Posted on 09/24/2007 4:10:41 PM PDT by anymouse
Parallel universes really do exist, according to a mathematical discovery by Oxford scientists described by one expert as "one of the most important developments in the history of science".
The parallel universe theory, first proposed in 1950 by the US physicist Hugh Everett, helps explain mysteries of quantum mechanics that have baffled scientists for decades, it is claimed.
In Everett's "many worlds" universe, every time a new physical possibility is explored, the universe splits. Given a number of possible alternative outcomes, each one is played out - in its own universe.
A motorist who has a near miss, for instance, might feel relieved at his lucky escape. But in a parallel universe, another version of the same driver will have been killed. Yet another universe will see the motorist recover after treatment in hospital. The number of alternative scenarios is endless.
It is a bizarre idea which has been dismissed as fanciful by many experts. But the new research from Oxford shows that it offers a mathematical answer to quantum conundrums that cannot be dismissed lightly - and suggests that Dr Everett, who was a Phd student at Princeton University when he came up with the theory, was on the right track.
Commenting in New Scientist magazine, Dr Andy Albrecht, a physicist at the University of California at Davis, said: "This work will go down as one of the most important developments in the history of science."
According to quantum mechanics, 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.
Observation appears to "nail down" a particular state of reality, in the same way as a spinning coin can only be said to be in a "heads" or "tails" state once it is caught.
According to quantum mechanics, unobserved particles are described by "wave functions" representing a set of multiple "probable" states. When an observer makes a measurement, the particle then settles down into one of these multiple options.
The Oxford team, led by Dr David Deutsch, showed mathematically that the bush-like branching structure created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itself can explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes.
“As I said O’Neill, ours is the only reality of consequence.” ~ Teal’c, SG-1
It's impossible to know whether other fully independent universes exist. If their existence is caused by an event in our universe, then this new "universe" would be connected to our "universe" by this event. In truth, both "universes" would belong to the same universe.
Except there, all of our computers spontaneously explode when we click the link and we all die. Glad I’m here.
But I didn't read this thread in that parallel universe.
And in another parallel universe, I didn't type this.
And in another parallel universe, I didn't keep going.
And in yet another parallel universe.....
And in another universe it won’t.
I was thinking the same thing. (in this universe, at least.) Did Hugh Everett, here in this universe, come to the right answer by good scientific and logical reasoning and in another universe, where he came to the conclusion that it was false, did he do that by valid, logical reasoning, too? How in the world, excuse me, is there any way to tell which answer is better than any other when Everett himself, according to his own theory, would be bound to come up with both answers an infinite number of times?
The 'multiverse' notion is an attempt to explain away the vastly improbable fine-tuning of the universe, but you'd think that it might occur to its proponents at some point that any argument that necessarily entails disregard for the laws of logic or reasoning is patently foolish.
Cordially,
I think there’s some cosmic confusion & we’re being punished for things the “other us” did.
“The ‘multiverse’ notion is an attempt to explain away the vastly improbable fine-tuning of the universe,”
Exactly! No other way to account for the numbers.
And it’s explicitly metaphysical - the “no-fly” area of science (unless it suits their purposes).
These guys are a little late. Another Oxford mathematician, Charles Dodgson, wrote about parallel universes back in 1872. His descripton of one was made famous in the work entitled: “Through the Looking Glass.”
So? In some other “universe” Hillary is nice?
So? In some other “universe” Hillary is nice?
Another theory based on a flawed assumption.
Guess it beats working with that tricky dark matter stuff.
I wonder if Al Bore is President somewhere?
I bet this scientist saw that Futurama episode before coming up with this theory.
Ol Obi-Wan is making more sense all the time—” You will find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.”
I find the concept of parallel universes very logical. It would explain many para-normal things.
But in another universe you don't.
Cordially,
If the theory is correct he certainly did, in some universe:)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.