PARALLEL WORLDS and QUANTUM INTERACTIONS:

P

paddoboy

Valued Senior Member
Many Interacting Worlds theory: Scientists propose existence and interaction of parallel worlds
7 hours ago



In a paper published in the prestigious journal Physical Review X, Professor Howard Wiseman and Dr Michael Hall from Griffith's Centre for Quantum Dynamics, and Dr Dirk-Andre Deckert from the University of California, take interacting parallel worlds out of the realm of science fiction and into that of hard science.

The team proposes that parallel universes really exist, and that they interact. That is, rather than evolving independently, nearby worlds influence one another by a subtle force of repulsion. They show that such an interaction could explain everything that is bizarre aboutquantum mechanics

Quantum theory is needed to explain how the universe works at the microscopic scale, and is believed to apply to all matter. But it is notoriously difficult to fathom, exhibiting weird phenomena which seem to violate the laws of cause and effect.



Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html#jCp



Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html#jCp
 
https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.4.041013

ABSTRACT
We investigate whether quantum theory can be understood as the continuum limit of a mechanical theory, in which there is a huge, but finite, number of classical “worlds,” and quantum effects arise solely from a universal interaction between these worlds, without reference to any wave function. Here, a “world” means an entire universe with well-defined properties, determined by the classical configuration of its particles and fields. In our approach, each world evolves deterministically, probabilities arise due to ignorance as to which world a given observer occupies, and we argue that in the limit of infinitely many worlds the wave function can be recovered (as a secondary object) from the motion of these worlds. We introduce a simple model of such a “many interacting worlds” approach and show that it can reproduce some generic quantum phenomena—such as Ehrenfest’s theorem, wave packet spreading, barrier tunneling, and zero-point energy—as a direct consequence of mutual repulsion between worlds. Finally, we perform numerical simulations using our approach. We demonstrate, first, that it can be used to calculate quantum ground states, and second, that it is capable of reproducing, at least qualitatively, the double-slit interference phenomenon.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.4.041013
 
awesome topic.
unfortunately, i have no time at this moment, but i'm for sure coming back to this thread.
later..
 
Quantum mechanics is about probabilities; if the question is: "can the universe get any weirder?" then the answer is: "probably".
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
No. It is not. Using both words serves no constructive purpose. It is simply sloppy & stupid & muddies things.
Click to expand...
says the individual that does not have a career in this field, nor any knowledge, understanding, or experience.
(shakes head), amusing.
 
krash661 said:
says the individual that does not have a career in this field, nor any knowledge, understanding, or experience.
(shakes head), amusing.
Click to expand...

In addition to attacking the person rather than the info, you do not know any of that about me. You make arrogant assumptions about strangers to win points in your silly game. You are not amusing. Maybe you need to stop shaking your head so much.
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
In addition to attacking the person rather than the info,
Click to expand...
again,
says the individual that does not have a career in this field, nor any knowledge, understanding, or experience.
(shakes head), amusing.
you do not know any of that about me. You make arrogant assumptions
Click to expand...
except your own words made this obvious.
about strangers to win points in your silly game. You are not amusing. Maybe you need to stop shaking your head so much.
Click to expand...
the game is an individual running their mouth with complete ignorance, while attempting to claim what i stated is not true, when in fact you have no clue,which was made obvious from your own comments.
example:
No. It is not
Click to expand...
some of us are aware of this feeble typical tactic.
it was you who initiated this.
 
StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
No. It is not. Using both words serves no constructive purpose. It is simply sloppy & stupid & muddies things.
Click to expand...
world-

world [wurld]
n (plural worlds)

7. universe: all the galaxies that are known or thought to exist in space
8. domain: a sphere, realm, or domain
11. condition of existence: a condition or state of existence
12. great deal or amount: a very large amount, degree, or distance
13. secular existence: secular life and its ways
 
Did anybody read the rest of the article?
"The beauty of our approach is that if there is just one world our theory reduces to Newtonian mechanics, while if there is a gigantic number of worlds it reproduces quantum mechanics," he says.

"In between it predicts something new that is neither Newton's theory nor quantum theory.
Click to expand...
 
krash661 said:
says the individual that does not have a career in this field, nor any knowledge, understanding, or experience.
(shakes head), amusing.
Click to expand...
krash661 said:
again,
says the individual that does not have a career in this field, nor any knowledge, understanding, or experience.
(shakes head), amusing.
except your own words made this obvious.
the game is an individual running their mouth with complete ignorance, while attempting to claim what i stated is not true, when in fact you have no clue,which was made obvious from your own comments.
example: some of us are aware of this feeble typical tactic. it was you who initiated this.
Click to expand...
And what is it you ever contribute other than the same pointless and hackneyed observation?
(shakes head), amusing.
cd0d2b607b4d98fd7fb0bd4070e9acd5.jpg
 
Landau Roof said:
And what is it you ever contribute other than the same pointless and hackneyed observation?
(shakes head), amusing.
cd0d2b607b4d98fd7fb0bd4070e9acd5.jpg
Click to expand...
some of us are actual scientist.
this is my career. can you say the same ?
you made this comment only because you fall in the category of,
" nor any knowledge, understanding, or experience ",
and you know it.
it's best to just ignore me than to show your jealousy.
 
krash661 said:
some of us are actual scientist. this is my career. can you say the same ? you made this comment only because you fall in the category of,
" nor any knowledge, understanding, or experience ", and you know it. it's best to just ignore me than to show your jealousy.
Click to expand...
And you make the emboldened comment because you cannot speak English correctly. Your career is as an actual scientist? What do 'actual' scientists actually do? Do they just post on forums and offer up head shakes and put downs, or do they impart information to people who aren't actually scientists?
krash661 said:
world-
world [wurld]
n (plural worlds)
7. universe: all the galaxies that are known or thought to exist in space
8. domain: a sphere, realm, or domain
11. condition of existence: a condition or state of existence
12. great deal or amount: a very large amount, degree, or distance
13. secular existence: secular life and its ways
Click to expand...

Please show me where and when you have ever had anything useful, let alone actually scientific to say. In post fourteen (reprinted above) you offered some idiotic truisms as definitions, and told us through the clever device of misspelling how to pronounce 'world', and that a domain is a 'domain' (domain does not mean 'sphere') plus three other pointless and entirely useless definitions of words that were never part of this discussion. I won't say that you're lying about being an actual scientist, but I will say you are certainly a very sorry and low-grade one, who is very full of himself and has an unwarranted and insupportable view of his own brilliance.

However, you do make one excellent point. it is best that I just ignore you.
Shaking_head.gif

Because you ain't amusing at all.

I find the OP topic fascinating. I apologize for getting off topic, but I really think we needed to get rid of the troll before continuing. Sorry, Paddoboy. I'll sit quietly and follow the discussion, if you-know-who hasn't wrecked it entirely with his stupid and arrogant remarks.
 
krash661 said:
some of us are actual scientist.
this is my career. can you say the same ?
you made this comment only because you fall in the category of,
" nor any knowledge, understanding, or experience ",
and you know it.
it's best to just ignore me than to show your jealousy.
Click to expand...

You are not a scientist & you are not fooling anyone except yourself. It's best to just let your mommie wash your mouth out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top