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.

 

Physicists Calculate Number of Parallel Universes

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mr-lizard

Originally posted by Emerald The Paradigm
It's infinite, and no amount of calculations will ever solve that equation.


Bit of a bold statement that.

Can you provide any proof of these supposed infinite universes, or are you just saying... y'know... words.


It's infinite if you base it on the belief that every single decision you could have made spawns off another parellel universe. The scientists obsiouly used some specific method to calculate it.
But if you use the decision method, there is an infinte amount of possibilites you could have walked from point A to point B, even if it's off by a 0.00000001mm, therefore infinite parallel universes xD.




posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming
I spent some time crunching the numbers and this scientist is off, the real number is: 10^10^17

Gotta hate those miscalculations.


Oh wait i think you forgot the quantum fluctuatons of the membranes in the multiverse causing multiple effects on the quadratic equations. id say the closer number would be 10^10^10^12.This accounts for the multiverse thus epanding the number.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by shade454

It's infinite if you base it on the belief that every single decision you could have made spawns off another parellel universe. The scientists obsiouly used some specific method to calculate it.
But if you use the decision method, there is an infinte amount of possibilites you could have walked from point A to point B, even if it's off by a 0.00000001mm, therefore infinite parallel universes xD.


Okay fair enough. But what would be the point?

Surely just having say three or maybe four parallel universes would be easier to manage, but an infinite number of parallel universes is just showing off to be frank. I don't understand the need to know what our parallel selves are doing anyway, leave them alone I say.

It's called privacy.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
This is misleading. They are calculating the number of universes that could possibly be observed by a human brain, along with a whole host of arbitary conditions.

Remove these conditions and you have the true answer. There are an infinite number of parallel universes and an even larger infinite number of universes in total. Hows that? Not all infinities are the same.

How can infinities be of different size? Say you have an infinite number of balloons and inside each balloon there are two ping pong balls, then the infinite number of ping pong balls is twice the number of infinite baloons.

[edit on 17-10-2009 by sharps]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   
So,how many have been observed, and experimentally shown to exist? This is just an exercise in math. No real science in it.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Interesting theory by Dr. Michio Kaku, I have read Hyperspace, excellent book.


Blackholes, Wormholes and the Tenth Dimension
Will these concepts be proven by a theory of everything?
Last June, astronomers were toasting each other with champagne glasses in laboratories around the world, savoring their latest discovery. The repaired $2 billion Hubble Space Telescope, once the laughing stock of the scientific community, had snared its most elusive prize: a black hole. But the discovery of the Holy Grail of astrophysics may also rekindle a long simmering debate within the physics community. What lies on the other side of a black hole? If someone foolishly fell into a black hole, will they be crushed by its immense gravity, as most physicists believe, or will they be propelled into a parallel universe or emerge in another time era? To solve this complex question, physicists are opening up one of the most bizarre and tantalizing chapters in modern physics. They have to navigate a minefield of potentially explosive theories, such as the possibility of “wormholes,” “white holes,” time machines, and even the 10th dimension! This controversy may well validate J.B.S. Haldane’s wry observation that the universe is “not only queerer than we sup- pose, it is queerer than we can suppose.” This delicious controversy, which delights theoretical physicists but boggles the mind of mere mortals, is the subject of my recent book, Hyperspace.


Link

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

[edit on Tue Oct 27 2009 by Jbird]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 03:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by sharps
How can infinities be of different size? Say you have an infinite number of balloons and inside each balloon there are two ping pong balls, then the infinite number of ping pong balls is twice the number of infinite baloons.


Actually that sounds like an explanation coming from someone who doesn't fully grasp the concept of infinity (not saying I do either). It doesn't matter if there are 2 ping pong balls inside an infinite amount of balloons, the number of both of them is still infinite.
Sure if you were to take a large portion of those balloons and then count the balls inside there would be twice as much, but otherwise they are both equally infinite >_>

It's like a limit of the function 2x. As x approaches infinity, the function 2x approaches infinity as well, not 2 infinities.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming
I spent some time crunching the numbers and this scientist is off, the real number is: 10^10^17

Gotta hate those miscalculations.


Oh wait i think you forgot the quantum fluctuatons of the membranes in the multiverse causing multiple effects on the quadratic equations. id say the closer number would be 10^10^10^12.This accounts for the multiverse thus epanding the number.


I just realized we are only counting the universes in the multiverse, but not factoring all the universes in one of the universes within this multiverse so the real number has to be:

(10^10^6)(10^10^10^12)

Now that we established all of the universes also have a probably number of universes, we have to assume that each of their member universes also have ...

Egad! We are talking fractals here people! The Universe is one big mandlebrot set!

I need coffee to sober me up from this outstanding realization.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by YouAreDreaming
I spent some time crunching the numbers and this scientist is off, the real number is: 10^10^17

Gotta hate those miscalculations.


