe? A universe that is a mirror Universe of our real universe. A Universe that duplicates not optical properties of our world but the physics properties of the world. Let me say right from the start that Quantum Electrodynamics and Quantum Chromodynamics do not supply any hope of this phenomenon being possible. Of course QED and QCD can't show that Condo Phantoms can exist at all since this process of duplication breaks several primary laws of quantum physics ... one of which is "no duplicates and no cloning of particles for no penalty". So a theory that incorporates this experimental fact is as far away as ever. You will find very little in the literature about this phenomenon but I assure you that there are papers that verify this process.
Clearly what we are seeing here is a spatial resonance of the primary particle as an "almost" perfect duplicate particle at the secondary focus of a section of a parabolic mirror which has the proportions and sufficient "surface" to produce a partial image not optically but as matter waves... where matter waves actually have the same reality as matter ... well enough to fool ordinary matter that it is "real enough" to bond with.
Is there any phenomenon real enough and persistent enough to literally create entire recreations of our Universe in their entirety including not just optical phenomena but also the actual physics to allow "differences" we can see in these early experiments? Yes there is... You need look no further than the Fourier Image Processor as an analog of a subtler and more refined process of de Broglie matter wave imaging.
... Click to enlarge...
I did not choose the modern computer process of image processing... I have chosen to use the "old way" used in the 1960's to process live 2D imagery which contains removable defects... these can be processed using this method "cleaning them up" instantly with out the power of computers. A very ingenious technique isn't it? I must remind everyone that optics cannot be used to duplicate matter as it was used in the story "Alice Through The Looking Glass" by Carrol but it is "nearly right". For instance the tiny apertures or lenses required to focus Matter Waves are many orders of magnitude smaller than optical lenses.... I mean really "many orders". All I can say is that the "images" in the Almaden Laboratories are "perfect" as far as they go and they reproduce through those matter wave interferences entire atoms and their electrons in such a way to provide rock solid basis for chemical combination. Every aspect of the electromagnetic nature of the atom is present including all the Physics in the atomic shells.
What could be used in nature to create this possible imagery and how could it be "fitted" into a quantum sized object? It could occur if the sub-Universe of atomic particles were perfect matter wave imaging "machines" formed from the materials of spacetime itself... the light cone walls. The "images" would be within the surface of these light cone walls and would need to be reciprocally scaled to "fit everything in". Lucky for us these two dimensional surfaces (and possibly through a certain kind of spatial surface mapping) entire Universes of phenomena can be duplicated from our external universe created from these matter wave images being "focussed" into these surfaces. I use surfaces for a very special reason... just bear with that since it is difficult to explain. You can learn a little about it here.
Photon And Mass, energy transfer... Good Elf
The question is how could this occur? There is a theory called AdS-CFT Correspondence...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence
This is the most quoted principle/concept in Theoretical Physics at the moment. It is a way of connecting space through it's reciprocal Anti-de Sitter space. The advantage of this concept is that there is no limit to this potential hall of mirrors. It does mean that you would have to "bust" particle theory since it has no such capacity (as I have noted previously) to nest these Matter Wave Reflections as real physics if we are speaking about Fermions or indeed optics (as noted previously). In the case of "simple optics" of light there are some objections that I have about that but the main reason is the scale of optics where the light from our Universe just can't "squeeze" into the small spaces that I am speaking about. This "squeezing" can only occur if we are speaking about matter waves and then only in a reciprocal space as noted in this theory. This reciprocal nature is only the way space maps into the smaller environment as an analog of the optical process.... a spatial connection only. I am not abandoning QED or QCD but I an saying that these technical means are only "machines" for calculation of a much deeper and all pervasive principle of the "Holographic Universe". This brings to life an old saying "As above.. so below". This would never work at all if chaos ruled on the small scale as most pundits seems to suggest so what I am saying here is the unification is on a different principle which is similar to "Russian Dolls" and their nesting. Our entire Universe could be just one of thse "Russian Dolls" and the re are smaller "Russian dolls" laying around us as sub-atomic particles which "image" the matter waves from our Universe as internal matter wave representations of our Universe except each one with its own "personal" physics. This AdS-CFT theory is necessary in String Theories and in Cosmology but I am proposing that in a reciprocal realm the dependence is even stronger that we exist and these sub-atoimic images of us exist simply because there are other larger scale images from which we derive our very existence.
