Staredit Network

Do you think there's such a thing as a Parallel Universe? I saw this in Time magazine or something and it was pretty interesting.

If you don't know what it is, then i suggest looking it up somewhere because i'm too lazy to describe it.

[center]Quantum physics says there are... I think...
Anyway, yeah, I think there have to be parallel universes, it just seems right to me.[/center]

I believe in parallel universes.

I agree with Nuclear on it.

Upon submitting a topic SEN should run a search through Wikipedia first.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_universe

GG.

Way to ruin a perfectly good discussion Rexy

But I still love you!

If there are parrallel universes it wouldnt be that exciting since I doubt there would be life in most of them.

I read something in Discover about parallel universes... that they were coming close to proving that they existed or something... but like lonely_duck said, they believed that most of them contained no life, because the conditions for life wouldn't arise in them.

Yes, there're parallel univers...

Hawkens proved it (even mathematically)...


They made an experiment, where they shot "quarks" (or something like that) and it arrived before they shot it...

I can't trust that guy. He made a theory about black holes, and then that theory was proven wrong and had to change his theory.

[center]What about when he sent a computer signal faster than the speed of light?
He had a segmented optical cable, 99.9% of the transmission was reflected backwards, but the 0.1% that was reflected forwards, arrived at it's destination before it was sent out. Kinda scary, huh?[/center]

Yes i know what they are. But the whole point of the topic is whether you believe there is such a thing or not.

If believe they do exist, I also believe if they do exist that there would have to be an infinite number of them.

Quantum physics is the science of how object interact with each other (ie potato hitting your head) So it wouldn't have to do with any parallel universes.

I'm 13 and I know that

Your thinking of regular physics I think. Anything with the word quantum in front of it takes things to the extreme. Or mabye its Quantum Mechanics..

Well, quantum mechanics predicts that parallel universes exist because it's not actually possible to predict what happens at the quantum level, all of the quantum mechanics equations are associated with probabilities and uncertainty levels. They say something like, "because we can't predict exactly where an electron is in its shell, it's everywhere and nowhere all at once, and as soon as we measure where the electron is, that's when the electron decides where it is in our universe, and parallel universes are spawned for all the other possibilities of the location of the electron."

Einstein used to say "God does not play dice" because he simply doesn't agree with this idea that we can't predict what happens at the quantum level. Einstein believed the world was a logical cause-and-effect system, not controlled by chance. But the quantum mechanics equations have never given a prediction that has been able to be proven wrong, and so it was Einstein that was wrong.

Personally I don't belive in parallel universes, I don't think it's true to say that every possibility of the electron's position happens, one in each parallel universe. I think the electron is definitely somewhere, but it's just randomly somewhere.

Sure I believe in parrallel universes, kinda sucks how theirs one with me as a cool kid...man I'd hate to be him

Really that is a moronic argument, like saying I cannot see it therefore it does not exist.

Hmm...how about this - does it matter whether or not they exist?

Depends, would you like to exist or would you like to be nothing, unwarry of time and creation.

Most of you dont know what quantum mechanics are. I dont want to actually look up the defination, but its basically the study of things on the very tiny scale (as small or smaller than an electron) using physics (of course). Quantum physics is the study of (lack of a better description) large things... sorta Its like gravity, dark matter in galaxies, black holes, etc... That sort of thing. (Thats what I've learned, at least.)

BSTRhino was mostly right when he described quantum physics. I cant really pick out anything wrong so I'll just say he is right


Thats exactly what quantum mechanics is.
If something is not observed it it cant be predicted because anything could be happening (because we're not watching it). So, if you walk away from a waterfall until you cant hear it, it might not be there anymore. This is because you aren't observing it, so anything could be happening.

There sort of are already parallel universes. 1D, 2D, 3D, and 4D. They are deminsions... but I concider them universes because we can only exsist on one dimention at a time Doesn't really make sense, but in my twisted mind it does DONT ARGUE WITH ME!!!

