Slashdot Mirror
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 101.42 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.
but I can see a lot farther than 10^1.42 meters
What does religion have to say about multiple universes? Would this figure in somehow?
So Captain Ace Rimmer should be turning up any moment now?
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...
What are the odds of me getting a date in this parallel univers? cause i dont want another place where hamburgers eat people and ./ love microsoft if i still cant get a date.
+-+-+-The folowing statement is true. The previous statement is false.-+-+-+
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?
Karma: Smeghead
Has anyone else noticed that Scientific American has suffered some serious Omni-fication in the past couple of years?
I let my subscription lapse a couple of years ago and when I got around to re-subscribing last year I found quite a few unpleasant surprises.
The last page of the old rag was always the Connections column, which was really interesting and entertaining. It's gone.
Gone also are all of the even vaguely scientific articles. There seemed to be a slant towards ridiculous stories on the edge of pseudo-science, much like in Omni magazine (is that in print anymore?). And every issue featured a sensationalist story centered around the threat of terrorism - stories about dirty bombs, biological weapons, new wiretapping technology, etc. It felt like they were desperately trying to attract readers by featuring stories with the same kind of scare tactics that the 11:00 news (which I haven't watched voluntarily in many years) resorts to.
Needless to say, I've let my subscription lapse again. Too bad, I used to really like that mag.
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.
mogorific carpentry experiments
Thundercleze: I want to buy a computer, but I have no idea about these computer things
BB Employee: Well, you're going to need lots of RAM. I can recomend this model to you
Thundercleze: Does that have SD or DDR ram?
BB Employee: What? but I thought...
Thundercleze: Answer the question
BB Employee: I don't know
Thundercleze: McDonalds fired you and your brothers the manager here isn't he?
BB employee: I feel so ashamed
- Scientists debate on wether universe is finite or infinite
- There is debate on uniformity of matter also, mostly it is thought that matter is distributed uniformaly over observable space
So the debate lives on! And i guess calling these as parallel universe is a misnomer, this is the same universe, not in another dimension(like we have the in the movie "The One")My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
First they say that they have found the end of the universe and that one day it may pull back on itself and implode (rubber band effect) Then they say the universe actually folds around in an endless loop. Then they say there are parallel universes. Just wait another couple of years someone will disprove this. If there are more than one universe does that mean we are a multiverse. On another note god help us if there are more than one microsoft in this multiverse.
If my twin is reading this, but reading it when he's younger (could happen, article says "There are infinitely many other inhabited planets, including not just one but infinitely many that have people with the same appearance, name and memories as you, who play out every possible permutation of your life choices;" then for crying out loud, make sure you get more than some over-the-sweater action from Amy L. back in what-was-my-1991. She'll go for it.
blarg.
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.
when we find a humongous ball of mismatched socks that have traveled through the 4th dimension.
yeah, but that site is called ccolonbackslash.com
Long time back another scientist, David Deutsch[http://www.qubit.org/people/david/David.ht ml] proposed a similar therory to explain Young's double slit experiment. This theory indicates that there exists a universe for every possibility. Every time an event could have more than one outcome there is a universe created for each outcome. In our universe a meteorite caused the extinction of the dinosaurs. A parallel universe exists in which the meteorite missed Earth, and possibly several others in which the meteorite struck another planet or was not formed at all. In a parallel universe Hitler did not invade Russia and consequently won the Second World War. In yet another, Elvis is still alive. This theory explains the double slit experiment by saying that quantum phenomena are the result of interactions across universes. When a single electron passes through a slit it interacts with the electron from a parallel universe, in which the electron went through the other slit, producing the pattern. This explains the pattern produced by passing one electron through the slit at a time.
This theory applies to time travel in how it allows for reverse time travel to accommodate paradoxes. When one travels back in time, one travels back into a universe created for the possibility of time travel. This universe runs in parallel with the universe from which the traveller came. Everything will be identical to the past in the original universe, and alterations will have the same effect as they would have if they had occurred in the original universe. However, because it is a parallel universe, and not the universe that created the traveller, the traveller will not be affected by any changes he makes. He could kill himself, his father, his grandfather or whoever, and while he is erased from the parallel universe, he continues to exist because he is not from this new universe. Thus no paradox is created, and only the destruction of himself by suicide or personal attack, or his time machine, could see him affected by the outcomes of his actions, and even then no paradox is created. This provides a method by which paradoxes can be avoided and reverse time travel allowed.
This theory has parallels such as the alternative histories approach. This theory allows reverse time travel without consequences by having the time traveller travel back onto a different timeline and thus is insulated from any actions which should in theory affect him or cause a paradox.
The full text of this theory can be found at http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0104033
What's under yellowstone?
IMO the most important part of the article, though less headline-catching, is the claim that recent results indicate that our universe may be infinite in both size and mass.