But how does it fit in? The only sensible answer to this is the "matter wave images" are related to our fermion populated spacetime as reciprocal universes with overlapping "boson" twins as "free" clones of our Universe (breaking one of the primary laws of Quantum Physics... "No cloning"). My view is experiment proves that such clones are possible so we should try and look at this problem with an open mind.
In current theory these boson twins have very massive values. This is because we are drawing these phenomena our of these twin Universes with catastrophic energy virtually pulling the relativistically relative boson particles in the Looking Glass Universe with extreme energy into our fermion Universe "wrapping them" in "mass" in the process. This means that in their own environment when viewed from our environment these universes are bosonic in nature... shadow Universes... Millions and billions of them composed from the imaged matter wave interferences of our Universe (like in an optical Hologram). They are "everywhere" in these compact dimensional reciprocal objects. As "bosons" in these tiny Universes they map into flatspaces and their physics "appears" to be one of overlapping interferences. If we could move into that surface flatspace or view it from within that realm we would be seeing this reciprocal concept mirroring our Universe of fermions as relative fermions just like we are seeing here.
... Click to enlarge...
In current theories we are supposed to be seeing "massive particles" but I think this is wrong they will actually exhibit no rest mass at all just like photons do here... They appear like the equivalent of photons in these mirror universes... When we attempt to extract them we are extracting them from this parallel Universe into our own with enormous energy and these precipitate all that mass because these shadow bosons are not supposed to exist in our Universe. This theory is Supersymmetry and we are not looking in the right place to solve this problem presently. The particle model needs to be expressed as a Matter Wave Theory... A big job and it would take quite a time to to get there from here with the current state of our particle theories. "They are go good they are not even wrong". But they will never discover those "Parallel Universes"... except in the experimental Laboratory. The Lab will need a very light touch rather than this heavy hand of high energy accelerators. Still you must start somewhere... I think were we have to start is "right between our ears".
Cheers
There could be another line of approach. This certainly could have a great deal of experimental support. The Universe is not big but very small... the order of the size of a quantum. That it is not made of fermions relate to our Universe but composed of bosons... ordinary bosons like light. Light has totally different properties to fermions... the most important property is the boson can superimpose their presences all in the one space at the same time. Could we possibly envision a reciprocal Universe co-inhabiting our Universe on a smaller scale than our own. If instead of photons we spoke of de Broglie Matter Waves then indeed there are theories that allow for such an eventuality through "Condo Phantoms". Practically speaking on this microscopic level of a "Quantum Corral" Looking Glass Matter does exist which is linked to events and things occurring in a "parallel existence". You can "see" this process as part of the overall "Quantum Corral" process in this IBM research simulation image.
... Click to enlarge...
This is not a theoretical idea it is a practical fact that experiments have shown that an "exact mirror copy" of atoms can be made without any penalty or creation reaction from a primary "image". This secondary "image" on a one to one scale can even enter into chemical reactions with "real matter". Mirror matter (that costs nothing in energy to make) can form oxides with "real" oxygen atoms. In order to view these matter wave duplicates you need a pretty sophisticated setup to "break" temporal and spatial symmetry and to reveal the character of these quasi-particles. Usually these "events" are hidden from our World by the strange temporal properties of this "material". It can't normally be seen and it's persistence would be fleeting beyond the imaging zone of the particles in these matter wave cavities. The "images" of the original are fermions just like the originals themselves and are existing in the same space as their fermion "cousins". There is no macroscopic equivalent of these "ghosts". The larger the source the less likely that an image will form since the "image planes" are formed due to matter wave lenses and not optical lenses. Their very character forces these tiny corrals to be only a "practical demonstration" of the possibilities that seem to exist there.
