If you have an interest here's a fun article about Parallel Universes (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000) in Scientific American. I wonder if there are parallel Gods in these parallel universes. Maybe the Hindi are right ;)

The idea of such an alter ego seems strange and implausible, but it looks as if we will just have to live with it, because it is supported by astronomical observations. The simplest and most popular cosmological model today predicts that you have a twin in a galaxy about 10 to the 1028 meters from here.

Well, so much fo "First Cause" arguments ...

Gosh what a surprise! :)

I wonder if god backs up his universe regularly.

Originally posted by Michael
If you have an interest here's a fun article about Parallel Universes (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000) in Scientific American. I wonder if there are parallel Gods in these parallel universes. Maybe the Hindi are right ;)

No. Parallel universes have the same God as us, but they call God by a different name in their language, and they are on a different evolutionary path which is more advanced than ours, but less advanced compared to other universes. In any event, parallel universes still have problems with smog, traffic, illegal immigration, and religious fanatics trying to force their own perception of God down the throats of others.

I don't know about other people Michael, but I don't go in for all that 'Deep thinking' "it's a possibility" stuff. The fact is. anything is possible, and people are capable of imagining anything. Reading it in print doesn't do much for me. Yes, we all know it could be possible, but it's not really much use to us is it.

Sorry if these seems a bit harsh, but it's just my opinion. :(

Mucker,

The fact is. anything is possible, But that isn’t true. And that is also very much the point. Not everything we imagine is possible, and the real fact is that the vast majority of things we imagine are not possible.

and people are capable of imagining anything. Exactly, possible and impossible things, and the only way to demonstrate the possible is to show evidence.

Reading it in print doesn't do much for me. Yes, we all know it could be possible,What makes the difference is not so much the possibility but the probability. The article is pretty much stating that these scenarios are extremely likely to be actuality. But it puts our single big bang Hubble bubble into perspective; our observable big bang bubble is as insignificant as a single grain of sand in the Sahara desert, or more so. It makes the idea of a Creator god choosing a bunch of biological short lived creatures as something special as utterly ludicrous. It is only narrow-minded arrogance that allows some people to think that we are special.

but it's not really much use to us is it.It is if it gives people a more accurate perspective of their place in the universe.

Not everything we imagine is possible No but it is possible for us to imagine anything! This is why I don't really like fiction, or general fictious thoughts; it's like, "oh, well done. You've imagined something. I can do that too!" I especially hate it when what has been imagined serves no real purpose at all; it has just been image-ined (presented with images)for us, for no real need! Quite a few films do this, but I don't mind when there is a purpose or a point behind what has been imagine-d: Star Wars for example, shows what we could expect in the future, especially if there is no 'God', and if evolution is true.

our observable big bang bubble is as insignificant as a single grain of sand in the Sahara desert, or more so. Yes and the chances of all of this creating life is so minute, that I'm a little bit surprised people beleive it. If atoms etc. are all just floating in space and, somehow, these have come together to form the planets, the suns, and ultimately the solar systems, and on teh planets certain chemicals have formed together to produce amino acids (DNA etc) and then some sort of creature that has free will, and 'life' then it's almost unbeleiveable. I can't beleive this is now given presidence over Religion!! I think religion probably did it to itself though!

It is if it gives people a more accurate perspective of their place in the universe. True, but is there any evidence that actually makes this true?? If not it is all just 20th century 'hyper-thinking', just for the sake of it! If it isn't true then maybe people should get back to living their life and stop spending so much time 'thinking up shit'. (present company excluded!) :D

Mucker,

I especially hate it when what has been imagined serves no real purpose at all; it has just been image-ined (presented with images)for us, for no real need! Like art for instance?

….. and if evolution is true. If? There is no doubt.


Yes and the chances of all of this creating life is so minute, that I'm a little bit surprised people beleive it. If atoms etc. are all just floating in space and, somehow, these have come together to form the planets, the suns, and ultimately the solar systems, and on teh planets certain chemicals have formed together to produce amino acids (DNA etc)Start with physics 101 and learn the 4 basic forces and that will help you understand how elements and subatomic particles attract and/or repel each other and result in more complex structures. Proceed then to chemistry 101 and learn more about such forces and more complex structures and that leads to biology 101 and how the forces and structures you have just learnt lead to even more complex structures. From such mechanisms it is not at all difficult to see how life was inevitable.

