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.

 

Debate about parallel universes

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   
As the label reads, I have a problem with believing in *existing* parallel universes. It all comes down to the issue of conscious creation.

Can we all agree that creation is a product of consciousness? As far as mankind is concerned, any creation (Ie; product, architecture, business, laws, language) has been imagined, key word, by a conscious being. Right?

My question is that, since according to quantum physics, anything that is possible, is. That's where I interject.

Is there a universe out there made of Jello? Well, we would both probably agree, that is ridiculous. This is where it comes to the issue of conscious creation vs "natural" production. Of course the universe that is made of jello is unlikely to exist since the product "jello" is of conscious creation and thus imagination, insisting that a being must have had something to do with its creation. BUT, since we are a part of existence, as our thoughts (imagination) are, is that wacky universe of jello existent? If not than how are we here?

Are we not at least as complex, imagination warranting, as jello stars? Same goes for all plant and animal life. Are we not a complex creation due to imagination and thus consciousness?

My question is, does that universe of jello exist? And if so, how?




posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   
An infinite number of possibilities does not guarentee that every possibility is realized. I can have an infinite set of numbers that does not contain every number. For example there are an infinite number of real numbers between 1 and 2(ie. 1, 1.1, 1.11, 1.111, 1.1111, ect.) yet that set does not contain the number 3.

The theory that there are an infinite number of universes does not imply that every conceivable universe exists. There could be an infinite number of fairly "normal" universes, without any jello universes. There is no reason to believe that a jello universe exists, but I suppose the follows over the jello universe are probably saying the same thing about our universe . . .



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 07:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnceReturned
An infinite number of possibilities does not guarentee that every possibility is realized. I can have an infinite set of numbers that does not contain every number. For example there are an infinite number of real numbers between 1 and 2(ie. 1, 1.1, 1.11, 1.111, 1.1111, ect.) yet that set does not contain the number 3.

The theory that there are an infinite number of universes does not imply that every conceivable universe exists. There could be an infinite number of fairly "normal" universes, without any jello universes. There is no reason to believe that a jello universe exists, but I suppose the follows over the jello universe are probably saying the same thing about our universe . . .
But doesn't that contradict the theory? That anything that could possibly happen, will happen? (of course all the possibilities being split into separate universes). Maybe there's something i'm not getting but it seems the problem here is the separation between what is possible and impossible. How is this determined? And can it not include the creation of consciousness is what i'm asking.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Artanis667
 


You are talking about the ideas that movies present us about parallel universes. OnceReturned is talking about what scientist are saying about parallel universes.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Artanis667
As the label reads, I have a problem with believing in *existing* parallel universes. It all comes down to the issue of conscious creation.


I have no problem believing in quantum mechanics, we can make lots of quantum mechanical observations that are consistently repeated.

However my problem with believing in parallel universes has nothing to do with conscious creation, it has to do with lack of physical proof.

If someone can show me a star spinning around in a tight little circle at high velocity, I know it must be revolving around something like a neutron star, or a black hole even though I can't see it, so indirect proof like that is good enough.

However I've never seen even any indirect proof that good that a parallel universe exists.

Show me the proof if you want me to believe it. I doubt you can. You don't even need to ask about conscious creation, just ask for proof.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 12:34 AM
link   
There are other universes. At least one of them has a very deep connection with ours. Look deep within yourself and you'll know it's true.

I don't even know if I'm joking anymore. It's starting to freak me out, this feeling.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Wasn't there a theory put out there a while back that our universe has been found to exist amongst a void where other universe's are present. Also haven't scientist created mini universes or something that resembles them in a lab somewhere. With regards to that lab experiment the scientists were quotes saying something like; " as soon as we create a new universe here in the lab, it disappears and establishes its own position".

With out links though, this is just merely what I can remember from a long time ago.

Maybe someone else remembers something similar ?



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Artanis667
 


In the sense that you are talking about, "possibilities" are defined as any particular instantiation of a particle, given its probability distribution as described by its wave function according to Schrodinger's equation.

In quantum mechanics there is the notion of the wave/particle duality, which is essentially the observation that quantum particles are described mathemtically as waves and behave in accordance with the predictions of this mathematical description, yet whenever they are actually observed/measured they are found to be particles. The nature of the apparent transition from wave to particle is known as "the measurement problem," and how one chooses to interpret these observations form the basis for the hypothesis that an infinite number of universes exist. The issue is not yet settled, hence the name "measurement problem."

The interpretation of the measurement problem which suggests that there are infinite universes - one for every possibility - is called the "many worlds interpretation." In order to understand what we're talking about, it's useful to perform a simple thought experiment.