So how might such a Universe exist ... I mean an entire Universe? A universe that is a mirror Universe of our real universe. A Universe that duplicates not optical properties of our world but the physics properties of the world. Let me say right from the start that Quantum Electrodynamics and Quantum Chromodynamics do not supply any hope of this phenomenon being possible. Of course QED and QCD can't show that Condo Phantoms can exist at all since this process of duplication breaks several primary laws of quantum physics ... one of which is "no duplicates and no cloning of particles for no penalty". So a theory that incorporates this experimental fact is as far away as ever. You will find very little in the literature about this phenomenon but I assure you that there are papers that verify this process.
Clearly what we are seeing here is a spatial resonance of the primary particle as an "almost" perfect duplicate particle at the secondary focus of a section of a parabolic mirror which has the proportions and sufficient "surface" to produce a partial image not optically but as matter waves... where matter waves actually have the same reality as matter ... well enough to fool ordinary matter that it is "real enough" to bond with.
Is there any phenomenon real enough and persistent enough to literally create entire recreations of our Universe in their entirety including not just optical phenomena but also the actual physics to allow "differences" we can see in these early experiments? Yes there is... You need look no further than the Fourier Image Processor as an analog of a subtler and more refined process of de Broglie matter wave imaging.
... Click to enlarge...
I did not choose the modern computer process of image processing... I have chosen to use the "old way" used in the 1960's to process live 2D imagery which contains removable defects... these can be processed using this method "cleaning them up" instantly with out the power of computers. A very ingenious technique isn't it? I must remind everyone that optics cannot be used to duplicate matter as it was used in the story "Alice Through The Looking Glass" by Carrol but it is "nearly right". For instance the tiny apertures or lenses required to focus Matter Waves are many orders of magnitude smaller than optical lenses.... I mean really "many orders". All I can say is that the "images" in the Almaden Laboratories are "perfect" as far as they go and they reproduce through those matter wave interferences entire atoms and their electrons in such a way to provide rock solid basis for chemical combination. Every aspect of the electromagnetic nature of the atom is present including all the Physics in the atomic shells.
What could be used in nature to create this possible imagery and how could it be "fitted" into a quantum sized object? It could occur if the sub-Universe of atomic particles were perfect matter wave imaging "machines" formed from the materials of spacetime itself... the light cone walls. The "images" would be within the surface of these light cone walls and would need to be reciprocally scaled to "fit everything in". Lucky for us these two dimensional surfaces (and possibly through a certain kind of spatial surface mapping) entire Universes of phenomena can be duplicated from our external universe created from these matter wave images being "focussed" into these surfaces. I use surfaces for a very special reason... just bear with that since it is difficult to explain. You can learn a little about it here.
Photon And Mass, energy transfer... Good Elf
The question is how could this occur? There is a theory called AdS-CFT Correspondence...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AdS/CFT_correspondence
This is the most quoted principle/concept in Theoretical Physics at the moment. It is a way of connecting space through it's reciprocal Anti-de Sitter space. The advantage of this concept is that there is no limit to this potential hall of mirrors. It does mean that you would have to "bust" particle theory since it has no such capacity (as I have noted previously) to nest these Matter Wave Reflections as real physics if we are speaking about Fermions or indeed optics (as noted previously). In the case of "simple optics" of light there are some objections that I have about that but the main reason is the scale of optics where the light from our Universe just can't "squeeze" into the small spaces that I am speaking about. This "squeezing" can only occur if we are speaking about matter waves and then only in a reciprocal space as noted in this theory. This reciprocal nature is only the way space maps into the smaller environment as an analog of the optical process.... a spatial connection only. I am not abandoning QED or QCD but I an saying that these technical means are only "machines" for calculation of a much deeper and all pervasive principle of the "Holographic Universe". This brings to life an old saying "As above.. so below". This would never work at all if chaos ruled on the small scale as most pundits seems to suggest so what I am saying here is the unification is on a different principle which is similar to "Russian Dolls" and their nesting. Our entire Universe could be just one of thse "Russian Dolls" and the re are smaller "Russian dolls" laying around us as sub-atomic particles which "image" the matter waves from our Universe as internal matter wave representations of our Universe except each one with its own "personal" physics. This AdS-CFT theory is necessary in String Theories and in Cosmology but I am proposing that in a reciprocal realm the dependence is even stronger that we exist and these sub-atoimic images of us exist simply because there are other larger scale images from which we derive our very existence.
