|
Author
|
Topic: Oxford Study Says Parallel Universes Exist
|
Greg B
IE # 118
Member # 886
|
posted
Source: BREITBART.Com - Los Angeles, California, USA
http://tinyurl.com/3dqvlw
Sep 23 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.
Copyright Press Association Ltd 2007, All Rights Reserved.
--------------------
http://www.boonestoons.com
http://www.spacefool.com
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Schnier
Member
Member # 3378
|
posted
I like the parallel universe where Spock has a beard.
IP: Logged
|
|
OFFBEAT
IE # 39
Member # 873
|
posted
I want to live in the parallel universe where Al Gore won the election.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"Get Rich, or Die Drawing!"
IP: Logged
|
|
OFFBEAT
IE # 39
Member # 873
|
posted
This stuff is just bad science..
about 500 years ago we decided what the equations of the universe were. There's 360 degrees to the earth.. well, because that's how many we say there are.
Fast foward to the now, and we observe things that don't match up with those equations and they think.. well those equations can't POSSIBLY be wrong.. therefore there must be a parallel dimensions and 'dark matter'.
Oxford needs to update their text books.
--------------------
"Get Rich, or Die Drawing!"
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tobias A. Wolf
IE # 250
Member # 383
|
posted
quote:
Fast foward to the now, and we observe things that don't match up with those equations and they think.. well those equations can't POSSIBLY be wrong.. therefore there must be a parallel dimensions and 'dark matter'.
See the anthropic principal. Hunch wise, I've always thought that there is a fundamental flaw in our current mathematical model in understanding the universe. Not like I have the answers, but our current understanding of Pi is unresolved and has been for hundreds of years. I think this has a lot to do with our inability to resolve the disconnection between the macro and micro mathematical models we use today to understand the universe. Therefore, we have no convincing and elegant Grand Unified Theory.
It almost makes you think it all needs to be torn down. Maybe there is no such thing as the concept of "one" or "two" in a kind of isolated and measurable way? After all nothing in this Universe is isolated, hence the "Uni" in universe. Maybe those ideas are just residual precepts left over from our evolution that are working against us attaining the level of understanding that so many are after.
Either way, there are some serious limits and crazy loop-de-loop mathematics attempting to explain observations today. Math needs a rewrite from the bottom up.
Eh, crazy talk.
![[tipsy]](graemlins/tipsy.gif)
IP: Logged
|
|
OFFBEAT
IE # 39
Member # 873
|
posted
ugh.. If I didn't have to worry about money all the time.. i'd love to sit and ponder this stuff all day long.
Right now it just causes mental fatigue!!
I got stupid cartoons to think about!!
--------------------
"Get Rich, or Die Drawing!"
IP: Logged
|
|
Tobias A. Wolf
IE # 250
Member # 383
|
posted
Cool Offbeat. Still, the concept of the strong anthropic principal totally blew me away when I first grasped it. It takes some working at to get, but once you do it will be worth it even if you reject it in mulling.
Like anything worth a damn (even ideas), it takes some work to understand and enjoy it for what it proposes.
IP: Logged
|
|
Greg B
IE # 118
Member # 886
|
posted
One of the best Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes involved Worf being propelled into alternate universes until at one point all the alternate universes began to emerge into one.
This study has merit. It's interpretation will have scientists gabbing for years. It's application can go in any direction.
It's proof again that we don't know everything yet so we don't always know what we can and cannot do.
Dr. Michio Kaku, head of physics at NYU often discusses these discoveries on news shows and his own radio show http://www.mkaku.org/radio/
Up in Canada, friend Professor Nick Balaskas another theoretical physicists from York University also is a great source of wisdom regarding physics.
I'm lucky I get to chat with top physicists on a daily basis. Physics drove me crazy in high school but it wasn't til after college did I really start to get it.
Physics is fun when you get right down to it.
--------------------
http://www.boonestoons.com
http://www.spacefool.com
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
