# Thread: Are You A Parallel Universe Enthusiast?

1. ## Are You A Parallel Universe Enthusiast?

Subatomic matter behaves very differently to larger masses. One example of this estranged behavior is called the 'double slit experiment' introduced by physicist Thomas Young in 1805. This experiment consists of a machine that shoots a beam of photons, electrons or even atoms towards film screen - but before the particles reach the screen and leaves tiny marks, it needs to pass through either an upper slit, or a lower slit that are closely separated (see diagram). Each slit can be closed, or both can be left opened by the choice of the observer.

Now, when the beam of particles hit the screen, you would suppose the particles had to pass through either the upper slit or the lower slit, yes? However, the strange thing is, is that if you close down one of slits, more particles reach the screen than if you left both slits open! How can this be? You would imagine more particles reaching the screen if both slits were opened - but this is not the case.

One strange answer came about. The particle wasn't a pointlike particle at all. It acted as though it were a wave!
If one uses the wave description, the problem seemed to go away. We know how waves act in the sea, and this also means that the particle will take these attributes on board.

A wave could reach both slits at the same time - and just like a wave coming into contact with two openings, the wave can split into two smaller waves, one, as i am sure you can guess, in each slit. If the two waves travel different paths, they can be made to interfere with themselves after passing the slits; in doing so, less waves reach the screen. If one slit is only open, the wave will travel through the slit, and, just like a wave hitting the shore, it will hit many places simultaneously on the screen - thus hitting more places with one slit open, than having both slits open.

However, the particle wasn't only just a wave - after all, when it hit the screen, it left a tiny 'pointlike' mark. Somehow when the wave hit the screen, it hit many places on the screen as dots. Thus, a new description had to made for a particle that traveled through space as a wave, and finishes its journey as a single object - this description has been come to be called the 'wave-particle duality.' The particle therego was in fact a wave and a particle simultaneously.

Why did the particle act as a wave?

Well, at first, physicists thought that the wave was a product of the human mind - it wasn't real, and it was just a means for us to keep track of experiments. The wave became to be called the 'quantum wave function.' This was a wave of possibilities. The wave probability enables us to calculate the possibility for a particle and its path, location, spin, orbital reference, ect. The wave spreads out over space, and resembles likelihoods, not actualities... or does it?

In 1957 physicist Hugh Everett the third, came up with a rather bizarre conclusion concerning the wave function. His idea was that if the experiment says that the particle passed through both slits at the same time, then both particles, the one traveling past the upper slit, and the particle traveling through the lower slit, must both exist.

Question is though, how and where does this extra ghostly particle exist? The answer was parallel universes. Somehow, an identical particle existed in a parallel world; the wave represented the amount of particles it was composed of, thus one particle passed the upper slit and a particle passed the lower slit, and each 'branch', or universe, it was represented as a wave, having quite a real effect in each universe.

However, why should the particle be a wave and then suddenly become a particle again? It turns out that our universe, according to Everett, is constantly splitting and merging every time some measurement is performed or when something comes into contact with something else.

Each time the universe splits, it would represent the wave function splitting into as many possibilities as there where outcomes, and the merging would represent the universe becoming superimposed all over again. Thus, in the double slit experiment, when the particle moves through both the slits simultaneously, this represents the universe splitting, creating as many universes as the possibility allows - in this case, two universes - and the merging represents the pointlike dot when it hits the screen. However, it turns out that the experiment represents only two universes - yet, it turns out that our universe is in fact one in an infinite amount of parallel universes, all 'superpositioned' upon each other, like layers on a cake.

t is amazing, i think at least, that something so science-fiction like parallel universes can be taken rather seriously by top physicists today. The theme is almost unimaginable... just think about it - an infinity of universes - an infinity of earths for that matter, with an infinite amount of me's, and an infinite amount of you's - worlds were i exist, and worlds were you do not - worlds were you exist and i do not. Worlds that neither of us exist... worlds that are barren of life, and worlds with life more weird and wonderful than we could ever imagine. Worlds of paradise, and hell worlds galore!