But how does it fit in? The only sensible answer to this is the "matter wave images" are related to our fermion populated spacetime as reciprocal universes with overlapping "boson" twins as "free" clones of our Universe (breaking one of the primary laws of Quantum Physics... "No cloning"). My view is experiment proves that such clones are possible so we should try and look at this problem with an open mind.
In current theory these boson twins have very massive values. This is because we are drawing these phenomena our of these twin Universes with catastrophic energy virtually pulling the relativistically relative boson particles in the Looking Glass Universe with extreme energy into our fermion Universe "wrapping them" in "mass" in the process. This means that in their own environment when viewed from our environment these universes are bosonic in nature... shadow Universes... Millions and billions of them composed from the imaged matter wave interferences of our Universe (like in an optical Hologram). They are "everywhere" in these compact dimensional reciprocal objects. As "bosons" in these tiny Universes they map into flatspaces and their physics "appears" to be one of overlapping interferences. If we could move into that surface flatspace or view it from within that realm we would be seeing this reciprocal concept mirroring our Universe of fermions as relative fermions just like we are seeing here.
... Click to enlarge...
In current theories we are supposed to be seeing "massive particles" but I think this is wrong they will actually exhibit no rest mass at all just like photons do here... They appear like the equivalent of photons in these mirror universes... When we attempt to extract them we are extracting them from this parallel Universe into our own with enormous energy and these precipitate all that mass because these shadow bosons are not supposed to exist in our Universe. This theory is Supersymmetry and we are not looking in the right place to solve this problem presently. The particle model needs to be expressed as a Matter Wave Theory... A big job and it would take quite a time to to get there from here with the current state of our particle theories. "They are go good they are not even wrong". But they will never discover those "Parallel Universes"... except in the experimental Laboratory. The Lab will need a very light touch rather than this heavy hand of high energy accelerators. Still you must start somewhere...
I think were we have to start is "right between our ears".Cheers
Good Elf, I haven't read all of your post, yet, but my thought is that if 'our' universe has compact or collapsed dimensions, then another universe may have a different dimension exposed or compacted.
Maybe not an infinite sea, but a large one, hm?
Maybe not an infinite sea, but a large one, hm?
Hi Sapo,
QUOTE (Sapo+)
Good Elf, I haven't read all of your post, yet, but my thought is that if 'our' universe has compact or collapsed dimensions, then another universe may have a different dimension exposed or compacted.
Maybe not an infinite sea, but a large one, hm?
Maybe not an infinite sea, but a large one, hm?
In my theory the compact dimensions and spaces share our 4 dimensions of spacetime with us as well they have additional reciprocal dimensions of space (reciprocal space) and time (reciprocal time which is frequency) in which these phenomena exist in a "flatland"... in the surface. On our level of the Universe "We" share our "flatspace" with another larger scale Universe of which we and everything here is just a "reflection" a bosonic flatspace (a kind of Hologram)... but a real reflection with its own separate physics but entangled via the matter waves with it. They are the sub-atomic particles and their lightcone walls are the reciprocal matter mirrors. There are so many we could not easily count them even in the room you are sitting since matter waves move through space without obstruction all the way out to infinity as "Universal Gravitation". Every particle of matter has a wave contribution and these hybridize in our space to form the matter wave interferences of our Universe, our Fermions as a space filling "Hologram".
