Parallel Universes hard to believe? Physics Professor says they exist!

space.mit.edu...

its from MIT from a Physics professor.

Before reading that, i had no idea that science had already predicted that you have an identical copy of yourself living 10 to the 10 to the 29th million miles away. Yep, thats right, you have an identical copy of yourself living somewhere out there in space on the same planet with the same people and the same things.

It even goes on to say that if you had made a decision different than that of your copy, you would then have two different outcomes.

Basically, the idea is that outside of the immediate universe you see here, there is another universe connected to it with a big bang of its own and its own course of events.

This whole timeline/shift stuff is scientifically explainable in that article.

about a year or two ago i started to get these constant toughts about me in another life living in a home in the woods, i fell it is my paralall life

It's a shame when professors become like Middle Age clerics debating how many angels can sit on a pin's head. You can never disprove what they say, nor can they ever prove what they say, so that they can get away with pretending that they are saying meaningful things that can be checked.

Originally posted by ResidentEvil2Ps1
about a year or two ago i started to get these constant toughts about me in another life living in a home in the woods, i fell it is my paralall life

it could be the memories of your alternate reality bleeding through. Sometime in your life you made a crucial decision that created two(or more) different outcomes.

In one outcome, you are where you are today.

In the other, you live in the woods.

This would be indicative of a Level III multiverse theory, where the different outcomes create parallel universes.

Originally posted by micpsi
It's a shame when professors become like Middle Age clerics debating how many angels can sit on a pin's head. You can never disprove what they say, nor can they ever prove what they say, so that they can get away with pretending that they are saying meaningful things that can be checked.

Well the Level 1 theory that there is an exact copy o you 10 to the 10th to the 29th miles away is actually scientifically proven and agreed upon by the science community. Using calculations based on the distances of different galaxies, solar systems temperature and various other calculations found the standard deviations to be almost non-existent(meaning there where huge patterns along space where you could actually predict what the next part would contain). This came to the conclusion that mathematically there had to be an identical copy of you that many miles away.
Im guessing you didn't read it?
It explains this idea much more mathematically and scientifically than i did(im not a physics professor by any means).

[edit on 28-6-2010 by demonseed]

reply to post by micpsi


I agree. It's good for sensationalism... but it's not exactly concrete science. I don't really mind though. If it can help inspire the youth of today to becoming the scientists of tomorrow, then I'm all for it.

I can remember what inspired me initially - when I was 3, my parents had a big fat book called "The Universe" or something with lots of high-res images. When you're that young, photographs of all the beautiful celestial objects in our skies can have a major influence. Everyone should be so lucky.

But people should be aware that quantum theory does not predict parallel universes. Theories don't predict anything. Scientists trying to interpret theories are what make predictions =)

The entire concept of the Multiverse is based on one interpretation of the double-slit experiment. However there are other interpretations that do not contain any parallel universes. It's possible but there's really not much behind it except speculation.

edit to add -

I was reading over the PDF file and I see he takes a more empirical approach to the issue, in a meta-analysis sort of way. That's cool. However, it seems he is assuming that Inflationary Theory is a given for all of his reasons. Inflation is an "ad hoc" concept - meaning, it is not predicted in any scientific theory, but rather was written in after-the- fact to explain a glaring error in existing theories.

The "error" is two-fold. First, the uniformity of the current universe is not predicted by GR. Second, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation again does not fit GR's prediction.

Inflation, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy are the embarrassment of the current scientific ideology. Each one is an ad hoc concept being dishonestly presented as respectable scientific theories. They are not.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by Son of Will]

reply to post by micpsi


Just because you don't understand something does not make it not true.

Originally posted by AllexxisF1
reply to post by micpsi

 

Just because you don't understand something does not make it not true.

But I do understand it because I have three degrees in theoretical physics, including a Ph.D., have collaborated with a Nobel Prize winner in physics, have 57 research papers published in peer-reviewed journals and four published books on superstrings, quarks and other topics in theoretical physics. It is because I do understand Hugh Everett III's "Many Worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics that made me make the above statement.

Now what makes you believe in parallel universes?

@micpsi

You seem to be very frustrated in this theory being true.