I can't believe this is now given precedence over Religion!!Ah and now you are beginning to see the issue – one is real while religion is about imagination. And here I take you back to your earlier statement – I especially hate it when what has been imagined serves no real purpose at all; it has just been image-ined (presented with images)for us, for no real need! But gods are a primary example of imagined objects that fulfill no useful purpose and in fact do great harm in distracting peoples minds from real useful things.

True, but is there any evidence that actually makes this true?? Read the article again – while the details are still somewhat speculative the conclusion if that something of this nature must be true.

If it isn't true then maybe people should get back to living their life and stop spending so much time 'thinking up shit'.You mean like inventing even more religions?

Originally posted by Cris
Exactly, possible and impossible things, and the only way to demonstrate the possible is to show evidence.

Cris,
which possible..? will be possible, could be possible, may be possible, would have been possible, now possible.....

will be possible - no evidence now.
could be possible - evidence : ?
may be possibe - evidence : ?
would have been possible - evidence : ?!!!
now possible - evidence : yes.

So everneo, you sound confused.

you are the reason..:D

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
In any event, parallel universes still have problems with smog, traffic, illegal immigration, and religious fanatics ... Not to mention pretentious kooks.

Everneo,

you are the reason..LOL.

OK so 'possible' -

Take two dice, you can roll them to obtain a result between 2 and 12. Possible in this case are those numbers.

Impossible would be 1 and 13 for example.

So if someone says that one shoudn't discount the existence of a god becuase anything is possible, is talking giberish. One would have to establish whether such a thing is like the 2-12 category or more like 13.

"God doesn't play dice" Albert Einstein ;)

"Yes he does" John Bell:)

"God doesn't play dice" Albert Einstein Yes very sensible. It would indeed be embarrassing for him to throw a 13 and to realize he doesn’t exist.

Yes very sensible. It would indeed be embarrassing for him to throw a 13 and to realize he doesn’t exist.

I can see now why thirteen is often considered an unlucky number;)

Originally posted by Cris
... But it puts our single big bang Hubble bubble into perspective; our observable big bang bubble is as insignificant as a single grain of sand in the Sahara desert...
Cris, I really like this analogy :) And in the grain of sand is another Sahara desert with grains of sand called planets - one of which is Earth...

Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
Well, so much fo "First Cause" arguments ...

It's sad that good sense is merely wishful thinking eh?

What proof is there of such universes?

I get that there is infinite universes and infinite space but on those other planets there is no other me just a different species or evolved type of humans(alien) . cause even the likliness of the same language would be impossible even in the infinite because the amount of possible languages is infinite.

Originally posted by PacingYourName
...cause even the likliness of the same language would be impossible even in the infinite because the amount of possible languages is infinite... I once thought, if I skipped a stone and then could rewind time, could I skip it exactly the same way again? Hit each piece of water in the same fashion – just so … splashing just so much water on the first skip and again in the second … moving each H2O molecule of that place in the ocean exactly as I did the first time.

Infinity is a long arse time…
:D

ANS: Yes I could!

Originally posted by Michael
I once thought, if I skipped a stone and then could rewind time, could I skip it exactly the same way again? Hit each piece of water in the same fashion – just so … splashing just so much water on the first skip and again in the second … moving each H2O molecule of that place in the ocean exactly as I did the first time.

Infinity is a long arse time…
:D

ANS: Yes I could!


or you could spend eternaty and infinite time trying and you never will hit the water the same way since there is almost infinite possibilties of the rock going ...and yet the language is till too complex and more then the rock there....since why say would they pick the word meat too call meat when they have never heard of us and heard us say it ..meat could be falihfjodlsahfklo and most likely would rather then meat.

ANS:no you cant

Originally posted by PacingYourName
no you cant
Then how did I do it the first time?:bugeye:

Fucking killer article mang! THX!

you can never be sure of what's out there unless you've been there and seen it. And even then....

If i were given the choice,if i were told:

a)there is a god and a single universe

b)theres no god,theres many many universes(multiverse)

Id choose B because its more scientifically probable theres no need for god with parallel universes,i may also accept this could lead us more into the understanding of the theory of everything.