Imagine that there was nothing in the universe except an observer(you) and a subatomic(quantum) particle, let's say a photon. It's experimentally verifiable and accepted as fact that this particle - the photon - exhibits wave/particle duality. The photon can be accurately described mathematically as a wave. This description takes the form of Schrodinger's famous equation. This description is called the "wave function" of the particle. The wave function - like all waves - has a wavelength and amplitude. In the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics the values of the wave function are interpreted as probabilities: the wavelength is the area of space where the particle may be found, and the amplitude of the wave at any specific position is taken to be the probability of finding the particle in that position.

In our thought experiment, when you look at the photon, which has been described as a wave, you will not find a wave, but instead you will see(measure) a particle at a specific point along the probability distribution described by the wave function. The idea, though, in the many worlds interpretation is that when you looked at the photon you actually measured it to be in every possible position along its wave function. The "you" in this "universe" happened to find it in one particular position, but since it actually exists as a wave, an infinite number of "yous" in an infinite number of "universes" found it in slightly different positions.

So, in the thought experiment, "possibilities" are all of the positions that the particle could have been measured in. This number is infinite, and and an infinite number of observers in an infinite number of universes measured the photon as being in every one of its infinite possible positions. Here we see that while there are infinite possibilities, and every one comes true, that does not mean that every conceivable thing actually happens. The "possibilities" are not anything you can imagine: you will find the photon somewhere along its wave function, it's not possible that you will find an elephant.

The idea is that the real universe is just a large version of this thought experiement, with many particles and many observers. All particles which are waves are found to occupy specific positions in the form of particles in every universe, and there are an infinite number of universes in which every particle is found to be at every positition on its wave function. This what is meant by "infinite possibilities" actually being realized. It's not a matter of jello or fairies or magic or things like that. Possibilities are defined as positions along a wave function probability distribution, and not as anything we can imagine. In all of these other universes the same laws of physics apply. Consciousness arises from brains and brains arise from matter; I don't think it's anything spooky.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnceReturned
reply to post by Artanis667
 

The interpretation of the measurement problem which suggests that there are infinite universes - one for every possibility - is called the "many worlds interpretation." In order to understand what we're talking about, it's useful to perform a simple thought experiment.


Thanks for the good explanation which I starred, and for pointing out that it's an interpretation, but not necessarily the only interpretation. I look at the probabilities of finding the particle in a particular location as a probability function sort of analogous to the probabilities of selecting a card out of a randomly shuffled deck of cards. You might draw an ace of spades, or you might draw a 6 of hearts, or something else from the deck of cards. We can calculate what those probabilities are, just like we can calculate the probability of finding an electron in a certain location. It may be an over-simplified analogy, but I don't see any parallel universe involved just because I draw an ace of spades from the deck one time and a 6 of hearts another time, it's all happening in the same universe.

That's why someone is going to have to prove to me another universe is involved to get me to believe it. Maybe there are parallel universes, but it's an unsubstantiated claim until we see proof. I see proof of a lot of other scientific claims and the proof is why I believe what I do.

Until we have proof, speculating about parallel universes is kind of like speculating about God. We can hypothesize the existence of either, we can't disprove either, yet we also have no proof of either that stands up to scientific scrutiny, so I'd place both concepts under a faith-based belief system. That doesn't mean they are wrong, it just means they are unproven.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:13 AM
link   
If you are able to travel back in time, then you are traveling to a parallel universe, isn't that the consensus of the scientific community today?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by OnceReturned
An infinite number of possibilities does not guarentee that every possibility is realized. I can have an infinite set of numbers that does not contain every number. For example there are an infinite number of real numbers between 1 and 2(ie. 1, 1.1, 1.11, 1.111, 1.1111, ect.) yet that set does not contain the number 3.

The theory that there are an infinite number of universes does not imply that every conceivable universe exists. There could be an infinite number of fairly "normal" universes, without any jello universes. There is no reason to believe that a jello universe exists, but I suppose the follows over the jello universe are probably saying the same thing about our universe . . .


Numbers are in our universe, we came up with those numbers....Every possibility is realized that means humans don't evolve to develop that technology. That does not mean if an infinite amount of possibilities exist......... you are saying since we cannot discover it, therefore it doesn't exist.?

Well you got me there, but the mere fact that we conceive the possibility means it exists in our consciousness........ and therefore exists in our universe/parallel universe. Are thoughts and dreams not reality?

Honestly the way I see it, everything is spinning in space real fast, and if you were able to view that and everything at a microscopic scale you would see some interesting things.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by game over man
If you are able to travel back in time, then you are traveling to a parallel universe, isn't that the consensus of the scientific community today?