Demensions*
I believe in parallel universe.
Just cause i think its cool. ok

Multiverse hypotheses in physics
[edit]
Classification
According to Max Tegmark other universes are a direct implication of cosmological observations. In an article entitled “Parallel Universes” in the May 2003 issue of Scientific American, Tegmark presents a clear and comprehensive picture of the parallel-universe idea. Tegmark describes the set of related concepts which have in common the notion that there are universes beyond the familiar observable one. He goes on to provide taxonomy of parallel universes organized by levels.

Level I: (Simple multiverse) A generic prediction of inflation is an infinite ergodic universe, which contains Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions - including an identical copy of you about 10^{10^29} meters away.

Level II: (Andre Linde's bubble theory) In chaotic inflation, other thermalized regions may have different effective physical constants, dimensionality and particle content. Surprisingly this level includes Wheeler's oscillating universe theory as well.

Level III: (Everett's many-worlds interpretation) An interpretation of quantum mechanics that proposes the existence of multiple universes, all of which are identical, but exist in possibly different states. However in unitary quantum mechanics, other branches of the wavefunction add nothing qualitatively new, which is ironic given that this level has historically been the most controversial.

Level IV: (The ultimate "Ensemble theory" of Tegmark) Other mathematical structures give different fundamental equations of physics. M-theory would be placed here. Since this subsumes all other ensembles, it therefore brings closure to the hierarchy of multiverses: there cannot be a Level V.

[edit]
Simple multiverse
Alexander Vilenkin with Jaume Garriga has recently argued that there are an infinite number of regions of space the same size as our observable universebases that is, that one can travel forever in any direction and always continue to reach new points. This assumption relies on the theory that at some stage in the past matter was distributed fairly evenly across space, and later condensed to form objects dense enough to become the source for a big bang. However, in this situation we would expect that rather than there being only a single big bang, matter would condense in a number of places separated by astronomical distances, forming a network or lattice of big bangs all exploding and then contracting like a network of beating hearts or the atoms in a crystal. Thus, rather than having a single big bang and a single universe, there would be a collection of universes, or a multiverse.

This is Vilenkin's multiverse theory, but it has little scientific support at this time, due to its inherent difficulty in verification. However, there are some observable differences that may be visible if the multiverse theory is accurate. The most noticeable would be a gravitational force pulling on the edge of our universe, which wouldn't have a large effect on the day to day world but would have two subtle effects: for one, the amount of matter required to prevent an immediate collapse of the universe in on itself would be considerably reduced, and so our universe would contain less matter than predicted by about 90%; some observations give weight to this argument. The other, more controversial piece of evidence would predict that matter on the edge of our universe does not slow down but instead actually accelerates as it is pulled towards other universes; some observations also support this theory.

[edit]
Bubble Theory
The formation of our universe from a "bubble" of a multiverse was proposed by Andre Linde. This Bubble universe theory fits well with the widely accepted theory of inflation. The bubble universe concept involves creation of universes from the quantum foam of a "parent universe." On very small scales, the foam is frothing due to energy fluctuations. These fluctuations may create tiny bubbles and wormholes. If the energy fluctuation is not very large, a tiny bubble universe may form, experience some expansion like an inflating balloon, and then contract and disappear from existence. However, if the energy fluctuation is greater than a particular critical value, a tiny bubble universe forms from the parent universe, experiences long-term expansion, and allows matter and large-scale galactic structures to form.

[edit]
Big bounce
According to some quantum loop gravity theorists, the Big Bang was merely the beginning of a period of expansion that followed a period of contraction. In this oscillatory universe hypothesis, (originally attributable to John Wheeler,) the universe undergoes an infinite series of oscillations, each beginning with a big bang and ending with a big crunch. After the big bang, the universe expands for a while before the gravitational attraction of matter causes it to collapse back in and undergo a Big bounce. Although the model was abandoned for a time, the theory has been revived in brane cosmology as the cyclic model.

[edit]
Many world interpretation of quantum physics
Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is one of several mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics. Other interpretations include the Copenhagen and the consistent histories |interpretations. The multiverse proposed by MWI has a shared time parameter. In most formulations, all the constituent universes are structurally identical to each other and though they have the same physical laws and values for the fundamental constants, they may exist in different states. The constituent universes are furthermore non-communicating, in the sense that no information can pass between them. The state of the entire multiverse is related to the states of the constituent universes by quantum superposition.