Cheers
PS: I apologize for omissions and typo's because there will always be some of those... I can't help that... just be patient with it.
Cheers
PS: I apologize for omissions and typo's because there will always be some of those... I can't help that... just be patient with it.
QUOTE (Good Elf+Dec 31 2007, 08:17 PM)
Hi Sapo,
QUOTE (Sapo+)
Good Elf, I haven't read all of your post, yet, but my thought is that if 'our' universe has compact or collapsed dimensions, then another universe may have a different dimension exposed or compacted.
Maybe not an infinite sea, but a large one, hm?
Maybe not an infinite sea, but a large one, hm?
In my theory the compact dimensions and spaces share our 4 dimensions of spacetime with us as well they have additional reciprocal dimensions (of space and time (frequency) in which these phenomena exist in a "flatland"... in the surface. On our level of the Universe "We" share our "flatspace" with another larger scale Universe of which we and everything here is just a "reflection" a bosonic flatspace (a kind of Hologram)... but a real reflection with its own separate physics but entangled via the matter waves with it. They are the sub-atomic particles and their lightcone walls are the reciprocal matter mirrors. There are so many we could not easily count them even in the room you are sitting since matter waves move through space without obstruction all the way out to infinity as "Universal Gravitation". Every particle of matter has a wave contribution and these hybridize in our space to form the matter wave interferences of our Universe, our Fermions.
Cheers
You go! That view is more complex than than I would think you'd need for the maths to describe the situation, but I am a blind man in the candle factory as far as that goes; burn myself every time....
Cheers
You go! That view is more complex than than I would think you'd need for the maths to describe the situation, but I am a blind man in the candle factory as far as that goes; burn myself every time....
~whoooosh~ 
and the thread flies right over my holograph of understanding!
Hello there GoodElf....long time no speaka...Happy New Year Particles, Fermions, and Waves!
You mad scientist!
and the thread flies right over my holograph of understanding!
Hello there GoodElf....long time no speaka...Happy New Year Particles, Fermions, and Waves!
You mad scientist!
Hi Sapo,
QUOTE (Sapo+)
You go! That view is more complex than than I would think you'd need for the maths to describe the situation, but I am a blind man in the candle factory as far as that goes; burn myself every time....
You don't need to do anything "yet" to prove any of this since we have theories that give excellent answers "so far" such as QED and QCD. So we know how our world works for almost everything we can measure ... especially with QED... it is so good it is just not wrong. However it is not known "why" it is so right since it is a statistical theory and not a theory of histories. It predicts every possible outcome when in a particular event only one outcome is actually possible. It is not possible to actually determine which outcome is going to happen in any Universe so that is up to the "participants" to work out. The rest that cannot be deduced from these theories can be seen as an optical version of QCD for light and their "resonant" interaction with matter (the electrons). It strictly does not include the QCD simply because if we are going to deal with QCD then the theory here is telling us if we remain inside that "Russian Doll" of our Universe the physics can "almost all" be described using QED. This works for me.... I will not be "atom-smashing" any smaller duplicate Universes soon. These matter waves can only be seen at very low energy... you all know de Broglie Hypothesis.
All other realms can be generated with all the internal Physics in their respective flatspaces via the reciprocal of the "inner product" projection that was used to generate the particle theory. The Physics of the "boson projected space" in surfaces is the same physics as three dimensional space projected by Conformal Field Theory onto the surface of that light cone wall of the sub-atomic particle. I am not sure that such an operation will produce any real new information since these realms should be much same as our own realm as seen from a different physical perspective by virtue of the angular separation and the different timings related to the speed of propagation of "light". It is enough to discover these resonant realms by other means... I don't know how that this may be accomplished but I am sure that it will given enough time and the effort. This process of "replication" is analogous to the way two Holograms in place in a volumetric space reproduce the same scene as seen from the two different perspectives. If you also break the holograms into smaller bits they reproduce "copies" of the environment centered on the physical position of each sub-element.. Of course remember I am speaking not of "Optical Holograms" which are band limited very quickly by this decimation process but a "scale invariant Matter Wave Hologram" that works to a scale that could incorporate potentially "everything".