We know how to travel forward in time theoretically, and stay in the same universe.There may be speculation about how to travel back in time but I don't think we know how to do that or what the effect would be though we do know about some paradox problems such time travel would create. If you could go back and kill your own grandfather before he conceived your father, it creates quite a paradox because if your father was never born, you couldn't exist, so how could you have even killed him. It makes you head hurt to figure that one out.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 05:20 AM
link   
I beleive through CERN wemay finally find some indirect evidence. If they can actually measure the proton's reaction. After all the existance of parallel universes are based on theory about protons existing in two places at the same time. This would infer parallels exist. It's just a matter of time soon we will have a good representation that this is in fact true. JMO.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 05:44 AM
link   
The parallel universe theory gained more credance when the scientists explained how the cosmological constant(see part 4 Cosmological constant problem) is the way it is.
I do have a problem with this and thats for an finite amount of universe means that there has to be an infinite amount of energy?. Since our universe is destined to die out in the far future either we dont have infinite energy or scientists have found a new problem in their standard model and that is what determines how much energy is put into each universe?
Until someone actually proves that parallel universes exist by getting information from there it is mere conjecture.

Btw the existence of a particle being in the 2 places at the same time dosent mean its in a parallel universe.

[edit on 16-4-2010 by loner007]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


One of the main problems with the idea of parallel universes is that by our current understanding, communication(not just talking but any transfer of information at all: forces, matter, energy. . .) is impossible between the universes. This means that we can never have direct evidence of their existence, which means that we can never have proof and we can never experimentally test for them. I think the motivation to believe in parallel universes comes more from a logical interpretation of the consequences of real observations than from direct evidence of their existence.

The reason that the measurement problem is a problem is that no one knows how or why we observe particles when we look at things which we can prove are waves. At least, we can prove that they are waves when we are not look at them and we can prove that they are particles when we are looking at them. So, physicists ask themselves what's going on here. It's hard to make sense of the idea that the waves are actually "collapsing" into particles when we look them, because it's not clear what aspect of "the act of observation" could possibly have this seemingly magic effect of turning waves into particles.

One answer is: the wave function doesn't actually collapse. The waves don't turn into particles, because the act of observation does not have any spooky/mysterious properties such that it could collapse the wave function. This is the premis for the many worlds interpretation. If we accept this interpretation, we go on to say that the the wave actually represents the particle being in an infinite number of possilitions; every position all along the wave function. The particles that make up an observer also have wave functions. So, the idea is that the observer and the particle exist at every position along their wave functions, and that the part of the observer on position "A"(just an arbitrary position along the wave, but some specific point) observes the part of the particle at position "A1"(the position on the particle's wave function which corresponds to position A of the observer such that if the observer is in A and the particle is in A1, observation and interaction occur, whereas if the observer is at A, he will not observe or interact with the part of the particle at B1. However, the part of him that exists at B would observe the particle at position B1). If we think about the world this way, everything actually exists as a wave, so, logically, part of every particle exists at every point on the wave. The theory, then, is that "what it is like" to be the part of the observer at position A is that he only observes the part of every other object/particle which is located at that object's corresponding position on its own wave function.

This stuff is very hard to explain and I'm sorry if that paragraph is convoluted or impossible to make sense of. I think it's all there though. Under this theory, the term infinite "universes" isn't quite correct. There do not exist other independent, disconnected universes. Everything exists as a wave, and every "universe" is really just made of the part of every object which exists at a certain point on that objects wave function. The universes are not separate. They are made of the same particles, but each universe is occupied only by a "slice" or part of every particle, which exists at a certain point on the wave function. We are just a "slice" of our wave-like selves, and we observe "slices" of every other wave-object. This gives the effect of a particulate universe, and answers the measurement problem.

Imagine a universe with an observer and two objects, a blue one and a red one. The observer, the red object, and the blue object, are all waves. They exist as waves, and a part or "slice" of them occupies every position on their wave function. When the observer looks at the red object and the blue object, he observes particles, not waves. This is because every slice of him along his wave observes some corresponding slice of the red and blue objects along their waves. This gives each individual slice of him the impression that he is a particulate object and that he is observing particles. What is really happenining is that the slice of him that exists at position A on his wave function is observing the slice of the red object that exists at position A1 on its wave, and the slice of the blue object that exists at position A2 on its wave. The slice of him at B observes red and blue particles at B1 and B2, and the slice of him at C observes particles at C1 and C2, and so on. Every slice of the observer observes particles, even though both the observer and the objects are waves. Each slice thinks that it's the observer, and wonders why it only see particles when it look at objects which it knows are waves(really it's just seeing slices of the waves, and infinite other slices of itself are observing infinite other slices of the objects). We as humans are a slice of ourselves(observers), and we observe a particulate universe which is a slice of the wavefunction of the complete universe. Every slice exists, and these are what are called parallel universes. We think we are our entire selves, but really we are just slices of ourselves experiencing one of an infinite number of possible slices of the universe.

