It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


On Parallel Universes

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 01:41 AM
reply to post by mikerussellus

So then we would be able to pull something back with us?

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 01:48 AM
reply to post by jkrog08

While it does make interesting reading, movies and tv shows that get "Lost" in
their own plot lines, but it can't be proved or not proved.

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 02:12 AM

Originally posted by Alphadog
reply to post by mikerussellus

So then we would be able to pull something back with us?

We do all the time

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 03:59 AM
-Time for Schrödinger's Cat-

Schrödinger wrote:
One can even set up quite ridiculous cases. A cat is penned up in a steel chamber, along with the following device (which must be secured against direct interference by the cat): in a Geiger counter there is a tiny bit of radioactive substance, so small, that perhaps in the course of the hour one of the atoms decays, but also, with equal probability, perhaps none; if it happens, the counter tube discharges and through a relay releases a hammer which shatters a small flask of hydrocyanic acid. If one has left this entire system to itself for an hour, one would say that the cat still lives if meanwhile no atom has decayed. The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts.
It is typical of these cases that an indeterminacy originally restricted to the atomic domain becomes transformed into macroscopic indeterminacy, which can then be resolved by direct observation. That prevents us from so naively accepting as valid a "blurred model" for representing reality. In itself it would not embody anything unclear or contradictory. There is a difference between a shaky or out-of-focus photograph and a snapshot of clouds and fog banks.

*Basically, for the purposes of designing an equation, wherein the cat is a variable; the cat is assumed to be both alive and dead - until the nature of the cat is finally observed by opening the box.

This thought experiment is often utilized when explaining quantum theory and multiple-universe theory to beginners. It can be continually expounded upon throughout the educational career of the student and proves a common point of reference for most professors who teach quantum theory.

*I knew a professor who used monoatomic elements to explain how mass could be 'projected' to a predetermined point on an atom's preset path in an accelerator. It was reminiscent of the double-slit phenomena and might possibly be accounted for by certain facets of the latest m-theory.

Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

[edit on Sun Apr 5 2009 by Jbird]

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 06:56 AM
Ok I was never any good at physics xD But I do have an understanding and I am very interested in this side of it

With regards to level 1 and possibly level 2 universes.... You write that the "light" is yet to reach us, and won't reach us for a very long time...

Well, in terms of the Big bang theory (which wasn't really a bang
) the universe is constantly expanding and moving away from the centre.
If there is a parallel universe or many multi-verses, then they must (assuming they share the same physics that we do) be moving away from the centre at the same time?
Surely this means that we will NEVER see the light? Unless the space around our universe isn't infinite and at some stage we will hit a "wall" or a boundary. (Would we bounce off that? Or just get atomized? xD)

Perhaps I am not familiar with everything, but the way I see it, it is very unlikely that we would ever see the light eveidance of a parallel Uni?

[edit on 5/4/2009 by Kliskey]

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 07:29 AM
OK, I need some verification. In this list they say that due to the infinite size of space that there should be an infinite amount of matter, which through probability could configure in an infinite number of ways, so through probability there very well could be another earth with all of us. I get that part. The probability of us actually seeing a duplicate in the vast infinity of space is very very slim. I get that.

What I don't get is how they could call this a parallel universe. Certainly that duplicate of our galaxy, earth, and everyone in it could act exactly the same, but it would not be a different parallel universe. It would only be a copy within our same universe.

I hope someone out there is following me, as I am certain that if I explained it to friends that their eyes would glaze over and they would start thinking about last night's American Idol.

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 07:37 AM
reply to post by Kliskey

I suppose it depends on if you believe the universe is expanding faster than, the same as, or slower than the speed of light. IF it is expanding faster or at the same speed no, we would not see it, as we would be moving away from it faster than it could come towards us. IF it is expanding even only a tiny tiny bit slower than the speed of light, then yes it could theoretically reach us.

Anything can traverse a distance and reach its target as long as it moves faster towards the target than the target is moving away from it.

Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link

[edit on Sun Apr 5 2009 by Jbird]

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 07:51 AM
I heard that at level 6 universe you get another 1st and 2nd level spell, as well as the ability to make potions and scrolls...

Theories built upon theories, which came from speculations of speculations, and on and on it goes, until eventually you'll believe your own arse is the center of the universe. Hey, we all have theories. They help us get around our small lttile area of the multiverse, but they ain't proof of the whole. I personally put far more stock into experimental observations. And they're not there yet.

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 07:57 AM
reply to post by jkrog08

Often seems to me the deeper we go the more only the terms used are different than "metaphysics".

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 08:01 AM
reply to post by jkrog08

Or, just perhaps, what we consider a soul is simply the seed of a new dimension. As with your and my favorite one Level Twos.

[edit on 5-4-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 08:48 AM
I believe that there are multiple univeres' for each Nano-second of our relative time, meaning that for every nano-second there are causes and effects for everything that could ever happen or imagined in different events. Take the butterfly effect, but change every outcome x(googleplex) by every nano-second from the time the butterfly exists.

[edit on 5-4-2009 by 38181]

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 09:06 AM
I hate m-theory.

