It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
This is the new theory about parallel universes explained by Australian and American theorists in a paper published in the journal Physics Review X. Called the “Many Interacting Worlds” theory (MIW), the paper explains that rather than standing apart, an infinite number of universes share the same space and time as ours. They show that their theory can explain quantum mechanical effects while leaving open the choice of theory to explain the universe at large scales. This is a fascinating new variant of Multiverse Theory that, in a sense, creates not just a doppelganger of everyone but an infinite number of them all overlaying each other in the same space and time.
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
This is the new theory about parallel universes explained by Australian and American theorists in a paper published in the journal Physics Review X. Called the “Many Interacting Worlds” theory (MIW), the paper explains that rather than standing apart, an infinite number of universes share the same space and time as ours. They show that their theory can explain quantum mechanical effects while leaving open the choice of theory to explain the universe at large scales. This is a fascinating new variant of Multiverse Theory that, in a sense, creates not just a doppelganger of everyone but an infinite number of them all overlaying each other in the same space and time.
So an infinite number of universes occupying the same space time.
In the search for the theory of everything, infinity sneaks in to our own finite universe, finite because it allows for a Big Bang.
Source
You've got at least two different audiences:
originally posted by: VoidHawk
ZERO evidence!
Was just yesterday discussing in another thread how all this stuff is being pushed, and without any opposition to it!
The theory of "Moogles" that Feynman mentions at 5:20 has never been proven wrong which he says makes it a "good theory", but of course he's being sarcastic and the audience gets this and laughs. His point was like yours, theories that can't be falsified aren't very helpful:
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Arbitrageur
Well, the good news is that it can't be falsified.
Oh, wait. That's doesn't really help, does it?