I wont be surprised to find out that quantum computers are actually using counterparts in parallel universes,in fact prof david deutsch is convinced of it,superstring theorys have suggested it for quiet awhile or made it more likely,and we know that parallel universes or multiverse cannot be ruled out by any law of physics.

I suppose you can think of things like that:
if the laws of physics allow it then it can,will and maybe has happened/happening.

Originally posted by PacingYourName
What proof is there of such universes?

I get that there is infinite universes and infinite space but on those other planets there is no other me just a different species or evolved type of humans(alien) . cause even the likliness of the same language would be impossible even in the infinite because the amount of possible languages is infinite.


There is proof although people ignore it,the proof came in the form of the schrodinger thought experiment with a cat some time ago.

And i think before that the two hole experiment:you pass a photon through 1 of 2 holes but it appears to have interference such as light does,light is fine you can say it acts like particles and waves and interferes,but theres no way in hell you can say a single photon interferes with itself to act like when given the choice of two holes it appears to go through both.

Theres more to it than that if you look around but at the end of the day it appears the quantum world (the inner workings of this world)
seems to behave like its doing everything at once but only a single thing when observed,theres the uncertainty principle which
means you cannot measure both the velocity and position of a particle at the same time,you can check the position OR the velocity but not both,the quantum world wont let you.

This is a good site for science in general,but this link will show you graphically and interactivly about two-slit experiment

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/schroedinger/index.html

Youll be able (i think it uses macromedia shockwave) to interact and do the experiments in a virtual way

edit: everett interpretation faq:
http://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm

Originally posted by Michael
Then how did I do it the first time?:bugeye:

You just did and it will be your last time its really not that deep dude. :confused:

Originally posted by doom
There is proof although people ignore it,the proof came in the form of the schrodinger thought experiment with a cat some time ago.

And i think before that the two hole experiment:you pass a photon through 1 of 2 holes but it appears to have interference such as light does,light is fine you can say it acts like particles and waves and interferes,but theres no way in hell you can say a single photon interferes with itself to act like when given the choice of two holes it appears to go through both.

Theres more to it than that if you look around but at the end of the day it appears the quantum world (the inner workings of this world)
seems to behave like its doing everything at once but only a single thing when observed,theres the uncertainty principle which
means you cannot measure both the velocity and position of a particle at the same time,you can check the position OR the velocity but not both,the quantum world wont let you.

I dont believe that it is solid proof because if it was then me and you would not be asking if it exists it would just simply be a known fact.

Originally posted by doom There is proof although people ignore it,the proof came in the form of the schrodinger thought experiment with a cat some time ago.
Thought experiments prove nothing, they simply suggest ideas.
Schrodinger's Cat was nothing more than that.

Originally posted by doom And i think before that the two hole experiment:you pass a photon through 1 of 2 holes but it appears to have interference such as light does,light is fine you can say it acts like particles and waves and interferes,but theres no way in hell you can say a single photon interferes with itself to act like when given the choice of two holes it appears to go through both.
The two-slits experiment had nothing to do with multiple universes.
It also didn't prove anything.
It provided evidence of wave-particle duality.
It was experimental evidence supporting the theory that electromagnetic energy exhibits properties of both a wave and a particle at the same time.

Originally posted by doom theres the uncertainty principle which means you cannot measure both the velocity and position of a particle at the same time,you can check the position OR the velocity but not both,the quantum world wont let you.

Again.
Not even close to proof of multiple universes.

Well i never said SOLID proof.
Again these things are a matter of definition,i guess ill be carefull in future with the word proof,i meant:
"The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true"

But then you gotta ask yourself
what mind might be willing to accept it and say "well that for me proves the many-worlds is true?"

Without a single doubt in my mind theres people that accept it as proof even if you dont.

It is proof if its convinced people many worlds is true,the dictionary definition of proof dont say


"The evidence or argument that compels EVERYONE to accept an assertion as true."

see?

Originally posted by one_raven
Thought experiments prove nothing, they simply suggest ideas.
Schrodinger's Cat was nothing more than that.


The two-slits experiment had nothing to do with multiple universes.
It also didn't prove anything.
It provided evidence of wave-particle duality.
It was experimental evidence supporting the theory that electromagnetic energy exhibits properties of both a wave and a particle at the same time.