I like that result, though I find it very surprising.
At any rate, it is this fact (or claim) that allows the author to conclude that a "level I" parallel universe exists somewhere. Indeed, an infinite number must exist, if the universe is in fact infinite.
He also offers levels II, III, and IV, which arise from more exotic causes. In Sunday's
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Just do it yourself using a calculator.
10 ^ 1.42 = 26.302679918953819172897987967726
10 ^ 26.302679918953819172897987967726 = 200761262891390934801701916.81189 metres, or to make it a lot easier to read, 200,761,262,891,390,934,801,701.91681189 Canadian kilometres, or in American dollars, about $2.
It goes like this. There are approximately 10^120 particle positions (the smallest quantized unit of space) in the observable universe (and there are 10^90 particles in the universe). Assuming each "particle position" is a boolean (either a particle is there or it's not), there are 2^10^120 possible observable universes (a sphere of space 40 billion light-years across). Now, we have cosmological evidence that the entire universe goes on forever ... so using simple math we can derive a much larger sphere encompassing so many universes that, at some point, all possible particle position combinations are exhausted and there MUST be another 40-billion-light-years-across universe that is exactly the same as the one we currently inhabit. The distance they've calculated is around 10^42 meters. So, that far away, there should be an exact replicate of you, reading this exact post at this exact same instance, and modding it up as Informative :-)
Cyde Weys Musings - Scrutinizing the inscrutable
Let me get this right: So this counts only on probability. Because space is big enough, whatever can possibly happen will happen?
Does that mean if I'm sweeping up a lab after a particularly unsuccessful party and I hook up a improbability generator to a strong brownian motion producer, like, say, a really hot cup of tea, then will I get a really neat spaceship that's shaped like a tennis shoe and piloted by a man with two heads and three arms and has a paranoid android abord with a shooting pain in all the diodes down his left side?
Here's to improbability!
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.
The Buddhist concept of the universe's energy and rebirth of life actually tie in pretty well with science. The belief is that energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be converted between types.
That's why Buddhists don't believe you diw and.. that's it, game over. They believe the energy ('lifeforce' for want of a better term) merely transposes into another form of energy, which then may be mix with other energy and turn into other life or matter later on. While scientists would not particularly go for the whole reincarnation game, there is a lot of logic in it, and obviously a lot of anecdotal evidence (how do the child prodigies know stuff they shouldn't know? etc.. how comes some people remember fragments of what happened in the past and then verify it to be true? and so on)
Buddhism also presents the theory of the 'middle way'. That is, it is not good to be swung to one side or another on issues, but to steer a middle path only. Our universe shows that nothing exists in a place that is too cold, or a place that is too hot. Psychology shows major issues with people who are too egotistical and people who have no sense of self esteem. The middle way works in all disciplines. You should not be too lazy, but you should not be a workaholic either. And so on.
Another concept is experimentation, which was prevalent in Buddhism way before modern science. Buddhists do not generally believe anything blindly, the Buddha said that it is unwise to believe what someone says without knowing it is true yourself. Therefore you must experiment and prove your own truths. Yet again, another bond with the modern scientific process. Even the Dalai Lama (as a spiritual head of a branch of the religion) has changed many of his views upon being exposed to the West and our different way of life.
Religions and science may never walk hand in hand, but if you pay attention you can find a lot of close bonds and even areas where religion has helped science, rather than hindered it.
Maybe there's a really really weird dimension where you're better looking than me!
"Derp de derp."
I know what I am about to write is radical, but please give it some thought before rendering an opinion on it. It's not exactly technological speculation as it is philosophical speculation on the ultimate limits (if there are any) of the technological metaphor.
Up to this point in nearly all discussions of extreme/speculative tech what we are trying to do is maximally stretch our imagination as to what is possible within the realm of currently known scientific law. And for those of us who've been frequenting transhumanist circles for any period of time, we know the current limits of science portend a lot - uploading, indefinite lifespans, traversible wormholes, jupiter brains, basement universes, etc.
Now lets assume that our current understanding of the known laws of physics are invariable. Lets assume that the Grand Unified Theory really is the grand theory they claim it to be.
I have been engaging in some discussion lately about the begining of the universe, and for the first time (amazingly enough) I pushed the 'Where did it come from' question through as far as it can go. And, not surprisingly, it doesn't go anywhere. No matter how you try to explain the origin of the universe, none of the theories can account for the cause of it. What caused the big bang? Where did 'God' come from? etc.
From this, i concluded that there cannot be a begining. If there was a begining, then something must have caused that begining, and so something was there before the begining.
This doesn't answer anything, but I am yet to see another way around the causality problem (defining something as 'acausal' doesn't solve it, it just dodges it).
