Parallel universes exist - study

Norse · Post by **Norse** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:25 pm

Stopper wrote:I'll have a Jaffa Cake if one's on offer, thanks.

How about a large slice of humble pie?

Stopper · Post by **Stopper** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:29 pm

Norse wrote:
Stopper wrote:I'll have a Jaffa Cake if one's on offer, thanks.
How about a large slice of humble pie?

No, I don't need any humble pie. Do you think I do?

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:30 pm

Norse wrote:
Stopper wrote:I'll have a Jaffa Cake if one's on offer, thanks.
How about a large slice of humble pie?

I'll take the extinction plate, thanks.

Norse · Post by **Norse** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:36 pm

Stopper wrote:
Norse wrote:
Stopper wrote:I'll have a Jaffa Cake if one's on offer, thanks.
How about a large slice of humble pie?
No, I don't need any humble pie. Do you think I do?

No, you have obviously been feeding your greedy face from this platter for too long.

Maybe a liberal dose of sour kraut will set you chemical balance into a socially acceptable frame.

Stopper · Post by **Stopper** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:53 pm

Norse wrote:No, you have obviously been feeding your greedy face from this platter for too long.

Maybe a liberal dose of sour kraut will set you chemical balance into a socially acceptable frame.

So, in other words, you didn't actually have anything to say, as I originally thought you might have. Good. I'm off to bed.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:54 pm

How does a study conclude the fact that there are parallel universes? A study is like a survey only more objective.

Snorri1234 · Post by **Snorri1234** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 8:01 pm

unriggable wrote:
Neutrino wrote:
unriggable wrote:
Assuming you could, with energy being properly placed and half-lives and masses and temperatures being perfectly identical, I think you'd get the same result.
Well yes, if you did manage to violate the Uncertainty principle (fairly massively) you should be able to create the exact same circumstances.
And the same result. Of course this is impossible to replicate, but were it possible then from my guess you'd get the same result. One situation - one result. My reason for a linear, not-necessarily-planned but guided universe.

Well it's basically because of the quantum physics not being deterministic. It means you can't ever predict the movement of certain particles, because it's chaos. They don't actually have a place and movement unless you observe them, so they could be anywhere untill that moment. Schrödingers cat is a famous example.

It seems ridiculous but at the same time agreeable. I don't know what to make of it myself...

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:23 pm

Honestly you have to take a step back and say "whatever". It's not like this matters. It's not like most sciences matter at all. Evolution is really just a matter of curiosity and satisfying it. Astronomy doesn't serve much purpose either. So no need to get worked up about a universe and such.

Jehan · Post by **Jehan** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:30 pm

i tuned out after it used the motor cyclist example, was the article any good?

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:40 pm

Jehan wrote:i tuned out after it used the motor cyclist example, was the article any good?

It was brief. In a parallel universe, would be as long as one of OnlyAmbrose's rants.

ParadiceCity9 · Post by **ParadiceCity9** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:11 pm

Iliad wrote:My view of the parallel universe is indifferent. It is something I can easily imagine and believe in but since there is and never can be any proof of it I don't.It's an interesting idea but it doesn't affect us at all

I wouldn't necessarily say there will never be any proof...

Jehan · Post by **Jehan** » Fri Oct 19, 2007 10:32 pm

well if string theory turns out to be true then there may be, but then again string theory is yet to provide any evidence itself. mathematical solutions are nice, but you really want to see some evidence before you say something is right.

Timotheos · Post by **Timotheos** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:01 am

If Schrödinger's cat is correct. would that kind of disprove the idea of time, the past and future. We are in and will allways be in one single moment.

Argh weird. I've never liked the idea of time anyway. Im mean, when you think of it, the idea of a 'future' is just as crazy an idea as any. how can there be a future aead of you if your allways in the now.

why did I read this thread.

DaGip · Post by **DaGip** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 4:54 am

Timotheos wrote:If Schrödinger's cat is correct. would that kind of disprove the idea of time, the past and future. We are in and will allways be in one single moment.

Argh weird. I've never liked the idea of time anyway. Im mean, when you think of it, the idea of a 'future' is just as crazy an idea as any. how can there be a future aead of you if your allways in the now.

why did I read this thread.