Again.
Not even close to proof of multiple universes.

Its not just electromagnetic energy though,its protons,pions,neutrons and electrons.

If you are just firing a single neutron at the screen and get wave particle duality it means EVERYTHING has wave particle duality including moving baseballs.

Schrodinger's Cat in a Box experiment:
A cat is put in a sealed box also containing a smaller box. This smaller box contains cyanide gas, which is instantly fatal. Connected to the smaller box is a device containing a small bit of radioactive matter, which is constantly shooting off particles at random times and directions. The device is set to release the gas if a certain pattern of particles is detected. So until that pattern of particles are released, the cat is safe. But the thing is that we, the observers, are outside the box with no way of knowing what has happened. Is the cat dead yet, or still alive? The only way to tell is to open up the box. Until someone gets a crowbar to open the box and check, the cat is in a superposition of states where it is both dead and alive. Not in an in-between state like night of the living dead, but actually both. When the box is opened and the cat is observed, a collapse of the wavefunction occurs and the cat is found to be either alive or dead.

So how does the cat be alive and dead?
this experiment can be done and we know from the way the quantum world works that somehow while we are not looking the cat must be alive and dead,or a superposition untill actually observed,thats the copenhagen interpretation,which is not very good.

Many worlds say its both dead and alive but split,so when we open the box the wave function collapses and either the cat is dead or alive,supposing it is alive when we open the box,we can say (in the many worlds interpretation) that there is certainly a dead cat in a split universe.

These splits occur at any irreversable process,lighting a cigarette for example is irreversable according to the second law of thermodynamics,such events cause splits but we are not aware of them.

Thats why we dont have half dead cats,the cat will know if its alive or dead,in the classical world everything seems to be normalthe cat is alive or its dead it cant be both,many worlds gives us back a classical universe,but now a multiverse instead to explain things,there are no supposition of states,youll end up in lunacy when saying "who observes the observers,who collapses the universes wave function to make it what it is?"

Hell some people prefer the copenhagen interpretation,you can say GOD collapses the wavefunction of the universe,so while hes still observing the universe,the universe still exists,after all the supposition of the universe as a whole could be its either there or it isnt till observed.

I don't see why we have to think about multiple universes. It seems more sensible to me that there are just fluctuations in matter throughout the universe. Couldn't these "Parallel Universes" that everyone is talking about just be really really far apart? It could have it's own big bang and possibly it's own laws of physics. Since we are dealing with infinity there would be identical bubbles and extremely similar bubbles.

Would you call these extremely distant potions of the universe a parallel universe?

Originally posted by Ectropic
I don't see why we have to think about multiple universes. It seems more sensible to me that there are just fluctuations in matter throughout the universe. Couldn't these "Parallel Universes" that everyone is talking about just be really really far apart? It could have it's own big bang and possibly it's own laws of physics. Since we are dealing with infinity there would be identical bubbles and extremely similar bubbles.

Would you call these extremely distant potions of the universe a parallel universe?

Erm sounds like your talking of superstring theory or M-theory,
MEMBRANES,quantum fluctuations of particles yeah,the uncertainty principle does allow brane worlds to appear from nothing bubbles,thats part of the reason i think uncertainty principle allows for multiple universes.

M-theory may just be a more accurate description of many worlds
or may prove to throw all that out and come up with something with better evidence,they are simarlar,it cannot throw out multiple worlds,its more likely to enforce it,who knows.


Each brane is a 4 dimensional sphere with 6-7 dimensions curled up very very small,or maybe some are 5 dimensional,they wont have life on,there wont be galaxys or anything,
i read stuff by stephen hawking,the universe as it is only works in 4 dimensions,it cant be 3 or 5,6 or whatever,each brane world may start out 11 dimensional and you could say 7 curl up and make the other 4 expand,the other 7 are still there just too tiny.

What it will explain if its true is why gravity is so freakin weak.

It can be strong in the fundamental theory,but its the spread of gravitational force in extra dimensions which will explain why its so weak in this brane which we live inside.

Originally posted by PacingYourName
You just did and it will be your last time its really not that deep dude. :confused:
Why? Which part can't I repeat? Why can’t I? Is it “physically” impossible? If so how? Can I repeat say only the very “first-instant”?