Oh wait i think you forgot the quantum fluctuatons of the membranes in the multiverse causing multiple effects on the quadratic equations. id say the closer number would be 10^10^10^12.This accounts for the multiverse thus epanding the number.


I just realized we are only counting the universes in the multiverse, but not factoring all the universes in one of the universes within this multiverse so the real number has to be:

(10^10^6)(10^10^10^12)

Now that we established all of the universes also have a probably number of universes, we have to assume that each of their member universes also have ...

Egad! We are talking fractals here people! The Universe is one big mandlebrot set!

I need coffee to sober me up from this outstanding realization.



you two are joking, right?

....

Scientist> I'm gonna go to school for 8 years and study enormous math problems. Then when I come with an answer that is limited to a few pages I'll publish it!

ATS Members> No, man, he's totally wrong! I was sitting here and imagined it's totally not that way! He meant an extra ^10!



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by notreallyalive
 


You must love Math, I envy you.

The reality is, fractal mathematics is a great place to start in describing a model a multiverse. I personally believe that the Universe is completely mathematical in design, implying that everything is quantized and accounted for at the most finite level of reality.

Now if we progress into a fractal reality, which I believe this Universe exists as, then the model of how we zoom in and out of the fractal view gives us a broader or smaller model of the Universe.

Theoretically we can descend pasts the Plank's constant if reality is indeed fractal in design.

There is so much to fractal reality when applied to matter and also to consciousness. If reality isn't a fractal system, Consciousness truly is.

And I can explain and provided some insightful examples of this as it relates to consciousness if you want.



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:04 PM
link   
reply to post by YouAreDreaming
 



I just realized we are only counting the universes in the multiverse, but not factoring all the universes in one of the universes within this multiverse so the real number has to be:

(10^10^6)(10^10^10^12)

Now that we established all of the universes also have a probably number of universes, we have to assume that each of their member universes also have ...


Quite possibly the coolest (or most mind boggling) paragraph I have ever read, truly worthy of SyFy channel, lol.

No, seriously, the type of physics and realizations of reality we are at now is TRULY mind boggling and beyond phenomenal. Just think where we will be at 100 years from now!

 

reply to post by Copernicus


If its parallell universes, and things are not exactly the same, it then doesnt seem likely that a copy of everyone exist in all universes.

People meet different people and end up with different partners. Billions of sperms compete to win the race.

In fact, with all the variables, I think its more likely that only one of us exist.


In an infinite system (such as the multiverse), all possible solutions are accounted for, regardless of "odds" or "probability", those become irrelevant and meaningless in an infinite system.
 


On a last note, these are the types of discussions and threads I absolutely LOVE, as Cosmology is my intended major, I do have a passion and extreme fascination/interest for this subject matter. Many people are completely lost when discussing this, so I am thankful for ANY discussion I can get. Thanks again for the thread OP.






[edit on 10/17/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 06:21 PM
link   
So... how many 'multiverses' can there be? If there is one... can't there be more?




posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Larryman
 


Multiverse is generally the singular name given to the theory that our universe is one of near infinite separate, "distinct" universes that "float" around in Hyperspace or "The Bulk", which is a multidimensional space that exists outside of our 4 dimensional space. Within each of these distinct universes there is an infinite number of parallel universes, which are constantly created to account for every possible outcome of an event from ANYTHING that happens on ANY scale in our universe (and the others). Hence the "Multiverse" name, which is truly more appropriate than "Universe", which means one, which we now know is very likely not the case.

Hope that cleared it up..


[edit on 10/17/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by notreallyalive

What!!? These guys have PhDs in Astrophysics, Quantum Mechanics and similar and a single math problem might takes years to complete! Your "imagine" is not only ignorant it's incredibly insensitive to some people who have spent their lives doing math.


In relation to the article this thread is based upon, it's simply math of the unfalsifiable. It's neither valid nor invalid... at best ambiguous! It was not a shot aimed at you... I don't even know you. A thicker skin is required!

I don't mind a bit of 'pie in the sky' science... so long as it's acknowledged as such. No one can calculate the number of Parallel Universe... It's an arbitrary number... kind of like the Drake Equation.

My 'imagine' is far from ignorant. If I sit you in a room with a pencil and paper and tell you that beyond the wall is a container of unknown dimensions that is full of jelly beans which I want you to calculate the number of. I stipulate that you cannot see it, weigh it, touch it or interact with it in any way. Can you calculate for me the number of jelly beans? Is it a small jar, is it a truck load, is it a thimble full or something else entirely? Can you give me more than a string of arbitrary numbers that are essentially meaningless?

The only thing we can assume with any degree of certainty is that it's a number between zero and infinity.

IRM


[edit on 17/10/09 by InfaRedMan]



posted on Oct, 17 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
What is Quantum Entanglement?