By "see" or "look at" or "observe" I mean measure, obviously the particles we're talking about are too small to see. By "slice" I mean a specific point along a wave; like an individual frame in a movie, where the movie is the wave and the slice is the specific frame.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by OnceReturned
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 
This means that we can never have direct evidence of their existence, which means that we can never have proof and we can never experimentally test for them.


As I said before, show me a star spinning around in orbit around apparently nothing, and use that as indirect evidence to infer that there's a body that it's orbiting around, and I'd say you've got some pretty good indirect evidence. And, how many other possible interpretations of that observation are there? We may not know exactly what's there but we know it must be something smaller than the radius of the star's orbit.

But what you described about the wave function, I don't see as even indirect evidence of other universes, but I understand the explanation you've given and yes that's what some people believe. Unlike the indirect evidence of the star's orbit which seems to lead to only one conclusion, our observations of wave particle duality in contrast are mysterious and we can only propose what so far seem to be guesses about why we see what we do, and the many universes theory is just one guess. I don't understand the physical causes of wave-particle duality, and I don't think anybody does, but at this point I'd rather say "I don't know" then to presume it must be the result of other universes which I can't prove.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 09:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I don't think anyone accepts the many worlds interpretation as fact. It sounds like a reasonable answer to the measurement problem, so it's on the table as a possible theory. The wave/particle duality observation is a very difficult thing to make sense of, and any reasonable theory is up for discussion.

The truth is, though, that any observation can be explained in an infinite number of ways. Your planet orbiting around nothing, for example, could be explained as a hallucination in your own mind. Or if other people at your lab see it too, it could be an artifact or some piece of deceptive technology in your telescope. Or it could be an image being projected onto the lense of your telescope from an earth-based projector. Or it could be a hologram at any distance in from of your telescope. If you include the observation that many telescopes all over the world see this same planet, then you can assume that you are all seeing a real object in outer space. But is it a planet, or an alien spaceship that looks like a planet flying around in a circle? Or is it following a rollercoaster-like track around in orbit, which some advanced race engineered? Or is gravity/spacetime different in that part of the universe, and the natural movement of planets is circular, even with no forces being applied?

That line of thinking is not supposed to be taken seriously, but it should be proof that any observation has an infinite number of explanations. No theory can ever be truely confirmed, because it's impossible to say that some other explanation that we haven't thought of yet isn't better. The history of astronomy demonstrates this nicely; many theories to explain the same observations, which eventually get replaced by better and better theories. All we can do is suggest explanations, test them, and either falsify them or hold on to them for now, until something better comes along. It may be that the many worlds interpretation is just the best explanation that we have right now. Perhaps we should recognize that it's not set in stone and use it for now, until something better comes along. One problem is that conceiving of answers to the measurement problem which are consistent with the rest of physics is almost impossible, and the many worlds answer is one of a very small number of explanations that people have even been able to dream up.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:48 PM
link   
The idea of 'parallel' implies some kind of dimensional containment.

For lines [linear curve?] in a 2D plane not to intersect they must be disciplined [containment in the 2D plane] enough not to intersect.
When they are freed to float in some 3D or higher space they can have all sorts of oblique relations & have virtually no requirement of similarity/parallelity.

You could have universe fragments, small circular universes, branching universes.

Intellectually the notion of parallel universes is easy. My sense of our perception/experience is that the Universe has more inertia/gravitas/resistance to our imaginations.

Purely intellectually imposed rigor is not impossible, but seems more readily broken down & mutatible. I think there would be some sense of high[er] tension for somekind of thin [not-deep] parallelity arrangement. That is a purely subjective observation, but subjectivity is all the mind has to go on.

An interesting thought is if you find some range/domain where you sense high tension, it might be a good place to look for undermined [alternate path] conditions.

To me the Universe seems more organic, deep, but that could be a matter of the scale at which we/i perceive/experience it.

It is like you would need some kind of particle [energy?] alignment to create parallelity. The Universe seems organically non-aligned or rather accepting of all/any alignment(s).

It seems unlikely that there aren't other Universes elsewhere, but that they are easy to access [view?] doesn't fit my sensorial experience.

It almost seems easier to fabricate [spawn?] a sub or alternate universe than to imagine a bunch of nice, orderly, carefully disciplined Universes neatly pre-existing next to this one.

But one never knows what one doesn't know.

[edit on 16-4-2010 by slank]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join