Parallel Universes Proven, page 1

I think so. After scientist put a visible object in a state of superposition that answers a lot of questions for me. Here's the article in nature:

A team of scientists has succeeded in putting an object large enough to be visible to the naked eye into a mixed quantum state of moving and not moving.

www.nature.com...

The is a remarkable experiment and it says a lot about the nature of reality. See, Copenhagen basically said superposition applies to the microscopic world and it doesn't apply to macroscopic objects.

Schrodinger's famous thought experiment was designed to show how absurd it was to apply things like superposition to macroscopic objects. So people will say quantum mechanics is incomplete and there's a link between quantum mechanics and classical physics. This experiment shows there's no link and everything is quantum.

Classical objects are just macroscopic quantum systems and classical physics is just emergent properties of scale. They emerge when microscopic objects are entangled.

Here's a hypothetical:

Say you have 5 microscopic objects with 4 eigenstates each. When these microscopic objects become entangled they form one macroscopic object that has 20 eigenstates.

The microscopic objects can calculate their eigenstates simultaneously. The macroscopic object calculates their eigenstates one bit at a time.

This will also lead to quantum computers. This is because quantum computers will carry out computation in Parallel Universes. This is why a quantum computer with a few hundred atoms will be more powerful than a supercomputer. Just imagine a laptop quantum computer that has more computational power than a single universe.

This seems to be the best explanation because macroscopic and superposition shouldn't mix or you get Schrodinger's Cat. These universes are parallel to each other because macroscopic objects don't interfere with each other.

So superposition still occurs in macroscopic objects, it's just interference is taken away because of decoherence and parallel universes with emergent laws of physics are what's observed.

If Copenhagen was right we shouldn't see any superposition beyond Planck scales but we do.

This is why a 3 dimensional object is described by information encoded on a 2 dimensional surface area 1/4 the size of it's volume. This is because you need the extra dimensions to describe the entangled states.

If everything is quantum. then parallel universes exist because there isn't any link or hidden variable between microscopic and macroscopic. There both quantum objects just at different scales.

reply to post by daniel_g

---

Of course it's a poorly written article if you don't agree with it. It's always easy to shoot the messenger when you don't agree with the message.

The paddle wasn't moving and not moving in a single universe. We don't see cars moving and not moving or a person running and not running at the same time. This was why Schrodinger's cat came along. Schrodinger wanted to show how absurd it would be to apply quantum mechanics to the classical world.

This experiment shows that it does apply to the classical world.

Superposition on a macroscopic level cannot happen in a single universe. There's not enough computational power in a single universe to describe a superposition of states on a macroscopic level for every macroscopic object.

Our universe would have to compute N number of states until one state is observed.

So superposition on a macroscopic scale can't be occurring in a single universe.

I know some people want classical realism at all cost but it's right there in front of your face that classical realism is dead and everything is quantum.

reply to post by john_bmth

---

The article didn't state it, I did. Didn't you read the first line in the thread,"I THINK SO."

I then went on to explain why I think this is the case.

[edit on 5-9-2010 by Matrix Rising]

reply to post by Matrix Rising

---

Scientists supersize quantum mechanics

Thats what you "missleading" title should have been..

All of this is unproven theory, although it is interesting.

I don't think I'll be seeing my "other selves" in this life..

reply to post by Matrix Rising

---

Just a few points to make.

Firstly, why are you starting a thread from a six month old news story when at least 2 threads were started here on ATS at that time back in March? Here is one of them:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Secondly as has been stated, this is a misleading title, you haven't even bothered with the usual trick of slapping a question mark at the end of it.

These experiments and these results offer no additional insight into the possibility/probability of the existence of Parallel Universes. I wish they did, because I am heavily entrenched in that particular camp.

All this experiment does (and that is still something extraordinary), is show that quantum effects can happen on scales that are observable, even if that coherence is unstable and breaks down very easily. This is something that had always been postulated/expected from the very beginning of Quantum Theory, but never seen until now, or should i say six months ago when this old story first did the rounds on ATS.

reply to post by spookfish

---

What, are you the old story police?