It doesn't account for the frame-dragging effect.

I like the idea of membranes - but this whole concept is too much of a cash-cow and utilizes too many pet theories too be taken seriously anymore. (Check the timeline for the evolution of string theory...)


Michio Kaku is good - I like his 'version' or rather his 'interpretation' of the effects of string theory on our universe and how they can be observed.

He doesn't dismiss anything out of hand - he even speculates that Art Bell's "Shadow People" may in fact be dark matter reflections from a dimension near our own - a quantum anomaly. What a fellow.

*Here is my favorite representation of the known aspects of this ever-changing theory, and wonderful source of funding and grants ;-)

It is called the island-model and it is so ridiculous and incomplete that I love it:

(If I ever developed a 'Theory of Everything', I would only release data bit-by-bit and extract as much money out of it as I could. Whenever time for funding request come around, I'd release some good stuff, maybe even update my model to one like this POS TOE...)

[edit on 5-4-2009 by Exuberant1]

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 09:26 AM
reply to post by mikerussellus

One theory of Dark Matter is that it acts as a jelly in the "Metaverse" and keeps each adjacent universe from joining together.

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 09:43 AM

Originally posted by james2009
Interesting post and i appreciate the time you took to write that out. However something is bugging me, I myself being catholic and believe in the bible and god etc only believe that there is only ONE UNIVERSE and ONE of us. Whats bugging me is.. if there is life after death, and IF there is parallel universes, that would mean that if we died, we would get to meet our parallel self's? am i right? or am i wrong? and if that's the case then how can there be more then one of our "souls" . Would that mean our memory's off all the infinite lives we have lived would join? and we would become one with all of our "old selves" in the parallel lives we have lived? haha.
Remember this is only if there is such a thing as life after death... and i know that these are thoerys we are talking about.. so i I hope you understand what im getting at! Can someone give some input?

some would say that each of those other selves are an extension of our one soul, each experiencing other aspects of reality and personality, all through karma building the soul's experience towards completeness of understanding.

and the Bible does not preclude other universes at all that I have ever been able to find. the breath of life comes from God, but the the soul is separate from the body. Christ said to fear not those who can destroy the body (other people) but fear He who can destroy the soul (God).

and many of the things Christ alluded to could have been called metaphysical, such as telling the apostles that everything they had seen Him do they could do - that if we only believed (knew) we could say to a mountain "go there" and it would go,etc. He (when in spirit) and God exist outside of time, are not bounded by our laws of physics - well if they exist outside of time, outside of our universe (which is in a sense MADE of time), so our universe isn't all there is.

and in Genesis, in OUR universe's genesis, God said "let there be light" and whammo there was light - our big bang.

so if there is someone in the Bible where it says this is the only universe, or you believe says that (and I'm not saying there isn't, just that I've never seen it)... I don't know - please post it here (now I'll perhaps find out you did later in this thread and then I'll feel silly).

I watched all 5 of those videos last night - this is an excellent thread and I hope to see lots of threads like this - to me, these are the REAL questions we need to answer (as opposed to "is there" or "isn't there" a FEMA camp etc.)

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 10:48 AM
reply to post by Autonomous

Yea I see what you are saying,I think that the term fits but is very misleading and maybe it is uses cause they haven't a better one for a level one.As far as light reaching us,yea it depends on expansion rate.

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 10:49 AM
reply to post by Exuberant1

I have to go somewhere(church) but I would be happy to discuss m-theory and others with you when I get back.

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 10:52 AM
reply to post by virgthevoice

Yea I think it is important we understand the real world of advanced science since we deal a lot with aliens and ufos on this site, which likely utilize some of these principles.Also I believe it is nessicary as we as a race advance through time to understand these things,better our lives, and fulfil our destiny with the stars.

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 11:09 AM
all universe's answers lie hidden in dark matter and dark energy!

" takes pride in making every post count. Please do not create minimal posts ...when replying to threads."

[edit on Sun Apr 5 2009 by Jbird]

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 11:11 AM
reply to post by jkrog08

WOWooooo!!! Hold on their please. If most of us here at ATS started thinking about this considering the current crap/stuff we are now absorbing daily it would (most likely) blow what brians we have left right out out "bung holes". And refering to levels, probably a minus five or 10 would be more realistic. God help us all but thanks, still an interesting read.

posted on Apr, 5 2009 @ 11:17 AM

Originally posted by mikerussellus
Like I told a physics class I was teaching, E=MC2 is wrong. The constant (C)(speed of light) is not a constant.

Quick question, what is the speed of light at the event horizon of a black hole?

Lke this post, need more like it.

Another question, what does dark matter play in parallel universes?

True but the speed of light is the closest to a constant we have been able to find therefore it isn't necessarily the equation that is wrong but man kinds assumption that the speed of light is constant.

If your referring to the event horizon of a black hole again until we can actually get there and study it first hand we are making assumptions about the event horizon in this case. It's equivalent of saying the world is flat because we can see the horizon. Most things when diving this far into thought and sciences whether it be quantum or not end up being just educated guesses that many times turn out to be wrong due to missing data.

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in