A Physicist Explains Why Parallel Universes May Exist

This is a great article. It explains a lot, and when you wrap your head around it you start to realize that there may be many other things going on in our "multiverse" that science is just beginning to understand. This article is written up from an interview on NPR with physicist Brian Greene. If you prefer, there is an option to listen to the interview.

NPR: A Physicist Explains Why Parallel Universes May Exists

Our universe might be really, really big — but finite. Or it might be infinitely big. Both cases, says physicist Brian Greene, are possibilities, but if the latter is true, so is another posit: There are only so many ways matter can arrange itself within that infinite universe. Eventually, matter has to repeat itself and arrange itself in similar ways. So if the universe is infinitely large, it is also home to infinite parallel universes. Does that sound confusing? Try this: Think of the universe like a deck of cards. "Now, if you shuffle that deck, there's just so many orderings that can happen," Greene says. "If you shuffle that deck enough times, the orders will have to repeat. Similarly, with an infinite universe and only a finite number of complexions of matter, the way in which matter arranges itself has to repeat."

Mr. Greene also says that string theory allows for the existence of entities that resemble flying carpets or membranes (remember some of those videos of 'biological looking' UFO's?):

"There are a couple of multiverses that come out of our study of string theory," Greene says. "Within string theory, the strings that we're talking about are not the only entities that this theory allows. It also allows objects that look like large flying carpets, or membranes, which are two dimensional surfaces. And what that means, within string theory, is that we may be living on one of those gigantic surfaces, and there can be other surfaces floating out there in space."

There is a lot said in the article, but one other thing that really struck me was that there is actually a way to test to see if we are living on a membrane in a larger multiverse. That's right, with the Large Hadron Collider at CERN these physicists can run tests to determine, once and for all, if there are parallel universes and we are simply living in one of many realities:

"If we are living on one of these giant membranes, then the following can happen: When you slam particles together — which is what happens at the LHC — some debris from those collisions can be ejected off of our membrane and be ejected into the greater cosmos in which our membrane floats," he says. "If that happens, that debris will take away some energy. So if we measure the amount of energy just before the protons collide and compare it with the amount of energy just after they collide, if there's a little less after — and it's less in just the right way — it would indicate that some had flown off, indicating that this membrane picture is correct."

These excerpts are by no means the pulp of the article but rather topics that I felt would be of interest to other ATS members/readers. I highly recommend you read the full article yourself and also the chapter excerpt from Brian Greene's book "The Hidden Reality." Would love to hear your thoughts on what is said.

These guys are forgetting about two very fundamental aspects of material reality.

1. Existential identity is determined by contextual precedence as well as relative context
   
2. Newton's 1st Law of Thermodynamics only pertains to energy within a closed system, and not to energy as an existential manifestation in general
   

1. Nothing can be truly replicated, regardless of the size of the universe. This is due to the historical chain of circumstances that reach out behind everything that exists as physical, that are represented by the permanent information that those circumstances did exist, and that they did contribute to the eventual emergence of that physical something that cannot be truly replicated. This truth can't be challenged, and regardless of what some physicist claims, his training does not qualify him to debunk the very fundamentals of existential ramification.

2. This whole "energy cannot be created or destroyed" myth is finally being debunked at the quantum level, so these idiots are inventing crazy realities to try and maintain a wide spread misinterpretation of what Newton was asserting with that 1st Law of Thermodynamics. The idea that a measurable loss of energy after smashing particles reveals that this energy has jumped from our reality into a parallel reality is classic American book-marketing-as-theoretical-breakthrough.

This Greene character is working his career as an author. Believe what you wish, but both of these fundamental tenets of reality cripple the assertions listed in the OP. Reality's pretty cool, but it's not that cool.

reply to post by MentalPriapism


If the universe is infinite then life and intelligence loses its importance. If there is an infinite amount of life out there and an infinite amount of intelligent species, then we are not unique at all, even more so, we are dispensable. Our destruction would mean nothing in the grand scheme of things.