Cheers
PS: A refresh on some of the older posts is essential since I have altered them. Remember the "typo's" please...
All other realms can be generated with all the internal Physics in their respective flatspaces via the reciprocal of the "inner product" projection that was used to generate the particle theory. The Physics of the "boson projected space" in surfaces is the same physics as three dimensional space projected by Conformal Field Theory onto the surface of that light cone wall of the sub-atomic particle. I am not sure that such an operation will produce any real new information since these realms should be much same as our own realm as seen from a different physical perspective by virtue of the angular separation and the different timings related to the speed of propagation of "light". It is enough to discover these resonant realms by other means... I don't know how that this may be accomplished but I am sure that it will given enough time and the effort. This process of "replication" is analogous to the way two Holograms in place in a volumetric space reproduce the same scene as seen from the two different perspectives. If you also break the holograms into smaller bits they reproduce "copies" of the environment centered on the physical position of each sub-element.. Of course remember I am speaking not of "Optical Holograms" which are band limited very quickly by this decimation process but a "scale invariant Matter Wave Hologram" that works to a scale that could incorporate potentially "everything".
Cheers
PS: A refresh on some of the older posts is essential since I have altered them. Remember the "typo's" please...
QUOTE (Good Elf+Dec 31 2007, 08:44 PM)
Cheers
PS: A refresh on some of the older posts is essential since I have altered them. Remember the "typo's" please...
You're not... You couldn't be, no. I can't accept it! RealityCheck? OMG!
Man, I couldn't resist. Sorry, all in fun.
Gotta run!
PS: A refresh on some of the older posts is essential since I have altered them. Remember the "typo's" please...
You're not... You couldn't be, no. I can't accept it! RealityCheck? OMG!
Man, I couldn't resist. Sorry, all in fun.
Gotta run!
in any parallel universes,sapo is always sapo.sapo as moderator is idiot,or a fool
equivalent the legends of arthur,the eater of little childrens.
equivalent the legends of arthur,the eater of little childrens.
QUOTE (mott.carl+Jan 1 2008, 11:44 AM)
in any parallel universes,sapo is always sapo.sapo as moderator is idiot,or a fool
equivalent the legends of arthur,the eater of little childrens.
But I hear he is an excellant cook so...who are you to judge?
equivalent the legends of arthur,the eater of little childrens.
But I hear he is an excellant cook so...who are you to judge?
QUOTE (mott.carl+Jan 1 2008, 06:44 PM)
in any parallel universes,sapo is always sapo.sapo as moderator is idiot,or a fool
equivalent the legends of arthur,the eater of little childrens.
I wonder if there exists a parallel universe where this idiot's posts are actually legible?
equivalent the legends of arthur,the eater of little childrens.
I wonder if there exists a parallel universe where this idiot's posts are actually legible?
QUOTE (Cecil P Abstract+Jan 1 2008, 12:13 PM)
I wonder if there exists a parallel universe where this idiot's posts are actually legible?
I don't know where mott Carl is from but cultural differences...that could be an answer... maybe? The style of writing English, differs so much in Eglish learners. People should at least say something of thier origins in the profile section...for better comprehension!
At least you know the Arthurian Legends dear Mott, very important that !
I don't know where mott Carl is from but cultural differences...that could be an answer... maybe? The style of writing English, differs so much in Eglish learners. People should at least say something of thier origins in the profile section...for better comprehension!
At least you know the Arthurian Legends dear Mott, very important that !
Good Elf,
You say "Parallel universes do exist .........according to a mathematical discovery .....which helps explain mysteries of QM". Sorry , this is not good science. A mathematical model which provides a possible solution to difficulties with an earlier QM interpretation proves absolutely nothing. At best, it might be a speculation worth pursuing, though in this case probably not within the bounds of pure science since the theory is almost certainly unprovable.