And each universe is unique, as there maybe several outcomes to a certain event, but only one individual outcome is allowed in any single universe. Thus, whenever i flip a coin and observe what side it has landed on, i become apart of the splitting of the universe, and my body is projected into two me's - one in this universe looking and observing a heads, let's say, and another me in the 'newly born' universe observing a tails. However, this easy-creation of universes disturbs some scientists. The idea is, if you flip a coin in 100 tosses, you create something equivalent to 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376 universe-possibilities real; that is a little over 10^30. If every 6 billion-odd souls on earth simply stopped to flip a coin a hundred times, you could imagine the amount of universes that would split off from our own. In fact, the parallel universe theory has undergone some variations over the years. Some scientists believe that not only is our universe prone to split, but all the parallel universes might in fact also split.

Matter in each of these universes permitted to contain matter, are in equal proportion, which is around 10^80 particles in each universe. However, this is where we tend to get a little confused - even though a particle, according to parallel universe theory, exists in two worlds as a wave in the double slit experiment, there is only one particle ever present whenever the universes merge! There will always be a single particle present, provided no one comes along and decided to observe the little particle, or a large electrical force pulls it out of its superpositioning - or simply, whenever anything comes into contact with something else; even in a tragedy.

Take me for instance. Imagine i decided to cross the road, and i never looked both ways. A car hits me and i die... 'Sianara?' Well, yes and no. I do indeed die, but i die as the unfortunate outcome of this world - in a parallel universe i am living quite happily. When the car hit me, the universes flew apart, each providing a certain outcome unique among the rest.

Neither would it do us any good to say that time passes at the same rate in each of these universes - that wouldn't be accurate at all. It would be like the differential time zones on planet earth - i will be asleep in one universe, whilst i am totally awake here and now. Some universes might be so similar to ours, the only quantum difference is that you might be wearing a red tie, instead of a blue tie... A universe with these differential time traits are called 'self-contained' time.

Now, not every physicist agrees with parallel universe theory - take for granted some of the best minds in the quantum mainstream, like Stephen Hawkings entertain the 'many world hypothesis,' instead of the 'collapse of the wave function.' The wave function permeates all of spacetime. Created by Erwin Schrödinger, the mathematical function would predict the infinite amount of possible locations or paths an atom can have; for instance, in the double slit experiment, the wave represents two paths - thus the paths are represented by the wave function. The collapse of the wave function is the sudden reduction in the value of probability. The idea, is that the world suddenly reduced to a single calculation - the wave is said to collapse - the usual way to describe the collapse, is to imagine a balloon being deflated.

I believe in the collapse - i simply cannot believe that the universe is constantly splitting and merging. Although, the collapse itself has been attacked by some physicists over the years. The most famous attack was by Albert Einstein - as you may know - he was highly critical of the conditions brought about by the simple act of observation - and it wasn't an isolated case... as he carried his displeasure for Quantum Physics right to his death. He also brought to our attentions, that quantum physics failed as a complete theory - it failed to explain how an observer comes to know something.

I think this question can only be answered by accepting that the human observer is somehow apart of that knowledge - instead of believing that the observer is separate of that information. One way to imagine this, is that knowledge or information (as both are the same thing) starts and ends with the individual who measures a system. The system itself, or the universe around it cannot make sense of information - there is simply no intelligence present to make any resolution - it can only act to this information by a collapse and the system will 'quantum jump' into a new state - thus the information only becomes meaningful when intelligence is involved. In this sense, knowledge that is true knowledge begins and ends with us; the rest is up to God. Once we have this knowledge inside our neural networks, we turn it into experience, which then processes as memory, and this is how we come to know something.