[edit]
M-theory
A multiverse of a somewhat different kind has been envisaged within the 11-dimensional extension of string theory known as M-theory. In M-theory our universe and others are created by collisions between membranes in an 11-dimensional space. Unlike the universes in the "quantum multiverse", these universes can have completely different laws of physics—anything may be possible.

[edit]
Arguments against multiverse theories
It's not science. Critics claim that there is a lack of empirical correlation and testability in these theories and thus they are without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable, currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature.

But Tegmark points out, improved measurements of the microwave background radiation and of the large-scale distribution of matter may fortify or knock down two pillars of the multiverse: the infinitude of space and the theory of chaotic inflation.

Alternative universes violate Occam's Razor. To postulate an infinity of unseen and unseeable universes just to explain the one we do see seems like a case of excess baggage carried to the extreme. The complaint that the multiverse notion is too extravagant and wasteful. The question is; what is being wasted? For if space and matter are infinite, then there is really no wastage of resources in having all these universes of different types.

Additionally, the specification of one universe, or even one subset of the universe is actually more complex in nature than specifying the set of everything. Our universe came into being with the big bang, and, as the Canadian philosopher John Leslie once observed: “it would be exceedingly odd if the mechanism behind this event operated only once." Thus paradoxically the multiverse scenario is more parsimonious than that of a single universe.

[edit]
Multiverse hypotheses in philosophy
[edit]
Anthropic principle
The concept of other universes has been proposed to explain why our universe seems to be fine-tuned for conscious life as we experience it. If there were a large number (possibly infinite) of different physical laws (or fundamental constants) in as many universes, some of these would have laws that were suitable for stars, planets and life to exist. The anthropic principle could then be applied to conclude that we would only consciously exist in those universes which were finely-tuned for our conscious existence. Thus, while the probability might be extremely small that there is life in most of the multiverses, this scarcity of life-supporting universes does not imply design is the only explanation of our existence.

The entire range of multiverse hypotheses, with specific emphasis on Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation, have been criticised by proponents of intelligent design. William Dembski in particular, derides it as inflating explanatory resources without evidence or warrant, and terms such concepts "inflatons"[1]. Recent pronouncements by Church authorities suggest the Catholic Church, now appears to reject all such hypotheses as well:

Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. (Christoph Schönborn [2])
It has been suggested that this view regarding a fundamental theory of physics may be a result of the growing influence of the Discovery Institute within the Church [3] [4] [5] (see [6] for an alternate view).

[edit]
Extreme modal realism
Additionally, possible worlds are a way of explaining probability, hypothetical statements and the like, and some philosophers such as David Lewis believe that all possible worlds actually exist (a position known as extreme modal realism).

[edit]
Origin of the term
The term "multiverse" appears to have been used originally by Andy Nimmo in December 1960 for a talk on the many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics to the Scottish Branch of the British Interplanetary Society[1] of which he was vice-chairman. Nimmo used the word to mean "an apparent universe, a multiplicity of which, go to make up the whole universe". This was because, at the time, the definition of the word ' universe' was "All that there is". "Uni" means one, and "multi" means many, so this meaning allowed for many multiverses.

The word was then used in accordance with Nimmo's original meaning, and in other ways, at various times in scientific and science fiction circles for several years. Then in the late 1960s science fiction author Michael Moorcock interpreted the word in a novel. After reading this novel, David Deutsch used the term "multiverse" in a scientific work as the totality of all possible universes throughout time, including our observable universe—the opposite of its previous definition. Other scientists, not being etymologists, then picked up and adopted the popular redefinition of the word. "Universe" now means a world that is unified by some set of principles, while "multiverse" refers to a multifarious set of universes. (A comparable etymological transition also happened with the word "atom," which initially meant "cannot be cut" but now we know that atoms are composed of smaller subatomic particles.)

OWNED. - Info from WIkipedia, for the lazies and the laziest who are too lazy to go to it, and possibly too lazy to read all this. THIS.. too many words to count:P

That really was worthless spam, there already is a link on the first page..

yes quantum is a synonym from extreme... if you happen to be Stan Lee

i dono y do u ask this sort of thing..... i guess i believe in a parralel univers to some extent.......