You say "Parallel universes do exist .........according to a mathematical discovery .....which helps explain mysteries of QM". Sorry , this is not good science. A mathematical model which provides a possible solution to difficulties with an earlier QM interpretation proves absolutely nothing. At best, it might be a speculation worth pursuing, though in this case probably not within the bounds of pure science since the theory is almost certainly unprovable.
Hi Edward 3,
QUOTE (Edward 3+)
Good Elf,
You say "Parallel universes do exist .........according to a mathematical discovery .....which helps explain mysteries of QM". Sorry , this is not good science. A mathematical model which provides a possible solution to difficulties with an earlier QM interpretation proves absolutely nothing. At best, it might be a speculation worth pursuing, though in this case probably not within the bounds of pure science since the theory is almost certainly unprovable.
You say "Parallel universes do exist .........according to a mathematical discovery .....which helps explain mysteries of QM". Sorry , this is not good science. A mathematical model which provides a possible solution to difficulties with an earlier QM interpretation proves absolutely nothing. At best, it might be a speculation worth pursuing, though in this case probably not within the bounds of pure science since the theory is almost certainly unprovable.
I didn't "say" anything... I quoted sources and that is where you should start with your criticism. That is the Scientific Method. After all this is not my thread it was started by Gehn.
Once we understand what is "really" being said by both of us (and others) then we can understand what is being 'proposed". Notice I quoted the original reference to the issue which was a News Report from another Site.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=296919
Cheers
Once we understand what is "really" being said by both of us (and others) then we can understand what is being 'proposed". Notice I quoted the original reference to the issue which was a News Report from another Site.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=296919
Cheers
QUOTE (tikay+Jan 1 2008, 02:31 PM)
I don't know where mott Carl is from but cultural differences...that could be an answer... maybe? The style of writing English, differs so much in Eglish learners. People should at least say something of thier origins in the profile section...for better comprehension!
At least you know the Arthurian Legends dear Mott, very important that !
And he appears to be able to read English, so why is there no signal on the carrier wave?
My handle is llyffaint, which is indicative of nothing, in Welsh.
At least you know the Arthurian Legends dear Mott, very important that !
And he appears to be able to read English, so why is there no signal on the carrier wave?
My handle is llyffaint, which is indicative of nothing, in Welsh.
The broken chair leg might happen like symmetry breaking, one at a time, at increasing energies, until, eventually all the forces leave us. 
Sorry, I've been contemplating large numbers, and they are numbing.
So is my aperitif.
Sorry, I've been contemplating large numbers, and they are numbing.
So is my aperitif.
Hi Edward 3,
I apologize for the broken link...
http://tech.uk.msn.com/news/article.aspx?c...umentid=6212162
Cheers
I apologize for the broken link...
http://tech.uk.msn.com/news/article.aspx?c...umentid=6212162
Cheers
Good Elf,
I sincerely apologise for having attributed a statement to you incorrectly and I agree with you that we all need to pay more attention to what what is "really" being said.
Happy New Year
Edward 3
I sincerely apologise for having attributed a statement to you incorrectly and I agree with you that we all need to pay more attention to what what is "really" being said.
Happy New Year
Edward 3
Hi Edward 3,
Now we have cleared that up do you want to discuss any of those points?
Cheers
Now we have cleared that up do you want to discuss any of those points?
Cheers
Hi Good Elf,
Guess I was sounding off a bit as I have some serious concerns concerning some QM related ideas that are posing under the guise of "hard science". I raised this issue yesterday in a post under the topic Quantum Physics. I would be interested in your views.
regards
edward 3
Guess I was sounding off a bit as I have some serious concerns concerning some QM related ideas that are posing under the guise of "hard science". I raised this issue yesterday in a post under the topic Quantum Physics. I would be interested in your views.
regards
edward 3
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.