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

reply to post by Gentill Abdulla


I agree with your take on this 100%. Logic dictates that this must be the way it is...

So somewhere in my parallel lives I'm still married to husband number one?
Then in another I'm still married to husband number two?
OH BOY!!! Its a good thing I'm in this dimension...I wonder if somewhere out there, there is a "self" that has married number three....
Life is fun!!!

Personally I believe this is the reason for Dejavu not what the current science explains it as.
DEJAVU

that the sense of "recollection" at the time is strong in most cases, but that the circumstances of the "previous" experience (when, where, and how the earlier experience occurred) are quite uncertain. Likewise, as time passes, subjects can exhibit a strong recollection of having the "unsettling" experience of déjà vu itself, but little or no recollection of the specifics of the event(s) or circumstance(s) they were "remembering" when they had the déjà vu experience. In particular, this may result from an overlap between the neurological systems responsible for short-term memory (events which are perceived as being in the present) and those responsible for long-term memory (events which are perceived as being in the past). The events would be stored into memory before the conscious part of the brain even receives the information and processes it.[c

and as you can see not one mention of parallel universes...we won't be having any of that nonsense within academia

[edit on 29-6-2010 by superluminal11]

Originally posted by LestatG
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.

Your welcome!

Its definately a great read im glad i found it myself

Originally posted by LestatG
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.

Your welcome!

Its definately a great read im glad i found it myself

I thought of this years ago. I have dreams like the other poster above about alternate realities. However, because I don't have a string of letters behind my name and work at a university, society doesn't pay any attention.

I think one of the biggest problems in the world today are professors...They are some of the dumbest and mentally cannibalistic people you will ever meet.

Originally posted by zbeliever
So somewhere in my parallel lives I'm still married to husband number one?
Then in another I'm still married to husband number two?
OH BOY!!! Its a good thing I'm in this dimension...I wonder if somewhere out there, there is a "self" that has married number three....
Life is fun!!!

This very thing is what I mentioned in my post on page 1. People would have been mating with/marrying different people for ages. Thus, you wouldn't be here, your husbands wouldn't be here, etc.

reply to post by dlifesjrny


I actually get it, I was being sarcastic...You know "LOL"...Theories are theories for a reason.They are not facts...Lets face it right now, at this time and age we can not prove this theory to make it in to fact...

well

lets use our brains people, the op is misleading


1 -a theory says we live in a multi universe place, with so many universes that we probably many almost identical to ours
2 - another one say for every decision we make or someone make, 2 universes are originated, it splits ...

both may be true

I ddnt read the guy's paper, I cant right now, someone needs to read and tell us which theory he believes, since, as I said, what the op said can mean 18i13u things

Originally posted by Faiol
lets use our brains people, the op is misleading
1 -a theory says we live in a multi universe place, with so many universes that we probably many almost identical to ours
2 - another one say for every decision we make or someone make, 2 universes are originated, it splits ...

both may be true

I ddnt read the guy's paper, I cant right now, someone needs to read and tell us which theory he believes, since, as I said, what the op said can mean 18i13u things

You only had to read the first paragraph. You mention two types, he mentions four types:

At least he uses pretty, colorful pictures while he baffles us with BS.

I survey physics theories involving parallel universes, which form a natural four-level hierarchy of multiverses allowing progressively greater diversity.

Level I: A generic prediction of inflation is an infinite ergodic universe, which contains Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions including an identical copy of you about 10^10^29m away.

Level II: In chaotic ination, other thermalized regions may have different physical constants, dimensionality and particle content.

Level III: In unitary quantum mechanics, other branches of the wavefunction add nothing qualitatively new, which is ironic given that this level has historically been the most controversial.

Level IV: Other mathematical structures give different fundamental equations of physics.

OK these are theories, which haven't been proven nor disproven and probably won't be. But then he says:

The key question is not whether parallel universes exist (Level I is the uncontroversial cosmological concordance model), but how many levels there are. I discuss how multiverse models can be falsified and argue that there is a severe "measure problem" that must be solved to make testable predictions at levels II-IV.

I beg to differ. Has the level I "uncontroversial cosmological concordance model" really been proven? I don't think so. While I don't disagree with the observations, I do disagree with the way those observations are interpreted and that the resulting models necessarily make the predictions he claims they do. So I think asking whether parallel universes exist is still a key question. Actually he says: "You probably find this idea strange and implausible, and I must confess that this is my gut reaction too." Yeah, I'm going with the author's gut reaction on this one.

It's not exactly a new paper, it's from January 23, 2003.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Believe it, I am George Washington. The first President.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Faiol
lets use our brains people, the op is misleading
1 -a theory says we live in a multi universe place, with so many universes that we probably many almost identical to ours
2 - another one say for every decision we make or someone make, 2 universes are originated, it splits ...

both may be true

I ddnt read the guy's paper, I cant right now, someone needs to read and tell us which theory he believes, since, as I said, what the op said can mean 18i13u things

You only had to read the first paragraph. You mention two types, he mentions four types:

At least he uses pretty, colorful pictures while he baffles us with BS.

I survey physics theories involving parallel universes, which form a natural four-level hierarchy of multiverses allowing progressively greater diversity.

Level I: A generic prediction of inflation is an infinite ergodic universe, which contains Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions including an identical copy of you about 10^10^29m away.

Level II: In chaotic ination, other thermalized regions may have different physical constants, dimensionality and particle content.

Level III: In unitary quantum mechanics, other branches of the wavefunction add nothing qualitatively new, which is ironic given that this level has historically been the most controversial.

Level IV: Other mathematical structures give different fundamental equations of physics.

OK these are theories, which haven't been proven nor disproven and probably won't be. But then he says:

The key question is not whether parallel universes exist (Level I is the uncontroversial cosmological concordance model), but how many levels there are. I discuss how multiverse models can be falsified and argue that there is a severe "measure problem" that must be solved to make testable predictions at levels II-IV.

I beg to differ. Has the level I "uncontroversial cosmological concordance model" really been proven? I don't think so. While I don't disagree with the observations, I do disagree with the way those observations are interpreted and that the resulting models necessarily make the predictions he claims they do. So I think asking whether parallel universes exist is still a key question. Actually he says: "You probably find this idea strange and implausible, and I must confess that this is my gut reaction too." Yeah, I'm going with the author's gut reaction on this one.

It's not exactly a new paper, it's from January 23, 2003.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by Arbitrageur]

Well how would you interpret the cosmological concordance model?

Would you disagree there is an identical copy of you 10^10^29 million miles away? Because the model says there is!

That means there is some "other-side" at the very least....

The parallel universes he speaks of are heaven and hell..with different physical laws..enough said.

I believe it was Hugh Everett, father of Eels singer, who first pioneered parallel worlds theory.