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: 5
50
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:00 PM
link   
I think we experience parallel universes all the time. In this experiment if the scientist observes the paddle vibrating and not vibrating at the same time perhaps we are phasing from one universe to another experiencing one and then the other. We coalesce these parallel universe experiences into a single stream of consciousness and store it in our brains which are able to store information in both perceived universes at the same time.

I think I just blew my own mind. Again.




posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


Again, you're trying to introduce "collapse" where there isn't any.


Enough of that. I said I didn't. Why do you say I did? It just appears like "collapse".


You're now trying to say superposition isn't real, just some hazy state between branching. That makes no sense and that's not what the experiment showed.


The experiment reported showed the object in two classically contradictory states. How did I say superposition wasn't real when I was arguing as if it were a fact?


The experiment showed that the macroscopic object was in two states at the same time, not in some hazy superposition before branching. Decoherence doesn't cause the branching, decoherence just says the branching is thermodynamically irreversable.


Uh, yes. That's what I said they said. Why is superposition "hazy" when it's taken as fact?

How I've been privy to Decoherence and branching are inseparable because the branch is the decoherence into separate worldlines where observers only witness one outcome out of the myriad of possible outcomes. It has been interpreted as "collapse" but I'm not calling it that.


So the state of superposition and parallel universes are the same thing. It's just the superposition becomes parallel after the event has occurred because of decoherence. This just means you are blinded to any interference between these states when branching occurs.


What the? The experiment was observing the superposition of two states.


There's not enough computational power in a single universe to compute the superposition of macroscopic objects.


Not enough computing power in a single universe to compute macroscopic superposition : macroscopic superposition exists -> many worlds.

Why? You argument rests upon this assertion?

How is it we're observing two or more universes simultaneously while at the same time fully involved in one or the other? You'd have to be living in both universes at once and each copy of you and the tools you're using still coherent with the other. How are they both coherent and decoherent at the same time?


Superposition occurs on a microscopic level, this is why you can't see the superposition of macroscopic objects as you walk around everyday.


The experiment seems to indicate, taking its claim as fact, that it occurs on a macroscopic level under the right conditions.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by wayouttheredude
 


Good observation.

I'm reading this paper that you might find interesting. Here's some highlights.


Using all of this (and more – see their paper here) Linde and Vanchurin calculate that the number of universes in the multiverse and could be at least 10^10^10^7, a number which is definitely "humungous," as they described it.

The total amount of information that can be absorbed by one individual during a lifetime is about 10^16 bits. So a typical human brain can have 10^10^16 configurations and so could never distinguish more than that number of different universes.

"We have found that the strongest limit on the number of different locally distinguishable geometries is determined mostly by our abilities to distinguish between different universes and to remember our results," wrote Linde and Vanchurin. "Potentially it may become very important that when we analyze the probability of existencse of a universe of a given type, we should be talking about a consistent pair: the universe and an observer who makes the rest of the universe "alive" and the wave function of the rest of the universe time-dependant."


www.universetoday.com...

Interesting stuff.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by wayouttheredude
 


It's this peculiarity I was arguing against since it directly contradicts MWI where the dechorerence places the worldlines out of mutual communication.

ETA: This would suggest a single universal multiverse where information is exchanged between worldlines. "Parallel universes" then are not actually parallel. But this isn't MWI as presented but something else.


edit on 9/11/2010 by EnlightenUp because: I have many selfs that believe different things.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Very good MR.

This is correct.

Although in one sense we have known all along, isn't it how the SQUID works? I have maintained the parallel universe concept since 1990.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


You Said:


What the? The experiment was observing the superposition of two states.


The experimenters didn't observe the superposition LOL. We can't look at macroscopic objects and see them moving and not moving at the same time.

If we look at it a measurement will occur. The way the experimenters got around this was through a qubit.


Next, the team measured the quantum state of the resonator by connecting it electrically to a superconducting quantum bit or "qubit". The qubit acts, in fact, like a "quantum thermometer" that can identify just one quantum thermal excitation, or phonon. Once this has been done, the qubit can then be used to excite a single phonon in the resonator. This excitation can be transferred many times between the resonator and qubit.

"Unlike other measuring instruments, [the qubit] allowed us to measure the mechanical resonator while preserving all quantum effects," Cleland told physicsworld.com. "Most measuring instruments disturb the mechanical object by heating it up, and so destroy the very quantum effects being sought."


physicsworld.com...

This was the genius of the experiment.

It's essentially like listening in on a three way call. You can listen to a person talking and talking and talking until you make a noise and they know you're there and then they hang up.

The experimenters measured the superposition via the qubit and the experimenters could listen in so to speak as long as the resonator doesn't know they are there. As soon as they "Observe" it all quantum effects are lost.

This is because superposition of macroscopic objects can't occur in a single universe. There isn't the computational power to calculate all of these states in a single universe. So we can detect superposition but we can't observe it. This is MWI.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Matyas
 


Thanks and the SQUID experiment is interesting also. Here's a link to an article called Schrodinger's SQUID if anyone wants to read more about the experiment.

www3.amherst.edu...


edit on 11-9-2010 by Matrix Rising because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matrix Rising
reply to post by EnlightenUp
 


After finding a number of articles on the experiment, I see why attempting to learn anything from these articles is basically garbage. If I want the real meat, I have to pay to get the actual paper or find a torrent (lol). The rest is junk. I'm not really perfectly sure what they're up to. The writeup sort of fall flat explaining just how this superposition was achieved and how it was inferred. Why wasn't it that the resonator did not cause the qubit to choose its state instead?


The experimenters measured the superposition via the qubit and the experimenters could listen in so to speak as long as the resonator doesn't know they are there.


No, it doesn't sound like that at all. They used a tunable Josepheson junction qubit that could deliver just enough energy into the resonator to bring it just above its quantum ground state (one phonon), then, as far as I understand, seeing the resonator obey the expected probabilities, this somehow means it was superimposed. Yeah, not enough meat.

I found some circuit diagrams and charts from the paper.

Some other nice info on these qubits.

Care to help me understand that a bit better?


As soon as they "Observe" it all quantum effects are lost.

This is because superposition of macroscopic objects can't occur in a single universe.


That's the case with microscopic as well generally, as in the double-slit experiment with a detector in one path. Why is macroscopic some sort of special case when in fact they're trying to prove that quantum effects apply to all objects in general, that there is no magical scale where they're truely gone and it's a matter of how easily the resolution into a classical state happens?


There isn't the computational power to calculate all of these states in a single universe.


Yes, you keep say that about the universe. Did you back that up somewhere?

OK: "I believe in MWI. To back that up I believe the universe doesn't have enough power to compute all eigenstates at once. Therefore MWI is true."


So we can detect superposition but we can't observe it. This is MWI.


Where did the superposition exist before the decoherence? Multiple universes that are still coherent, each with a particular state, yet together they are perceived like a single universe?



edit on 9/12/2010 by EnlightenUp because: Fixum de quotums



posted on Sep, 15 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
I have a few possible scenarios in my head. What if one day, parallel universes are actually publicly 100% proven to exist? What if we become able to interact with said universes on a daily basis? What sorts of laws/regulations would be implemented to regulate the interaction between an infinite amount of universes? Would unauthorized interaction become illegal? Would universes be used to dispose of troublesome characters (criminals, terrorists, etc.)? If you are a fugitive, would it be considered resisting arrest to flee to a universe where you never committed a crime? So many questions...



posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by OrphenFire
 

You'll find some answers to your questions (though not necessarily the right ones) here. Enjoy.




top topics



 
50
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join