Parallel universes do exist, according to an Oxford study.

Ixzion · **Posted:** September 24th, 2007, 12:42 pm

Check this out:

Link

Quote:

Parallel universes exist - study

Sep 23 11:33 PM US/Eastern

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.
Ã‚Â© Copyright Press Association Ltd 2007, All Rights Reserved.

[/url]

Kittykicker · **Posted:** September 24th, 2007, 12:51 pm

Kool!

Yeah.. I always had a feeling. Kinda like when you look at a
mirror in a mirror. You can see almost like an endless world
of reflections. Thus like "Parallel universes"

Very nice.

Guarionex · **Posted:** September 24th, 2007, 1:41 pm

Hmmm... that eminds e of Futurama's world 1 and world A, where the only difference was that cloins always ended up facing differently when flipped...
So, what they say is that by every possible outcome in an event, the universe is splitted? Do you know how many parallel universe there must be, if this weer true.
I'll stop thinking about it to prevent any possible headache. I don't want to split the universe anymore with my toughts

AnonymousBo · **Posted:** September 24th, 2007, 2:03 pm

Parallel universes 'exist' by providing "a" mathematical explanation to solve certain observed quantum problems.

This does not necessarily mean that they provide "the" answer, but rather one that is consistent with the answer.

But their existence need not be physically real, but only mentally existential to allow us to further 'understand' physical reality, in other words, the evidence is that "they make sense to provide a coherent mathematical framework" with what we observe, not "they provide an observable object".

TheGnasher · **Posted:** September 24th, 2007, 7:14 pm

I had heard this theory before as part as one of the new bizarre things quantum physics brought with it. It also connects nicely to the whole mysterious particle states issue... so, yeah. I think I'll be believing this. Not as an absolute truth but as a likely truth.

1ce · **Posted:** September 25th, 2007, 12:46 am

Read the whole thing. I don't understand, but then again, quantum physics is a class I will never take.

This article doesn't prove anything.

TheGnasher · **Posted:** September 27th, 2007, 6:30 pm

It can't prove anything because to prove something you need to follow the scientific method, and proving anything in physics nowadays is very hard. What quantum physics (and almost all the other areas of physics) work with is theories.
Hell, even relativity is still a 'theory' (because no one has managed to go to space to prove every aspect of it). I may be mistaken, but I doubt many things have officially become Laws since Newton was around...

What they say in the article is that this parallel universes theory can explain a weird behaviour of particles, something that the theories we have now can't. Which also doesn't mean that this theory is true.

AnonymousBo · **Posted:** September 27th, 2007, 6:38 pm

One can function such that the theory is true in some modal realm.

One can also function such that the theory has been proven according to particular criteria.

One however cannot function such that the theory is true throughout all of existence nor that the theory has been proven according to universal criteria.

Staffy · **Posted:** October 1st, 2007, 6:17 am

The description of particles in their subatomic state was simplified beyond recognition.

Subatomic particles actually exist as the waveform, and true, observing them <i>would</i> pin them into either an up or down state down except that no one has yet been able to pin one down because the particles exist in the wave form. They could be any where in there, and since they are traveling at the speed of light Who's to say where they might be at any given moment? This announcement solves the conundrum by saying that these particles, while they were not found her in this universe states that they were in an alternate one, so it's really the law of averages before we find one. The problem with that theory is that with infinite universal possibilities, the likely hood of us finding these particles reduces to 0 as the chances of anything happening when compared to infinity, is in fact zero.

Regal · **Posted:** October 4th, 2007, 2:34 pm

i'm curious as to which 'experts' found the concept of parallel worlds to be 'fanciful'; i mean... it's essentially all thought experiment. how can one seriously be an 'expert'?

i'm not saying it's impossible to be one, i'm just a bit interested.

likewise, i was intruiged by the way that 'mathematical explanation' is preceded by 'a', while 'explanation' is preceded by 'an'. i know it's how the english language works, it struck me as funny. ^_^; in some way.

Agentsix · **Posted:** October 4th, 2007, 2:49 pm

I'll ask for physical evidence not studies based on theories, ideas and fantasy.

Regal · **Posted:** October 4th, 2007, 4:55 pm

you know the really weird thing?

somewhere out there, there's a parallel universe in which each one of us is sat in our own glass sphere, each of us watching another one, arranged in a giant circular pattern, our bubbles serving as markers on the face of a gigantic clock; a clock which floats in the air of a strange world that is Earth... and yet is not Earth.

technically, anyway.

Kittykicker · **Posted:** October 4th, 2007, 5:31 pm

LOOK OUT FOR THEM REGAL HOLES!

Takes you to a Parallel universe. :lol

AnonymousBo · **Posted:** October 4th, 2007, 5:45 pm

@Regal,
Speaking of thought experiments, are you saying there are no such thing as experts in math or philosophy?