Like you said, its just a theory. It hasn't been falsified or proven but it can be tested to some degree with our current understanding of physics. The old theories of physics are proving to be at least partially wrong so something needs to be done.
Maybe you are just behind the rest of the crowd?

Would a professor working at MIT really go through the trouble of sensationalizing this with a 10 page paper containing lots of empirical data?

reply to post by micpsi


I know right!

Just because a scientist says it doesn't mean it's completely true.

I mean any scientist or theoretical physicist can say something MIGHT exist so everyone believes them to be true.


But in this case I do believe in parallel universes IF the universe is infinite.

Why because there are an infinite amount of variables to anything if the universe is infinite.

It could mean that somewhere and somehow if I drop a ball toward a planet gravity might just shift and make it fall up.

Sound's crazy huh?

But again if the universe is infinite there should be a whole universe that is somehow made of one infinitely large potato.

But I DO NOT BELIEVE that any choice creates a universe.

You guys actually think free will is real?

We are predictable people.

We are just as predictable as any experiment we do if we look at it correctly.

All variables started at the big bang.

Where an infinite amount of parallel universes were created with an infinite amount of variables all being predetermined.


Just makes you wonder.

Facinating reading, I thought parallel universes and such were fantasy or loose theories. I'm going to walk the dog and get into it, thanks OP, I needed something interesting like this to go through.

While I don't have a degree in anything. I will say that the older I get the more I realize that scientists don't necessarily know everything.

Personally I'd keep an open mind out on this theory. The universe is a strange place and science can't explain everything... yet.

reply to post by demonseed


yeah ever since i lost all my friends the thoughts of me being alone in that house in the woods surfaced

well if its true it would explain a lot of weird dreams im having well there not so weird would be cool if it really did happen i can feel feeling and everything i touch

Originally posted by micpsi
It's a shame when professors become like Middle Age clerics debating how many angels can sit on a pin's head. You can never disprove what they say, nor can they ever prove what they say, so that they can get away with pretending that they are saying meaningful things that can be checked.

I don't think it's a shame to debate. I'm rock musician and not a theorist or
a published physicist, but it would be nice (considering your alleged credentials)
to maybe point out what in his papers you don't agree with or you find fault in.
That's what this site is great for discussion, debate and knowledge.

reply to post by demonseed


www.abovetopsecret.com... i'm already on it!

My whole problem with alternate universes is that "we" wouldn't be there to have the ability to make a choice that would lead to "us" having a different future than the one we have here.

Why? Because people would have been making those destiny-changing choices for thousands and thousands and thousands of years and the people having children together would have been different time after time. "We" would most likely have never been born ourselves.

Knowing all of these theoretically, how do they apply to the benefit of mankind in this universe? Do animals, insects, and plants have their duplicates, triplicates, or multiplicated identities in this multiverse? What about parallel multiverses?
Hello there scientists! what about finding solutions first for the oil spill, deteriorating world economies, getting rid of corrupted political leaders and other looming problems?

Originally posted by micpsi
It's a shame when professors become like Middle Age clerics debating how many angels can sit on a pin's head. You can never disprove what they say, nor can they ever prove what they say, so that they can get away with pretending that they are saying meaningful things that can be checked.

I have concerns about our youth getting misled. I see a lot of pseudoscience out there, like electric universe theory for example. So I try to tell people that what separates real science from pseudoscience is the fact that real science can be proven or disproven with observations and experiments. But then professors like the one in the OP come along and prove me wrong.

I don't see any reason to give preference to the many worlds interpretation over the Copenhagen interpretation based on what he says. Not that I know what the correct interpretation is, but I think it's better to say "we don't know" if we really can't prove which interpretation is correct.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Hmmm, how interesting!

I do not know much about physics, so my opinion hardly matters, but I would like to comment. In my mind, I could never understand why anything exists, rather than staying non existent. I guess a possible answer to this is the opposite of nothing existing, EVERYTHING existing. So there are infinite parallel worlds where all possibilities are played out.

Like I said, I honestly am just stating from my mind and have no real physics knowledge when it comes to this.

Thank you for the thread!

Kind regards