However, in a finite universe, where resources are limited, however vast they may be, life and intelligence holds much greater value.

I believe we live in a finite universe, but one of many - which in turn are also limited.

Khar

Originally posted by NorEaster
These guys are forgetting about two very fundamental aspects of material reality.

1. Existential identity is determined by contextual precedence as well as relative context
   
2. Newton's 1st Law of Thermodynamics only pertains to energy within a closed system, and not to energy as an existential manifestation in general
   

1. Nothing can be truly replicated, regardless of the size of the universe. This is due to the historical chain of circumstances that reach out behind everything that exists as physical, that are represented by the permanent information that those circumstances did exist, and that they did contribute to the eventual emergence of that physical something that cannot be truly replicated. This truth can't be challenged, and regardless of what some physicist claims, his training does not qualify him to debunk the very fundamentals of existential ramification.

2. This whole "energy cannot be created or destroyed" myth is finally being debunked at the quantum level, so these idiots are inventing crazy realities to try and maintain a wide spread misinterpretation of what Newton was asserting with that 1st Law of Thermodynamics. The idea that a measurable loss of energy after smashing particles reveals that this energy has jumped from our reality into a parallel reality is classic American book-marketing-as-theoretical-breakthrough.

This Greene character is working his career as an author. Believe what you wish, but both of these fundamental tenets of reality cripple the assertions listed in the OP. Reality's pretty cool, but it's not that cool.

edit on 7/17/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

Interesting counterpoint.

Regarding the comment Greene made about measureing the energy before and after the collision and the 'lost' energy will be jumping into a parrallel reality strikes me as a stretch. I don't see how it proves anything regardless of wether you believe energy cannot be created or destroyed other than that energy is not where it started. And if you do suscribe to the theory that energy can be destroyed (as you are suggesting is being proven) then it could quite possibley 'consumed' in the collision.

However, to paraphrase your first point, you are stating that it is impossible for 'lightning to strike twice' and whilst I do not agree with the idea of matter only being able to arrange itself in so many ways persay, if we are dealing with an 'infinite' size or indeed and 'infinite' number of possibilities, surely that does not preclude the possibility of an emergence of exact same preceedence and context leading to a 'carbon copy'? Admittedly, the idea of identical realities existing in parralell does seem immeasureably unlikely, given the components of the preceedence and context, but I cannot say myself that when dealing with an infinite number of possibilites (as is being suggested) that it can truly be ruled out or indeed proven / disproven, without first proving / disproving the existence and indeed number of parrallel realities.

Originally posted by AtlantisX99
However, to paraphrase your first point, you are stating that it is impossible for 'lightning to strike twice' and whilst I do not agree with the idea of matter only being able to arrange itself in so many ways persay, if we are dealing with an 'infinite' size or indeed and 'infinite' number of possibilities, surely that does not preclude the possibility of an emergence of exact same preceedence and context leading to a 'carbon copy'? Admittedly, the idea of identical realities existing in parralell does seem immeasureably unlikely, given the components of the preceedence and context, but I cannot say myself that when dealing with an infinite number of possibilites (as is being suggested) that it can truly be ruled out or indeed proven / disproven, without first proving / disproving the existence and indeed number of parrallel realities.

The issue is the contextual placement of the original within the whole of the contextual environment (reality) involved. That contextual environment includes literally everything within whatever universe is being considered, as well as the universe itself and any other universes and/or dimensions that can be physically associated with that universe. The sub-structural commonality that establishes the identity of a full contextual environment (or reality) is much more primordial than matter, dark matter, antimatter or whatever version of physical existence you might decide is capable of transversing whatever divide you believe delineates one confine from the next. And within that full contextual environment, nothing can possibly be replicated fully, since the contextual environment itself is the confine that provides everything within it the fullness of identity that each has earned by way of natural ramification.