What is a quantum leap? Some of us will know it as a jitterbugging particle that moves from one place to another without going in-between - a discontinuous change from one state into a new state - others, as that 'corny' 1980's show. If we are indeed to take Hawkings seriously by viewing the universe as an atom, does that mean the universe will quantum leap in the future? Coming back to this question, two main things can happen, depending on what kind of energy state our universe is in. There are two known states called 'Ground State,' and 'Excited State.'

A ground state atom arranges its inhabitants; the electron, the proton and the neutron ect., to a certain frequency, so that they can have the smallest energy possible. If our universe isn't in a ground state, it could have come from a singularity in space, a bit like the kind found inside of black holes... However, i would like to add, that Hawkings is not so sure any more if singularities really exist. Thus, if our universe is in a ground state, it wouldn't have come from a singular region. Instead, it will have had at its center an opening in the fabric of space and time; this is a worm hole, threaded with a substance called 'exotic matter'. This wormhole might loop in on our own universe, and anything that can travel through it, might turn up in a different region of space, at a totally different time of history - theoretically, i could jump into the wormhole a few minutes after big bang, and end up coming out of the wormhole, 40-odd billion years later when the universe decides to contract. Or, if theory is correct as we have seen, it might link this universe up with other universes. But passing through one prooves impossible.

A ground state atom will not spill out energy - this means that it is a very stable particle. If our universe is in its ground state, it will not be able to quantum leap in the future. If the atom is in an excited state, then it will eventually spill out its energy and will inexorably quantum leap. If it was a universe i am speaking about here, it will spill out its energy, quite possibly into a branch that is in its ground state, and will quantum leap.

Stephen Hawkings believes our universe is in a ground state.
And what if parallel universe theory indicates a new presence - a divine presence?

I've heard some arguments put forth that parallel universes predicts the existence of a God... for sure. They say, that because there are an infinite amount of universes, there must be a God, and because God is omnipresent, he/she would exist in every universe. Well, i can't argue with that statement, and I’m not sure many can. An infinite amount of universes must indicate an infinite of amount of 'states' a universe can be in; these states are the statistical differences found in each universe. Some universes will have a small quantum mistake different to ours, others will be much more weird and maybe even mind boggling. Thus it might just be a case of searching enough universes until one holds fit for the temple of an omnipotent being.

Now after dragging on all the lamens knowledge, now comes the question. Do you believe in Parallel Universes?

Reiku

2. By the way, i wanted to post a diagram with this, but the damn thing refused me! :ANGRY:

3. ## Parallel Universe Temporal Difference

Hi Reiku

I have been working on a similar idea in my recent theory involving a parallel universe to explain dark matter and possibly even explain the uniform cosmic background microwave radiation.

Temporal Difference and Dark Matter
This involves showing that the dual-slit or similar experiment can show the existence of a parallel universe and that the time difference is the reason why we cannot see matter in it, i.e. 'dark' matter. Further more, I think the time difference can be shown to cause the background radiation.
One experiment where this temporal phase difference may have already been observed concerns passing single photons through interference slits (or a beam splitter) to measure the quantum effects. If a single photon is sent toward a screen through two slits or splitting mirror, rather than two spots eventually building up opposite the two slit openings, what eventually builds up is the interference pattern of alternating bright and dark lines. The result suggests that a single photon may split into two (or more) photons (i.e. one from each universe) but with a different time phase to pass through two or more slits and create an interference pattern! Each photon being shared by other merged universes. Adding further slits/splitters could be used to find the number of universes merged by identifying the temporal differences.
This experiment can also demonstrate dramatically the effect of coherence length. A 10 nm wide filter placed in the interferometer creates a coherence length of about 50 mm. (2011 - colgate.edu have changed to this value from 50 µm so I have corrected below - however this provides a better figure for the cosmic background calculations) Then when the interferometer arms are adjusted so that one is more than 50 mm longer than the other, the fringes disappear. Insertion of a 1-nm filter in front of the trigger detector 1, however, increases the coherence lengths of the idler and corresponding signal photons, and the fringes reappear.
The single photon experiment above (at colgate.edu) identifies a path difference of 50mm to remove the interference. At the speed of the light the photon at 300x106 m/s takes 50x10-3/300x106 s = 0.16x10-9 s.
This could indicate that a parallel universe's photon and our universe's photon exist together but separated by a temporal phase difference of 0.16 ns between our universe and a parallel universe (assuming the speed of light is the same in the parallel universe).