Did you know, that there is real research out there that links the use of "Photons" by the physical brain?

What I have read states that incoherent energies such as thermal, electromagnetic and chemical are translated by the brain into "Coherent Photons" within the micro tubules of the brain?

That the brain itself uses "Photons" to communicate within this binary flux of the most smallest part of it's cellular construction. In this lonely "Photon" that the brain translates from incoherent energies, lies you.

Lies consciousness?

If our brain is a massive quantum computer, the implication that it uses "Photons" to form the structure of it's base language is quite impressive. As photons are derived from light.

Are photons the link to consciousness? Is a single photon of light self-aware? Where does consciousness start? From one single photon, or the wave that several photon's create?

We are that photon, organized into a pixelation of consciousness. Our very reality a digital hologram generated by the end result of all this biological calculations.


Where in that, is our own personal "Multiverse"?



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Great thread, I first got interested in this topic big time in the mid nineties when I heard Art Bell interview Michio Kaku and he spoke in layman terms so the general audience could understand, of course my interest has expanded from there. Kaku thinks there are 10-11 deminsions.



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vanitas


The sad thing is that scientists are getting payed to imagine instead of coming up with real science. Where can I sign on? I don't even need a degree! Cool!


What follows is not a rhetoric question:

What exactly is "real" science?
Am I right in suspecting it is supposed to mean research within the limits of what is presently known to be "true" (and which was discovered, ironically enough, by individuals who transgressed the known limits of science in their own time)?


I like the way constantwonder prefaced the OP by commenting that we should take some salt along with the OP article! Well said.

And the question this topic raises is indeed what is real science. Let's examine one definition:

What Is Science? And What Is The Scientific Method?


Science is a METHOD for the acquisition of knowledge about the universe around us (reliable - thought not infallible). The minimum requirements was given in the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, 1981. Judge Overton found that science has four essential features: QUOTE
1. It is guided by natural laws, and is explanatory by references to natural laws.
2. Science is testable against the empirical world.
3. Its conclusions are tentative, not the final word.
4. It is falsifiable.


It seems to me like what we have is the beginnings of science but not real science on this topic yet, because so far we haven't been able to test this science against the empirical world.


The main difference between the scientific method and other procedures for generating knowledge is that science says that YOU HAVE TO PROVE WHAT YOU CLAIM. The scientific method has a set procedure for going about this. It can be summarized in a series of steps:
1) Observation ( A series of observations is made and a phenomenon noted)

2) Form a falsifiable testable hypothesis to explain these observations. Deduce predictions from the hypothesis. These are phrased as statement in the form "if principle P is true, then event E should occur or fact F should be true."It MUST be "falsifiable" (The most crucial). That means a scientific hypothesis must have some feature about it that would allow someone (a careful experimenter or observer) to prove the hypothesis false if it is wrong.

3) Testing of the hypothesis (We must design an experiment or define a set of observations that we will take as proof that our theory is wrong. )

4) Adoption of the hypothesis or back to (2) if it fails the test(in which we admit that there is no evidence that our theory is correct.


So you have to prove what you claim in science? OK where is the proof for any of this in the context that science must be testable against the empirical world? It seems to me like we have made some observations on the micro (quantum mechanical) scale and tried to apply some of those observations to a macro (universe-sized) scale, without any evidence that such an extrapolation is warranted. This is OK for an idea to pursue...but where is step 3 in the scientific method, testing the hypothesis?

If it's not testable, and not falsifiable, etc, at least according to the supreme court, it's not science, at least not yet anyway. And if it is testable, what are the hypothesis tests, have they been planned or done? The multiverse theory along with string and M-Theory all seem to suffer from a lack of any real world empirical observational evidence to demonstrate their validity as being within the realm of science. I don't expect immediate results when someone comes up with an idea, since it took years for observations to be made to confirm Einstein's ideas, but I really don't see much in the way of real world hypothesis confirmations resulting from multiverse and M theory yet.

[edit on 19-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Oct, 19 2009 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Hi Arbitrageur; Some very good points for sure. Like I said in an earlier post -

"It's truly as weird as we can possibly imagine and that's the point you or I could probably take a stab at explaining what we think it is and be just as right as the best physicists"

I am beginning to think we are finally working into the realms that are not testable. The best we have at the moment is proof by math but that’s providing more possibilities than we need right now. I mean it’s all adding to the confusion or should I say weirdness.

We will need to create that universe in the lab to get some real answers that are testable – problem is once we do, it will create a whole bunch of new possibilities (already has in fact). I really don’t want to be in an intelligently generated universe but I fear it’s just possible.



posted on Oct, 27 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
this thread is mis titled...they havnt calculated how many alternate universes there are because they havnt proven there even are any at all...its all a theory...based on certain amounts of mathematics and science




top topics



 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join