@Agentsix,
Does that mean you are agnostic about everything? Physical objects do not have subjective meaning until you employ theories, ideas, and fantasy.

Regal · **Posted:** October 4th, 2007, 5:56 pm

Anonymous Bo wrote:

@Regal,
Speaking of thought experiments, are you saying there are no such thing as experts in math or philosophy?

@Agentsix,
Does that mean you are agnostic about everything? Physical objects do not have subjective meaning until you employ theories, ideas, and fantasy.

Regal wrote:

it's essentially all thought experiment. how can one seriously be an 'expert'?

i'm not saying it's impossible to be one, i'm just a bit interested.

erm... nope, then.

i included the italicised sentence in the hope i wouldn't be asked that. =P

(if i was to actually consider the question, though, i would argue that there is possibly, possibly, an element to thought experiments that is totally unrelated to one's expertise in even the field in which the experiment relates to. it is with this possibility in mind that i considered the question of the existence of expertise in thought experiments, and so... still no; what i was saying was essentially unrelated to the question of expertise in mathematics and philosophy. though it is, on an unrelated note, my belief that everyone involved in any kind of philosophy is still a student. that, however, is a rather different issue.)

and as far as Taizon goes, i can only assume inconsistency; all physical observation is as pointless as mere mechanical observation without theories attached to it, even if only simple theories such as 'this object is distinct from this one', or 'all the things i see form a 3D world', or whatever... i suppose i'm not being uberly precise, but i'm not trying to be, i daresay you get what i mean; without theories to understand our perceptions, what are they except photographs we have no means of deciphering?

and so on. *shrug* or something.

TheGnasher · **Posted:** October 5th, 2007, 7:43 pm

Ever heard of "theoretical physics"? I've never really looked into the definition of the concept, but they call it what Einstein did or what Hawking does. Basically coming up with theories for things. Thinking.
You get a Hawking book to read, "Universe in a Nutcase", for instance, it's mostly thought experiment and everything very closely related to philosophy. Of course they base themselves on maths, because you can't simulate everything with experiments. Those guys who work with physics related to space, subparticles or the nature of the universe in a deeper level all don't have experimental bases to work on... I have the feeling most theories that come out in that area result from these guys having... catches. Ideas.

I mean, theoretical physics is a very active branch of physics, especially with that quantum and chaos things they found out lately, which are extremely dodgy and subjective.

AnonymousBo · **Posted:** October 6th, 2007, 4:56 pm

Theoretical physics, like EVERY school, discipline, and interpretation is subjective.

The thing is that most people subjectively value being able to 'verify' a phenomenon, so they want to witness it objectively. Observation is critical to science, even if not as critical to (other?) 'faith' based interpretations.

In many ways theoretical physics is actually more math than physics because it deals less with physical calculation, prediction, and observation and more with internal consistency in operation from a formal basis.

So while one can argue against the observation of such a discipline, and maybe even challenge it from a philosophy of science point of view, they would be hard pressed to dissolve its mathematical rigor unless they take on mathematics or the primitive physical observations that provide the framework of its mathematical basis.

Staffy · **Posted:** October 6th, 2007, 10:02 pm

I have a personal axiom that sums-up my thoughts on the matter:

Don't and never call yourself an "Expert" or "Master" at something until and unless you can get it or do it right the first time,EVERYTIME.

Agentsix · **Posted:** October 6th, 2007, 10:07 pm

Anonymous Bo wrote:

@Regal,
@Agentsix,
Does that mean you are agnostic about everything? Physical objects do not have subjective meaning until you employ theories, ideas, and fantasy.

No that means I don't believe everything I hear from a bunch of scientist in lab coats. They can find solutions to other sh*t but they can't cure fatal diseases.

AnonymousBo · **Posted:** October 8th, 2007, 1:50 pm

Agentsix wrote:

Anonymous Bo wrote:

@Regal,
@Agentsix,
Does that mean you are agnostic about everything? Physical objects do not have subjective meaning until you employ theories, ideas, and fantasy.

No that means I don't believe everything I hear from a bunch of scientist in lab coats. They can find solutions to other shiz but they can't cure fatal diseases.

I'm just saying that the solutions they find to the 'other shiz' also still require the problem to approached from a framework based on theories and ideas clearly, and I would also say fantasy as well, by my definition.

It seems like what they are missing in this case is the ability to consistently demonstrate it objectively, because they are able to 'consistently' demonstrate parallel universes as a possible solution subjectively through mathematical rigor.

It doesn't mean that they have demonstrated that it is THE ACTUAL answer, just a possible one that would work.

	It is currently January 28th, 2025, 11:05 pm
View unanswered posts \| View active topics

Parallel universes do exist, according to an Oxford study.

Who is online