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.

 

Parallel Universes Proven

page: 1
50
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+25 more 
posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 12:16 PM
link   
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.




posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   
And that is precisely why we should never allow for cyborgs to take over the planet and control our food supply.

I always knew parallel Universes existed, it was just a matter of scientifically proving they do. Good Thread! S&F from me



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
firstly, this is some crazy stuff - like hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy type stuff haha so ultimately ... this is pretty cool.

so if parallel universes can be proven does that mean there is another me in another parallel universe typing this thread and posting in it???

just think about those implications, haha i warned that that was some hitchhiker's guide stuff, but remember "don't panic"



[edit on 9/5/2010 by indigothefish]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:26 PM
link   
So by doing this experiment was the paddle in mulitple dimensions like because it was both vibrating and not??? Did it appear out of nowhere to someone somewhere else? That's what I am curious about!


+12 more 
posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Highly missleading topic from a very poor written article. How very typical of ATS.

The experiment in OP's article proves that quantum physics also apply to large scale object, it does not prove the existence of other universes. In fact, it seems to deny it. Think about it, if the metal paddle was not moving in our universe, but it was vibrating on an alternate universe, then we could have never seen it vibrate.

If we were able to detect it vibrating and standing still in our universe, it simply means that both event were happening in our universe.

'm not saying that OP is not right, he migth be, but only if scientists figured out a way to retreive information from a parallel universe, something that the article does not make mention of.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Where does it state that parallel universes are "proven"? This is something you've extrapolated, there is no mention of it in the article.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
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]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
I already had read that, its good stuff

I really dont know a lot about quantum physics, I would like to know to try to understand exactly what this could mean

could this mean that every "particle" exists in every parallel universe with different states, meaning, a particle would kind of change universes at some super fast rate and using the state to the respective universe? maybe I am completely wrong, I just dont understand enough of quantum mechanics or even physics to talk about it ...



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
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..



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Parallel universe or not the fact that such things are observable on a macroscopic scale is the gem I have been waiting for.
This is awesome and fills in a lot of blanks where quantum theory is concerned.



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 08:16 PM
link   
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]



posted on Sep, 5 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
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.


And exactly which part I don't agree with? I'm not challenging the article (nor the paper it refers to), I'm challenging your claim.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 01:46 PM
link   
From what I've heard in recent years, the number of parallel universes is infinite--whatever that means. I suppose that if you can imagine something, it probably exists.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
All the arguing aside, I wish I was intelligent enough in this type of science to actually understand what these guys are saying.

To the OP: Would you be able to explain your theory in layman's terms, so that those of us who know nothing about quantum physics can better understand what you are trying to say? I'm interested in this stuff, but I am still very much a novice at understanding it all.


Peace be with you.

-truthseeker



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   
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.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
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.




new topics

top topics



 
50
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join