There is a growing number of scientists that are re-considering the validity of the classic Big Bang theory and there are other theories that provide other explanations of the latest observations. The cosmic background microwave radiation is an important piece of the puzzle which is a problem phenomena to explain if due to the Big Bang heat theory; see the quote below:
Quote: ... The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory..... Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation..... Relevant part of statement made by 33 top scientists in the Cosmology Statement.org (Published in New Scientist, May 22-28 issue, 2004, p. 20)... end Quote

In my theory, the parallel universe influence, which also explains 'dark' matter and energy can also explain the uniform background radiation across the whole universe with localised effects. As explained in my theory, the parallel universe will need to be temporaly out of phase with our universe to provide the 'dark' matter but this time difference will also cause a common 'beat' frequency to be produced, i.e. the microwave background. This 'beat' frequency production (which I call HETERODYNING) is produced in a similar way to the older 'superhet' radios where a variety of frequencies are converted to a single intermediate frequency. However, heterodyning between a parallel universe and ours requires a different explanation.

In a superhet radio the beat frequency is produced by mixing the signal from an oscillator and the incoming signal. The frequency of the oscillator is always a fixed frequency above the tuned incoming signal (usually acheived with a ganged dual variable capacitors). A simple RF amplifier for the fixed frequency (also know as the intermediate frequency) can then fine-tune and amplify the signal for best output. You could consider the two universes as the two ganged capacitors but separated by time. As each EM wave from one universe interacts with the other through the time difference (which is always constant and drives the ganged capacitor) the common microwave beat frequency is produced.

How does this happen? An EM wave from one universe is not visible in the other (hence the 'dark' matter and energy). This does not prevent EM waves from interacting though, as shown in the Dual-Slit experiment interference patterns. The following calculations show the mechanism between the two universes required to produce the peak background microwave frequency of 160 GHz (note that this is the peak and that other frequencies are present but less intense):

The wavelength difference from the double-slit experiment is 50 mm. If this is a full wavelength difference then the frequency is = c/50x10-3 = 300x106/50x10-2 = 6x10-9 = 6 Ghz.

The 50mm figure now seems a little suspect and could still be a whole factor wrong. It was probably measured using a red laser at about 630nm so this may also affect the value? I am currently researching this further.

Assuming 50mm is correct, this is a bit low to give the 160 GHz required for the observed cosmic background microwave frequency but it assumes the speed of light between the universes is the same. If the speed of light, as I proposed, varies with the mas of the universes, then it would require a factor of 26 to make it 160 GHz. This factor is higher than current estimates of the ratio of 5:1 between the mass of the parallel universe and ours so is unlikely to be the main reason. This result is certainly in the 'ball park' area but I hope to find more accurate sources to verify this effect.
JamesF

4. Originally Posted by JamesF
Hi Reiku
Um, it's a four year-old thread. And Reiku has been banned.
Specifically for "continually wasting the time of legitimate physicists".
Take everything he's written with a vast pinch of salt.

5. @ Dywy,

"continually wasting the time of legitimate physicists".
LMAO. Thanks for that. Cheers!

6. Originally Posted by Dywyddyr
Um, it's a four year-old thread. And Reiku has been banned.
Specifically for "continually wasting the time of legitimate physicists".
Take everything he's written with a vast pinch of salt.
Dywwyder, you're not even a scientist, yet you prance about the science subforums like you know it all. I remember a discussion with you a year ago and you didn't even know what symmetry breaking was.

Well I can do a lot of technical stuff now. When I wrote this four years ago, I can safely say reading it, I was enticed by physics, but my love for it at this place was quickly quelled. No one here enjoys an amatuer. Things change. I know more now than I did then, and I hope to know a great deal more another 4 years down the line.

Yes.... I probably wouldn't have spammed this place if moderation was actually... you know... in progress.

7. Originally Posted by Reiku111
Dywwyder, you're not even a scientist, yet you prance about the science subforums like you know it all.
Much the same could be said of you. However I merely quoted the reason given for your ban.

I remember a discussion with you a year ago and you didn't even know what symmetry breaking was.
Yes. You were (and still are) wrong.

Well I can do a lot of technical stuff now.
I believe you. But can you do any of it right?

Yes.... I probably wouldn't have spammed this place if moderation was actually... you know... in progress.
Well you won't get much chance to spam this time either. Your next ban will be along soon.

8. @ Dywy,

Reiku is more of a scientist than Dywy could ever dream to become. Just search their threads they have started and read what is there.

I just commented on the "faster than the speed of light" thread here..

This experiment shows that a supposition held by Reiku 4 years ago was just proved true (or closer to true) this month. That is a HELL OF A LOT better than anything I have seen Dywy do.

I'd like to add that I have enjoyed reading many of Reikus threads, and can see he has a forward thinking mind. Unfortunately the trolls on this website make it hard for smart people like him.

9. Yeah yeah.
You're wrong again kw.

10. Originally Posted by Reiku111
Dywwyder, you're not even a scientist, yet you prance about the science subforums like you know it all.
Firstly, you aren't a scientist. Secondly, the fact someone points out hacks doesn't mean they think they know everything.

Originally Posted by Reiku111
I remember a discussion with you a year ago and you didn't even know what symmetry breaking was.
So? He's not claiming to know everything and besides, just because you've read the Wiki page on symmetry breaking doesn't mean you know much about it. Nothing you know he couldn't pick up with an afternoon on Google.

Originally Posted by Reiku111
Well I can do a lot of technical stuff now.

I know more now than I did then, and I hope to know a great deal more another 4 years down the line.
I'm calling you a liar. You've reappeared here with multiple accounts of the years and you're still as useless as ever. You're not at university doing physics and you're obviously not trying to learn it properly yourself.

You want to put on a white coat and call yourself a physicist and no one buys it.

Originally Posted by kwhilborn
@ Dywy,

Reiku is more of a scientist than Dywy could ever dream to become. Just search their threads they have started and read what is there.
Reiku lied, repeatedly even when called on them, about his education, his knowledge and his work. He claimed to have studied high level relativity at college (before university!). A lie. He claimed to understand quantum mechanics on a working level. A lie. He claimed to have work accepted for publication. A lie. All he ever did was throw out essays filled with buzzwords and gibberish mathematics. He didn't even understand basic concepts taught in school, like getting your units to match.

Reiku was never anything close to a scientist and to think otherwise only illustrates neither are you.

11. @ Alphanumeric,

I think its funny that this is month Reiku has been proven right, and yet all the old timers just jump right in and start trolling again.

I just commented on the "faster than the speed of light" thread here..

This experiment shows that a supposition held by Reiku 4 years ago was just proved true (or closer to true) this month. That is a HELL OF A LOT better than anything I have seen anyone else do around here.

I'd like to add that I have enjoyed reading many of Reikus threads, and can see he has a forward thinking mind. Unfortunately the trolls on this website make it hard for smart people like him.

I have read many threads by Reiku, and I think he has suppositioned the observer collapsing side of quantum mechanics more than some people are likely too accept. Like you all have a PERFECT understanding of what is going on down there.

Reiku has made some exceptional "guesses", and there is no way to argue that he has now been proven right about the neutrinos travelling faster than light as he said was possible 4 years ago.

So now Neutrinos moving faster than light are accepted science. Will Ben give Reiku a big hug?

Will Ben say, "Dang reiku! You are a genius".

Will anybody.

Re-read some of Reikus old threads, and I am talking about the ones he started. If you say one thing mildly wrong, or misspelled, or that disturbs someones safety zone then they are quick to call you a crank.