Very good! You took your first step in the true realization of time. The linear quality that we humans give time is incorrect. There is but The Now of all events. Now wait for the LSD to wear off and go to sleep.

Jehan · Post by **Jehan** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 5:47 am

what do you mean disprove time? like you say its an idea, its like trying to disprove communism.

DaGip · Post by **DaGip** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:08 pm

Jehan wrote:what do you mean disprove time? like you say its an idea, its like trying to disprove communism.

I believe he is meaning the disproval of LINEAR TIME, which to our experience is Past, Present, and Future; and is measured on a clock. That existence of time does not really exist, but is an illusionary concept. Quantum time is somehting totally different and actually begins to embrace certain metaphysical aspects of Eastern Philosophies: such as The Now which is the simultaneous culmination of what you perceive to be Past, Present, and Future. I like to call it the Great Isawasat! The Is and the Was and the At.

But I do agree that the word disprove is a little strong, as the concept will always exist and is; and humans must operate their lives based on linearity. Linear time is a Macro-perception of the functions of the Universe not the Micro. Your concepts would change if we ever adopted the Micro-perceptions of the Universe...perhaps that time is coming?

AlgyTaylor · Post by **AlgyTaylor** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 1:18 pm

Well, it's all theoretical of course, but I've read a bit about parallel universes and tbh I don't think they exist. I do go along with the string theory, um, theory - but at the end of the day it's all conjecture. Mathematically it looks a distinct possibility, but whose to say that there isn't some other perfectly good explaination for it?

Coleman · Post by **Coleman** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:01 pm

Why are people here arguing against the existence of parallel universes when things that are possible through quantum mechanics requires them to exist? There are no other explanations, really smart people (Hawking ect.) all agree on this. Plus this is old old news.

OnlyAmbrose · Post by **OnlyAmbrose** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:33 pm

Coleman wrote:Why are people here arguing against the existence of parallel universes when things that are possible through quantum mechanics requires them to exist? There are no other explanations:

I'll go ahead and use the argument which atheists are so fond of.

Just because we don't know WHY certain things happen in quantum mechanics doesn't mean it's automatically a parallel universe.

Snorri1234 · Post by **Snorri1234** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 3:13 pm

OnlyAmbrose wrote: Just because we don't know WHY certain things happen in quantum mechanics doesn't mean it's automatically a parallel universe.

Well mathematically it does.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:19 pm

Snorri1234 wrote:
OnlyAmbrose wrote: Just because we don't know WHY certain things happen in quantum mechanics doesn't mean it's automatically a parallel universe.
Well mathematically it does.

He's got a point. Mathematically, we proved that all the fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces) were at one point conjoined into a single force - however a billionth of a second after the big bang gravity splits off. Mathematically it is crystal clear, however for us mortals it is hard to swallow.

Snorri1234 · Post by **Snorri1234** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:51 pm

unriggable wrote:
Snorri1234 wrote:
OnlyAmbrose wrote: Just because we don't know WHY certain things happen in quantum mechanics doesn't mean it's automatically a parallel universe.
Well mathematically it does.
He's got a point. Mathematically, we proved that all the fundamental forces (gravity, electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear forces) were at one point conjoined into a single force - however a billionth of a second after the big bang gravity splits off. Mathematically it is crystal clear, however for us mortals it is hard to swallow.

Indeed. It's basically impossible for us to actually understand any of this. Like the concept of infinity. We can use it in equations and do all kinds of stuff with it, but we can't actually grasp what it means.

Timotheos · Post by **Timotheos** » Sat Oct 20, 2007 8:23 pm

That’s such a strange thing Snorri, that fact that anything could be impossible to comprehend. I really anyone could really understand what it means for something to be of an infinite value.

I guess its because we have nothing tangible that we can even slightly compare it to. Or maybe how we learn from experiences and no one actually experiences any of this, but its still there. It’s just weird how our brains can imagine and thinks of almost anything, but it can’t understand that.

Maybe we aren't suppose to be able to understand 'it', ever. because if we did, we would probly tamper with it somehow... you know how we humans are.