Parallel Universes Are Real

It's in Scientific American, it must be true. This month's cover story: Parallel Universes. "The simplest and most popular cosmological model today predicts that you have a twin in a galaxy about 10 to the 10²⁸ meters from here." That number's a lot bigger than 10 to the 10^1.42 meters, which are the farthest observable objects in what we call our universe. And anyway, twin or not, anyone outside my light-cone is dead to me. That's just a rule I have. If you're skeptical of the multiverse, go read our discussion of a similar article from two days ago.

Comments

Religion

[mr100percent]

What does religion have to say about multiple universes? Would this figure in somehow?

Binary assumption on the existence of protons?

[crumbz]

What? 2 x 10^118 probablity of the protons matching up in a hubble space. The problem with this type of math in cosmology is no one knows where to set the baseline numbers. The fact that the COBE discovered 1/100,000 K difference in temperatures seperated across the survey accounts for theory of distribution accross our observable region only.

You might as well say that heaven exists X meters from here because of the probability that there is an equivalent 100 ly radius of space where I exist but my puppy dog is still alive and their is no war and I eat ice-cream everyday.

Man, I am going to have to sleep on this one...

This doesn't make sense

[Eanmig]

If there are infinitely many universes and in each one I do something different and play out every possibility. Then one of the other me's will build a means to cross this space and enter mine. I could assume that I am in one of the universes where my double did not go. But why hasn't any other doubles been visiting us and telling us this? Is anyone else getting a headache?

Probabilities and reality

[wackybrit]

The article asserts: In infinite space, even the most unlikely events must take place somewhere.

So there is a place where everyone on Slashdot is getting laid! Quick, let's fire up the old improbability drive and head out there and join them!

Seriously though, this is no major jump in thinking, and is rather flawed when you stick to the basics. Just because something may be infinite in size does not necessarily mean there are an infinite number of events taking place within that space. There is no such thing as a probability of exactly 1 or exactly 0. That's why we have probability theory in the first place.

Acceptable theories

[baywulf]

How come theories such as parallel universes, multiple dimesions, strings, etc in Physics are considered acceptable yet when someone suggests the possibility of extraterrestrials visiting the earth they are considered lunatics? We are willing to handwave aways so many instances of groups of people observing UFOs as weather balloons, swamp gas, ball lightnings or mass hallucinations. To me those physics theories seem more bizzare and unlikely than the possibility that with a zillion starsystems that there be many other beings far more advanced than us.

Re:Scientific Omnirican

[Waffle Iron]

I've actually saved most of the copies of Scientific American that I've gotten over the past 20 years. I recently pulled out a couple of the oldest ones, and I was struck by the elegant minimalist design that they used to have. That magazine really used to stand out as something different and special.

The hand-painted cover art was usually much more aesthetically pleasing than today's Photoshop hacks. I've grown somewhat used to the latest format (it doesn't physically grate on my nerves like it did at first), but I still can't say I like it.

They probably feel that they need all of the visual distractions and information tidbits to compete with the Internet. The ironic part is that I often use the Internet to find an experience like the old Scientific American. I type a topic into Google and I find a nice boringly formatted academic paper to read.

Falsifiability

[xihr]

Without falsifiability, what you're talking about not a scientific theory, it's metaphysical speculation. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but it ain't science.

Not really

[Jonathan]

Buddhism is the only 'old' religion (although some argue it's a philosophy as it has no god) which correlates and whose beliefs correspond with science all the way across the board.

Only if you discard reincarnation, Nirvana, various supernatural beings like the "Monkey God" (as seen in the famous classical Chinese book "Voyage to the West" - basically the whole religion. You might as well say Christianity fits with science because there was that flood thing in Genesis and floods have been known to happen. Just like a broken clock which is right twice a day, religions can sometimes be congruent by chance with science.

While scientists would not particularly go for the whole reincarnation game, there is a lot of logic in it

No. At the root of it is the assumption that there is a "soul" responsible for our thoughts that is somehow separate from the brain, just like in Christianity, Islam, etc. According to science, we think because neurons fire in our brains. When the brain dies, no more thoughts.

Re:Not really

[uptownguy]

Buck up there, RealMike. There might be a lot of people scoffing at your post, but I've found that a gaggle of engineers isn't always the best place to find people willing to ask deeper questions. "Proof proof proof, now now now, diagram diagram diagram" they mutter.

Now, there is a LOT of BS "science" out there... a lot... and I certainly don't want to cast my lot with those faking liars. BUT: The original point that we don't know what happens in the brain, we don't really understand consciousness -- that is certainly isn't getting a fair shake around here. We ARE self-aware. At a different level than the other animals we know of in THIS universe. We do MATH. We observe QUANTUM LEVEL EFFECTS. (I'm guessing we are the first animal on this planet to do that.) We spend 6-8 hours a night DREAMING. We can get measurably better taking PLACEBOS. There are certainly a lot of things about mind/brain/consciousness that we don't know. I don't think spoon benders or psychic hotlines or the like have anything to them at all. But the fact is that YOU exist, you have a brain which shapes your moods, shapes your perception, shapes your store of information ... but it isn't YOU. That goes deeper than brain.

(waits for the flames)

You are confussed.

[jotaeleemeese]

Althoug I fully agree with you you are confussing hindu and vedic myths (Monkey God) and mixing it with Budhist stuff.

In countries like Thailand all these influences mixed and thus the Budhism practiced there is different to Budhism in other places with less hindu influence.

Reincarnation and Nirvana are of course all as faux as any religion dogmas.