In reality, I can do it again given enough time?

It’s not that deep dude ;)

Originally posted by one_raven
The two-slits experiment had nothing to do with multiple universes.
It also didn't prove anything.
It provided evidence of wave-particle duality.
It was experimental evidence supporting the theory that electromagnetic energy exhibits properties of both a wave and a particle at the same time.You seem to treat this rather lightly when its impact is quite profound. How is it that a single photon can interfere with itself? There is quite a bit more than wave/particle duality going on here. There is a fundamental difference between quantum behavior and classical behavior.

One possible resolution to the problem is indeed the MWT (Many Worlds Theory).

Further possible evidence exists in the Feynman Diagrams which show that in order to calculate the path of a quantum particle you have to take into account every possible path.
http://www.ph.surrey.ac.uk/partphys/chapter6/feynman.html

There are indeed other possible explanations as to why this behavior occurs but no matter which solution you prefer to the conundrum you wind up with a rather strange Universe.

Here are a few: http://mist.npl.washington.edu/npl/int_rep/tiqm/TI_app.html#A.0

~Raithere

Originally posted by Raithere
You seem to treat this rather lightly when its impact is quite profound. How is it that a single photon can interfere with itself?
Maybe I don't understand the point of the experement, but I thought that the point was to show that light has properties of a particle and a wave. A wave could interfere with itself if it were split.

Originally posted by Ectropic
Maybe I don't understand the point of the experement, but I thought that the point was to show that light has properties of a particle and a wave. A wave could interfere with itself if it were split.

I think you should dig deeper than that,light was the start,but theres more to it.

Hmmn i wonder if dreams are actually a superposition of states,till you wake up and collapse the wave function of your brain,reality is defined by concious observers,so when you are asleep and dream you only collapse the wave function when you wake up.

Are dreams just a superpostion of states,a everything you are doing,thinking in many universes happening all at once,till any of you wake up and realise the reality which stays set in classical terms but maybe not for the function of the mind.

MWI is interesting as a theory,we may prove it one day,i think a quantum computer with AI is one of the only ways it can be done.

Although i think the human mind and dreams may be the connection,people think im nuts...but there ya go.

I don't think dreams are as important as people make them out to be. I think they are the result of the brain replenishing supplies of chemicals. The Neoron that need the chemicals the most are the ones that were used the most that day. This is my reasoning for why we tend to dream about the days events. Not because we are thinking of them in our sleep, but because the same patters of neurons are firing while being replenished.

Originally posted by Ectropic
Maybe I don't understand the point of the experement, but I thought that the point was to show that light has properties of a particle and a wave. A wave could interfere with itself if it were split.Yes, that is partially correct but the experiment has some new factors since Young. In the 80’s the experiment was carried out with an emitter that was capable of sending a single photon at a time. A single photon cannot be split (Plank’s Quantum Hypothesis), yet we still get the interference pattern (one must send many single photons through the experiment to perceive the pattern though). Even stranger is the fact that if we place a detector at each of the slits in order to ‘see’ which one the photon goes through the interference pattern goes away (the wave function collapses).

http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/quantum.html

It gets even weirder though: In another variation (Chiao, Kwiat, Steinberg) 2 polarizing lenses are used to differentiate which photon goes through which slit (we could tell because they would have a particular polarization depending upon which slit they go through). Sure enough, the interference pattern vanishes. But if we put a third polarizing lens between the slits and the screen the pattern reemerges.

And another fun one with quantum indeterminacy: If we take two polarizing lenses, one horizontal and one vertical, no light will get through because the first lens only lets horizontally polarized light through the second only lets vertically polarized light through. However, if you take a third lens and put it in between the two at a 45 degree angle, some light will get through.

~Raithere

A couple of quick addendums:

One is that the slit experiment has also been performed with the same results with electrons and atoms. We hear about the wave/particle duality of light often but not the wave/particle duality of atoms.

Two, in the double slit experiment with the sensors, the same results are found even if we only put a sensor at one of the slits. That is, the photons traveling through the slit without the sensor somehow ‘know’ that the sensor is at the other slit and behave accordingly.

~Raithere

you me the earth etc.. are wave/particles. The wave function is just very very very small.