Now, linked to this 'where did the universe come from?' problem is, 'Where did the incredible laws, which make our universe a coherent place come from?', which is what I think underlies it all. Once the universe began, it is easy to say 'the laws guided the evolution of everything from there'....but how did the laws come to be? Why are they so perfect? (weak anthropic principle could be an acceptable argument here).
When you think of an omniverse that has no beginning, then we are talking about something that is temporally at least infinite in duration, something ultimately beyond time itself, where concepts of a beginning and an end have no meaning. I think what this also means is that any one set of properties/laws we experience are also ultimately entirely arbitrary. If they are not then we must ask ourselves what meta-laws are behind it governing what types of laws are allowed and which are not? And then we have to ask ourselves where did these metalaws come from? And then meta-meta-laws and so on to infinity. And, not surprisingly, it doesn't go anywhere. No matter how you try to explain the origin of any laws, none of the theories can account for the cause of those laws. From this, I concluded there can be no fundamental laws.
So if there are no fundamental laws, no limts, then everything is possible. If not, why not? And we are right back to an arbitray set of laws with no explanation. And since we are used to applying the metaphor of technology to such things, we could (at least for fun) call such tech based on a lack of laws nada-technology or onto-technology. The technology of reality itself. I like to call it nadatech becuase ulitimatly it's based on nothing... no laws, no limits, nothing at all.
So what do we do with nada- or onto-technology?
Anything. Everything.
Either way, the ultimate lack of any fundamental laws implies that everything is possible and probably already exists exists in a timeless standing quantum probability wave in eternity.
Planet P Blog - Liberty with Technology.
www.enthea.org
Sorry, they're all busy washing their hair or getting eaten by hamburgers...
I'm sitting here, finishing up my thesis which is due next week, happily talking about the argument from design and generally relying on the fact that the multiple-universes model is unverifiable and thus irrelevant to my argument. Then I take a break to glance at Slashdot and what do I see?
So the discworld must exist then! Fantastic!
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.
There really is a universe where Homer is real, obscenely wealthy, AND it rains donuts!?!
Olber's paradox causes no problems when considered against conventional cosmology, or the cosmology discussed in the article - have a look here.
This explanation is not affected by an actually infinite number of stars, as postulated in the article. Even in a universe only as big as the part we can observe, there are a near-enough to infinite number of stars for the purposes of the paradox anyway.
If this were true, why is it the case that science developed greatly in the Christian world (that has now been become secular) and not in the Buddhistic world?
That's an excellent point. I think you may have answered your own question though. Science has only become revered and far reaching in secular societies.
The other reason is that while Buddhism accepts science and, in some cases, follows it, it is ultimately a faith whose believers are trying to break away from the 'human realm'.
Why do we spend so much time on science and discovery? Even if we made contact with aliens, managed to grow crops on the moon, and all had cellphones, what good is that? When you're dealing with faith, issues of science and technology are almost irrelevant. Buddhists are trying to reach Nirvana, not NYC on their cellphones.
So while Buddhism may comfortably live alongside science, compared with other religions, it does not actively participate in developing it.
Let us not forget that while Europe was plunged into ignorance because of the Christian Church's suppression, the Islamic world was making amazing advances in math, science, and medicine.
Al-Khwarizmi invented algebra around 780 (both "algebra" and "algorithm" are arabic words).The Bagdad physician, al-Razi, (865-925) produced a medical textbook that was the standard throughout the Islamic world. And Avicenna (Ibn Sina) was like the Isaac Newton of the Islamic world, who in 980 was making advances in medicine, physics and philosophy.
Many agree that many of the advances made in the Western World during the renaissance owe their beginnings to the science, math, and rational thought of the Islamic World.
In one of my favorite scenes from Lawrence of Arabia, Lawrence is talking with Prince Feisal of (Saudi) Arabia, the point is made:
Feisal: Do you know, Lieutenant, in the Arab city of Cordoba were two miles of public lighting in the streets when London was a village?
Lawrence: Yes, you were great.
Feisal: Nine centuries ago.
standing at edge of universe, waving at twins in the next universe over
Fry: So there are an infinite number of parallel universes?
Farnsworth: No, just the two.
Bender: Can we go? I'm sick of parallel universe Bender lording his sombrero over me.
If you were a little atom looking at a sea of cells around you, it would probably seem plausible that somewhere in that huge sea there was someone a bit like you fighting the same battles you fight every day, but in a slightly different way, or with different hormones.
Of course this wouldn't matter since you would never meet your counterpart.
You'd have a vague idea that maybe the universe was not infinite because perhaps it was one day going to end. But something would tell you that it was somehow cyclic, and it would come back.
So in a sense it would be infinite.
And if you could travel really far, maybe you'd come to the end of the sea of cells. But you'd have to travel so far that you can safely say that your sea of cells is infinite as far as you're concerned.
Ale
Where is Sailor Moon? (And can I get her phone number?)