If you leave that contextual environment, that reality, then the sub-structural commonality that establishes the full contextual environment prevents a true replication from emerging within its own confines due to that commonality being unlike the sub-structural commonality that defines the original full contextual environment that provided the identity to that original item that you're trying to replicate. The sub-structural commonality defines that reality, nd that definition is primordial to the existential identity of everything that exists or existed within that reality. That prevents anything from being fully replicated within a separate reality - even if they are parallel. The fact that they are separate is enough to destroy the replication before it even develops. No matter how you maneuver it, a true replication is literally impossible.

It's all actually a lot less complicated than the description of it tends to be.

Excuse us humble aliens from the 'other-world' but would one of you prove the existence of any reality anywhere and at any specific time in the known or unknown cosmos. And for that matter do you know where the cosmos is?
And for that matter if you don't know where it is, how do you know that it exists? And for that matter how do you know you exist?
Rene Descartes, called the "Father of Modern Philosophy" said: "Cogito ergo sum" (French: Je pense, donc je suis; English: I think, therefore I am; or I am thinking, therefore I exist)"
In some place somewhere each of your viewpoints is valid. Therefor we suggest focus on viewpoints that will give a practical ability to transcend the limited and trite universe you appear to be currently trapped in.
E=MC2 is one view; Time to 'see' further.........

The physical universe is one of the two 10-d space-time sheets predicted by E8xE8 heterotic superstring theory. Physical matter is confined to this sheet. The other sheet contains what has historically been called "etheric matter". It is called "shadow matter", being invisible and impervious to the forces and particles that occupy the sheet containing ordinary matter. As originally proved by physicists Witten and Horava, the gap between the two sheets extends along a finite segment of the 10th dimension of space predicted by 11-d M-theory. Its size determines the strength of the gravitational field, which is the only force field that can leak from one sheet into the other sheet.

Another theoretical physicist who has analyzed sacred geometries has proved mathematically that the sacred geometries of various religions are not only equivalent but encode the physics of E8xE8 heterotic superstrings. His research discoveries, which have profound implications, can be found here:

smphillips.8m.com...

Originally posted by AlienView
Excuse us humble aliens from the 'other-world' but would one of you prove the existence of any reality anywhere and at any specific time in the known or unknown cosmos. And for that matter do you know where the cosmos is?
And for that matter if you don't know where it is, how do you know that it exists? And for that matter how do you know you exist?
Rene Descartes, called the "Father of Modern Philosophy" said: "Cogito ergo sum" (French: Je pense, donc je suis; English: I think, therefore I am; or I am thinking, therefore I exist)"
In some place somewhere each of your viewpoints is valid. Therefor we suggest focus on viewpoints that will give a practical ability to transcend the limited and trite universe you appear to be currently trapped in.
E=MC2 is one view; Time to 'see' further.........

Here you go....

reply to post by NorEaster

reply to post by micpsi


I should just go ahead and invent my own indecipherable junk that no one on earth is going to ever bother researching deep enough to debunk. Screw this "trying to makes sense out of reality" effort. There's obviously no traction to be had there.

Do you even know this stuff well enough to translate it into usable verbiage, or do you just get mesmerized by all the pretty pictures? 10d worth of "sheets" that simply can't be objectively defined, let alone substantiated, as a reality premise and "proving" that premise by way of drawing geometric shapes that do absolutely nothing to contribute to the explanation of the premise itself, is the epitome of secret-handshake physics. 99.9999999% of people will never have the interest to even know it enough to challenge it as a premise, and the other .00000001% are wandering around with their own version of reality that no one else cares enough to challenge.

There is a lot said in the article, but one other thing that really struck me was that there is actually a way to test to see if we are living on a membrane in a larger multiverse. That's right, with the Large Hadron Collider at CERN these physicists can run tests to determine, once and for all, if there are parallel universes and we are simply living in one of many realities: .....

With humanoid science here in this so-called reality now you might prove or disprove parallel universes but even if you disproved the parallel universes with this physical science you would still not disprove parallel universes which might exist and be subject to an entirely different paradigm - say other universes may be not parallel to but at a different angle or dimension to this universe and your currently limited science can not yet perceive it.