If you go back to the original post that he mentioned neutrinos moving faster than light 4 years ago, you will see how quickly people jump on it.

"Faster than light. Not possible."

Well guess he was right after all though. Sciforums is obviously not a welcome place for forward thinkers. If you want to discuss "possibilities" then there is no place for it here. Sciforums is for facts only, and even then only facts moderators can understand.

12. Tiddles: What is it?
Fluffy: I don't know. It's something Reiku wrote.

13. Originally Posted by kwhilborn
@ Alphanumeric,

I think its funny that this is month Reiku has been proven right, and yet all the old timers just jump right in and start trolling again.

I just commented on the "faster than the speed of light" thread here..

This experiment shows that a supposition held by Reiku 4 years ago was just proved true (or closer to true) this month. That is a HELL OF A LOT better than anything I have seen anyone else do around here.
Reiku didn't provide a working model, testable predictions based on formalism, a foundation upon which people could develop, he provided just arm wavey guesses based on ignorance.

When someone throws out so much shit it's not surprising some of it sticks. Even if it transpires the experiment is confirmed and neutrinos go faster than light it means one qualitative guess of his out of dozens, even hundreds, was not wrong.

It's a confirmation bias. Psychics make a few hits every now and again, guessing the names of people's dead relatives or their pet's name. Doesn't make them psychic, it means that random guessing doesn't always fail. Reiku spouted more made up stuff then pretty much anyone else, on subjects across most of physics. It would be surprising if he didn't eventually hit on something which turned out to be right.

Look up the Texas sharp shooter fallacy.

Originally Posted by kwhilborn
I'd like to add that I have enjoyed reading many of Reikus threads
Doesn't make him a scientist.,

Originally Posted by kwhilborn
Unfortunately the trolls on this website make it hard for smart people like him.
If you're really read his threads you'd have seen how often he was proven categorically wrong.

He claimed to know relativity and quantum mechanics but he couldn't multiple out the brackets (a+b)(c+d). That's taught to 11 year olds and he couldn't do it.

He wasn't smart, he was (and I imagine still is) an ignorant attention whore.

Originally Posted by kwhilborn
Like you all have a PERFECT understanding of what is going on down there.
Fallacy again. I don't have to have all the answers to see he didn't. I don't know, off the top of my head, what 29583894 times 858950920 is but I know it isn't 7.

Originally Posted by kwhilborn
Reiku has made some exceptional "guesses", and there is no way to argue that he has now been proven right about the neutrinos travelling faster than light as he said was possible 4 years ago.
Sharp shooter fallacy. Reiku didn't provide a working model either. Anyone can make predictions like that. For instance, I predict there's particles we haven't observed yet. Almost certainly I'm right but would you hail me as a visionary when new particles are discovered? No, I haven't given a model, a reason, a derivation, anything other than some arm wavey and easy to construct wordy claim.

Originally Posted by kwhilborn
Will Ben say, "Dang reiku! You are a genius".

Will anybody.
No, because he isn't. He provided no model, so it's not like any quantitative predicts have been validated. I mentioned he lied repeatedly and often about things. He couldn't (and undoubtedly can't) do relativity, quantum mechanics or quantum field theory. He was even caught plagiarising other people's work.

You really don't grasp how science or basic rationality works, do you?

Originally Posted by kwhilborn
Re-read some of Reikus old threads, and I am talking about the ones he started. If you say one thing mildly wrong, or misspelled, or that disturbs someones safety zone then they are quick to call you a crank.
He was called a crank because he made stuff up, miscopied things and lied. Once he copied a post of Ben's from this forum site onto PhysOrg and passed it off as his own! Why he did that I don't know, he knew I read both sites and I did the same area of research as Ben. That is how stupid Reiku is.

14. Many people copy and paste answers to questions. Don't think that is the same as "passing work of as your own". It just means you are answering the question. I'd save plagiarism terms for published works.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•