Little Brother, watching the watchers
Lesson? Like the recent rise of the US religious right and gradual breakdown in the separation of the church and the state?
BOO! TERRO
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.
Despite my exceedingly limited scientific knowledge (A-level physics... nothing out of the ordinary), I've come to completely disbelieve in the idea of parralel universes where any possible outcome is played out.
Why? Mostly bccause the arguments provided for them, at least on a layperson's level, are arrogant sci-fi that tend to fall into one of two categories. Either they just "assume" that another path is possible, e.g. life never formed and Earth is barren now, or they assume that universes differ through human choice, e.g. you choose not to go to the cinema, or whatever.
The first suffers as it completely ignores why anything happens. This would mean that there are universes created at every moment of time as gravity switches, or elements gain different properties. Why limit what can or can't happen?
The second suffers as it suddenly places the human freedom of choice at the center of its reasoning. This would mean that the human mind/soul/id was somehow *above* physical properties. Would new universes be created if an animal decided to do something differently? How about plants? As the lifefor, gets less complex, this rapidly decends into a form of the first argument - that some things can change, but others can't.
Maybe there's another way to work infinite multiverses into life, but I'm not convinced by anything I've seen so far, even if blinded by science and big numbers.
My 2-layman-pence, anyway.
Please refer to those terms as 'freedomgebra' and 'freedomgorithm', as we must boycott the enemy's culture.
Thank you
~The House of Representatives.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
It also doesn't explain why they kinda gave up on science and math, either.
It's the religion. The middle east is in a dark ages much like Europe was, and for much the same reason.
"Has [being a kidnapped teenage girl, raped repeatedly for months] changed you?" - Katie Couric to Elizabeth Smart
My bet is 2 or 3.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Can't we take a lesson from television and build a cellphon slider control that creates some sort of wormhole. We can Slide to parallel dimensions.
I spent my late teens exploring various religions and philosophies, looking for something that made sense.
Buddhism was the most seriously pursued philosophic framework, and this was because it did not directly conflict with things I already knew to be true - such as the energy/matter/energy pattern. In fact, I once wrote:
"Energy can neither be created, nor destroyed. It is eternal, unchanging. Thus, you were never born and you will never die. You are a wave of energy, a temporary yet eternal pattern. Everyone is you, and you are no one."
The first half, as mentioned, is one of the reasons I enjoyed Buddhist thought so much. The second half is why I eventually moved on (and found something much more appealing and applicable).
The problem with Buddhism is that it is almost entirely focused on the *negation* of self. The rejection of identity. The philosophy I discovered after a year or two of Buddhism is one I have held firmly for most of a decade - and it is entirely focused on self and reality.
Buddhism advocates two things, albeit in different ways than other religions/philosophies: faith and not-self. Objectivism is the direct opposite: existence and identity.
Buddhism is inherently flawed. Almost all other philosophies are, too, and in the same way. It's a little difficult to explain in a short slashdot post, but here goes:
Buddhism attempts to reject the existence of the self, and the mind, and speaks against the validity of desires. But in doing so, it uses those very things. A Buddhist says "I want to seek Nirvana" - and destroys the fundamental tenets of his own faith in the process.
First, he says "I" - a declaration of self. Second, he says "want to seek" - indicating a desire, and what's more, a mind capable of desire. In two strokes, he has destroyed 3 of his ideas.
It's like a man saying "I have no mouth". There is an excellent and concise statement of this:
"Existence exists. And the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one is aware of; and that consciousness exists, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness." (Ayn Rand, _Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology_)
I will give Buddhism credit, however, for being very original, creative, and intellectually challenging. I also appreciate the fact that so many Buddhists are so very open to reason, to fact, to proven science. I would much prefer to deal with a Buddhist than with most(all?) other religions.... except for the ridiculous rejection of self.
If you do not have your self, what do you have? A mass of carbon and water and heavy elements acting like a computer, accepting input and spitting out whatever society and environment has programmed? I don't like this view - I prefer to own my self, and to write my own internal software.
The universe being created from nothing isn't an extraordinary claim? Whether God created the universe or the universe created itself from nothing, both seem rather extraordinary and difficult/impossible to prove.
If every possible "particle position combination" is exhausted, then everything that can possibly exist does exist. So, somewhere in the infinite universe, there must be a giant bomb capable of destroying the entire universe. In fact, there are many of them. In fact, there are an infinite number of them, in all different shapes and sizes. More importantly, they all have different trigger mechanisms. Some have buttons... Some have timers... and since there are an infinite number of them, some of these timers should have already expired. But the universe still exists. ?
I think the flaw in the logic here is that just because there is an infinite amount of space, there must be an infinite amount of "stuff" in that space. Maybe it's just empty, or nearly empty, or whatever. In terms of your "boolean" analogy, maybe everything past a certain point is a "zero" (nothing there).