First off, people can talk about the same story from different angles. The title of the thread you quoted is:

First quantum effects seen in visible object

My thread is saying this experiments proves that Parallel Universes exist.

I noticed you spent most of your time ranting about old stories and very little time talking about the story and how it relates to Parallel Universes.

If you can't account for the computation that would be needed in a single universe to describe these superposition of states then you have to say Parallel Universes are real. Where's the computation coming from?

If superposition occurs on a macroscopic level then Parallel universes exist.

reply to post by Matrix Rising

---

Firstly I will re-iterate what I said in my first post. This is an extraordinary result from an extraordinary experiment. The word fascinating no where near covers it and I'm sure there are far reaching implications.

Right, if you think my post was a rant you've lived a sheltered life or you're delusional. Re-read your last post and you will see something much closer to a rant than what I have posted.

"I noticed you spent most of your time ranting about old stories"

Really? NO. Actually very little of my post was about that. Count the words, and when you do you should compare them to the larger proportion of your post in which YOU ranted about old stories.

I still say you are wrong. This experiment does not prove the existence of Parallel Universes. But please feel free to compute away until you convince yourself enough that you don't have to resort to attacking people with dissenting voices. It doesn't make you look big or clever, and shows a lack of decorum.

I have poked around the net looking for someone somewhere that agrees with your extrapolation of this experiment, but alas I have been unable to find any. So before I accept you as the brightest physicist on the planet and due a Nobel prize I wonder if you could expand your thoughts on a couple of things. Among my many reasons for frequenting this site is to learn new stuff and to deny ignorance. Therefore I would be most grateful if you could discuss the following two statements of yours, which I as a layman could not possibly get my head round without some help.

"This is why a 3 dimensional object is described by information encoded on a 2 dimensional surface area 1/4 the size of it's volume. This is because you need the extra dimensions to describe the entangled states."

If you can't account for the computation that would be needed in a single universe to describe these superposition of states then you have to say Parallel Universes are real. Where's the computation coming from?

Thanks in advance

Yours sincerely

love and kisses xxx

[edit on 5-9-2010 by spookfish]

reply to post by Matrix Rising

---

Interesting find, nice. However, it has been posted before I believe. However, this gives those who've not yet seen it a chance to do so.

reply to post by daniel_g

---

OMG an object can be still while vibrating! How impossible! Unless you observe it at a moment as the vibration passes through the object, just before another wave encompasses it. Then OMG it would be steady and not vibrating, while you observe it while vibrating!

This is my article without any verifiable numbers, pictures, maths, or an accompanying white paper.

Of course I personally believe (without evidence to suggest) that parallel universes do exist. They exist as potential states, not active states living parallel to us.

But I do agree this article is horrific, like the National Enquirer is writing for science now.

reply to post by truthseeker1984

---

I think the OP is trying to describe something like String Theory, or M-theory.

Here is a video that puts it in lamens terms for you. Its somewhere along the lines of what the OP is trying to describe.

The secrets hidden in the pyramids. A real eye opener!
  Posted 2 days ago with 166 member flags

The mystery of 100+ mpg cars, and the disappearance & deaths of men behind it
  Posted 12 days ago with 101 member flags

Scientists able to talk to and teach dolphins sentences - Dolphins share a universal language.
  Posted 10 days ago with 92 member flags

6 Real People With Mind-Blowing Mutant Superpowers
  Posted 2 days ago with 87 member flags

Pirate Bay to Allow Real-Object Downloads. The Real Reason for SOPA, IMO.
  Posted 12 days ago with 74 member flags

a drop of water orbiting a nitting needle in space
  Posted 2 days ago with 69 member flags

Tor (anonymity network)
  Posted 18 days ago with 46 member flags

Top 10 Most Incredible Pieces Of Nanoscale Art
  Posted 6 days ago with 43 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: