Study suggests parallel universes exist

[Ryudo Lee]

This news article says that scientists at Oxford have shown mathematically that parallel universes can exist.  They're basically citing the rule of quantum mechanics that "nothing at the subatomic scale can really be said to exist until it is observed. Until then, particles occupy nebulous "superposition" states, in which they can have simultaneous "up" and "down" spins, or appear to be in different places at the same time."  And so parallel universes must exist in that "superposition" state.

But this brings up a question in my mind... what if there is a parallel universe out there where scientists have mathematically disproved the existance of parallel universes?

[Fuyudenki]

so they spent how much money to basically come up with something that I could have told them for free?

Well nerr, multiple universes could exist.  Pink, flying ponies could exist, we just haven't observed any.

[lucas marcone]

tell me are you a pro at pissing on parades or just a hobbist?

[Fuyudenki]

Just a hobbiest, and only when I find it to be a particularly stupid parade.

I didn't do too well with proofs in math.  Apparently "because it's obvious" isn't part of a proper proof.

[Valynth]

Keep in mind that because it's in paper doesn't make it true.

Heck, the atomic bomb couldn't be predicted until they actually got out and did the damn thing.

[Alondro]

I have a feeling that most of these quantum 'rules' about viewing subatomic particles are simply because the particles are so tiny and moving so fast in such odd ways and spins, that they simply seem to be everywhere at once because our equipment can't handle measurements that would require precision of a measurement below the size of an X-ray frequency. 

The rules are simply made to fit the limits of technology, not what may be the reality for these particles.

The world of the infinitely small likely has as many surprises in store for us as the universe of the mind-numbingly large.  I would not limit things to such rules simply because the techniques are still insufficient.

I'm still waiting to hear the explanation of quantum tunneling and some of those other strange phenomena, like the one in which you can align two particles' spins and whatnot, then separate them, then hit one with a beam and the other one reacts at the exact same time as the one that was hit. 

What on earth is linking those particles together over the space between them?  The principle involved, if it is ever discovered, could be the foundation for subspace communication.

[Tezkat]

Heh... the way that article describes it, the "great discovery" sounds about half a century late. Sci-fi aside, the implications of the findings aren't all that interesting for macro-level reality.

On the other hand, it's not as if all that funny math is without practical value. In case his name doesn't ring a bell, David Deutsch practically founded the field of quantum computing.

[Zedd]

Someone has a big brains out today...Just hope will wonder whats next onto this

[lucas marcone]

hawking says that black holes spew the matter out in another dimension in order to explain how they don't break the law matter conservation.


he says that his math proves black holes loose mass and that that mass is spewed into dimensionX.

I don't agree. i belive the atoms just compress into a new mega atom. like if a hydrogen atome entered a black hole with hypotheticly only 1 helium atom excluseively the proton of the hydrogen would combine with the neucleus of the helium and make the next atom. i can't be spacific right now because i haven't my periodic table but you get the gist.

i do belive in other dimensions however. i belive that the next dimensions atoms inhabit the emptyspace in our atoms.

[Alondro]

Here's a little kicker.  What if dark matter and dark energy are actually in a dimension slightly outside our own, but close enought hat gravity (which no one has figured out exactly what it really is) can still affect our matter!  Indeed, what if dark energy is gravity from another dimension which functions with a different set of quantum principles! 

What if our dimension is just one of an infinite number layered upon others, the 'closest' of which can influence our own by varying degrees, depending on how similar certain aspects are to ours! 

Fuel for science fiction, me thinks.   

[GabrielsThoughts]

you are just now discovering this, I've known about this since 2006.

[bill]

I guess quantum physics must be like the easiest discipline of physics in the world.

[GabrielsThoughts]

I've heard that our universe is the result of the collision of two universes, but then what happened to the other two universes? do they still exist, or were they destroyed?

[bill]

Quantum physics is actually dicking around with unfalsifiable ideas, apparently.

[superluser]

I have a feeling that most of these quantum 'rules' about viewing subatomic particles are simply because the particles are so tiny and moving so fast in such odd ways and spins, that they simply seem to be everywhere at once because our equipment can't handle measurements that would require precision of a measurement below the size of an X-ray frequency.

No.  The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle requires it, and Heisenberg has been proved mathematically.

Anyways, I haven't seen the paper, so I don't know if there really is anything new, but I'd be hard pressed to abandon the Copenhagen interpretation.

As to what lucas was saying, see the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

[Fuyudenki]

Quantum physics is actually dicking around with unfalsifiable ideas, apparently.

I think you may be very right, Bill.

[Reese Tora]

so, basically, they're saying that there's other universes, but they don't exist, except in potentia, becasue they didn't happen?

That's what I'm getting out of this, anyway.

[lucas marcone]

thanks for the link bill and it reminded me of a point i neglected.

hawking says that his maths prove black holes loose mass. i belive this to be extra electrons/neutrons/protons that didn't quite fit the mega atom. e.g. hawking radiation.

[Kasarn]

I guess quantum physics must be like the easiest discipline of physics in the world.

1) Put cat in box
2) ???
3) PROFIT!

[Sienna Maiu - M T]

I would imagine GT, that that might be explained with the "Big Bang Theory" where the two unverses would have colided, either destroying them, or perhaps merging them into the new one.

Make me wonder if it could happen again though. Meaning, maybe it's something like when the star (sun/central star) explodes at the end of it's life-span it sends the remains careening though space, with the end result of what we have.

Or something there abouts.


EDIT: I definitely started this post in a far more logical place of mind, several hours ago. Before getting distracted.

[superluser]

thanks for the link bill and it reminded me of a point i neglected.

I provided you the link, not Bill.  Or does this mean that I'm one of Bill's multiple accounts?

hawking says that his maths prove black holes loose mass. i belive this to be extra electrons/neutrons/protons that didn't quite fit the mega atom. e.g. hawking radiation.

Er...no.

In free space, you can get virtual particles--a particle and its antiparticle or two photons spawning out of the vacuum.  They quickly interact and annihilate each other resulting in no net energy change.

But if one of these virtual particles falls into a black hole before it can annihilate the other, and the other escapes, then the black hole has emitted Hawking radiation.

And that is Hawking radiation.  The entire thing occurs outside of the event horizon.

[Alondro]

Oh, that sounds like 'brane theory', which surmises that there are planes of some sort which occaisionally move toward each other, touching at a point and triggering a Big Bang.  The bang forces them apart again from that point.  The theory (which is actually more like a hypothesis) has the interesting result that not only could infinite numbers of universes exist in between two parallel branes, but there could be an infinite number of branes, with inifnite numbers of universes between each pair, or what not.  After all, whose to say you don't need 3 branes to collide, or 4, or a billion, to get the right combo for a universe.

And as far as mathematic 'proving' things, I would like to point out that there have been a very large number of theories that were quite mathematically sound which were eventually tossed once experimental evidence proved conclusively they couldn't be real.  The Uncertainty Principle applies for now, until someone makes the next great discovery.  Just as general relativity breaks down in a singularity, no one can say there may not be some phenomenon somewhere which can violate the Uncertainty Principle.

One thing to always remember, these mathematical equations were all written by humans.  And humans still don't know everything.  Until they do, there is always the possibility of error.

[lucas marcone]

sorry super i mistook you for bill for a sec.


also, i saw hawking radiation and thought for a minute that it was the gases escapeing at the apex. my bad again.


i still think black holes are just mega atoms though.

[superluser]

And as far as mathematic 'proving' things, I would like to point out that there have been a very large number of theories that were quite mathematically sound which were eventually tossed once experimental evidence proved conclusively they couldn't be real.  The Uncertainty Principle applies for now, until someone makes the next great discovery.

Yeah, but no one is suggesting the the Uncertainty Principle is wrong.

Except you.

The issue isn't precision.  At this point, our instruments are precise enough to measure these things.  The issue is that we are prohibited from measuring them.  I won't go as far as Bohr (I think), who declared that the particles don't have both a precise position and a precise momentum simultaneously, but simply that if they do (a big if), we can never measure it.

[Alondro]

I's say us never being able to measure it is the likely truth.  It's a realm so small, fast, and moving in so many directions that our technology is simply too 'big' and too slow to catch the action.  It's the same on the opposite end with the edge of the universe.  We know there must be 'something' past it (even if the something is utter nothingness) but we can never know what it is because the expansion of the universe is so rapid that no energy of any sort can pass the boundary.

These particles are vibrating constantly at or very close to the speed of light, and so to really see them you'd have to use a detection method with energy that can move faster than that to catch the particle in one spot.  It's like the blurring you see in an old still camera when you try to photograph rapidly moving objects.  You can't catch the frame fast enough and all you see is a blur of all the places the object has been during the time it takes to snap the picture.  That doesn't mean the object is never in one place at one time, it just means your method can't keep up with it.  And since we don't have any energy form that can move faster than light (and even if we did it might not interact with normal matter in a way that would allow us to use it to see where a particle is in one infinitesimally small unit of time), we can never see anything more than the 'mirage' of the particle's motions.

[Turnsky]

this is something all webcomic artists and authors should know well.

it's been long a theory of mine that if it exists in your own creation, that it might exist somewhere for real, fueling one's muse.

[Alondro]

this is something all webcomic artists and authors should know well.

it's been long a theory of mine that if it exists in your own creation, that it might exist somewhere for real, fueling one's muse.

That would be a hypothesis, a supposition as yet untested.  A theory must have evidence to back it up.  And it's both an implausible and untestable hypothesis, as the concept of an entity outside our existance contacting someone's mind violates pretty much every law of everything.   

It's a nice little bit of fiction, but it's about as likely as the Ministry of Magic actually existing. 

[Kasarn]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v447/Kasarn/mess/little_werner.jpg

SCIENCE LOL

[LionHeart]

this is something all webcomic artists and authors should know well.

it's been long a theory of mine that if it exists in your own creation, that it might exist somewhere for real, fueling one's muse.

This idea has been around for a while. Probably the best treatment of it is in Robert A. Heinlein's The Number of the Beast.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

.. not that he was particularly on the mark with anything -else- in that book, or, indeed, many of his others.

Fun to read, but not particularly accurate...