PDA

View Full Version : Parallel Universes & Quantum Physics


zero1
06-04-2010, 07:42 PM
Source - Fox Science & Tech (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/05/freaky-physics-proves-parallel-universes/)

News item dated April 5th, 2010, as follows -

Freaky Physics Proves Parallel Universes Exist

Look past the details of a wonky discovery by a group of California scientists -- that a quantum state is now observable with the human eye -- and consider its implications: Time travel may be feasible.

Look past the details of a wonky discovery by a group of California scientists -- that a quantum state is now observable with the human eye -- and consider its implications: Time travel may be feasible. Doc Brown would be proud.

The strange discovery by quantum physicists at the University of California Santa Barbara means that an object you can see in front of you may exist simultaneously in a parallel universe -- a multi-state condition that has scientists theorizing that traveling through time may be much more than just the plaything of science fiction writers.

And it's all because of a tiny bit of metal -- a "paddle" about the width of a human hair, an item that is incredibly small but still something you can see with the naked eye.

UC Santa Barbara's Andrew Cleland cooled that paddle in a refrigerator, dimmed the lights and, under a special bell jar, sucked out all the air to eliminate vibrations. He then plucked it like a tuning fork and noted that it moved and stood still at the same time.

That sounds contradictory, and it's nearly impossible to understand if your last name isn't Einstein. But it actually happened. It's a freaky fact that's at the heart of quantum mechanics.

A UC Santa Barbara physicist has found a way to move this tiny metal paddle into two states simultaneously, such that it both vibrates and holds still.

How Is That Possible?

To even try to understand it, you have to think really, really small. Smaller than an atom. Electrons, which circle the nucleus of an atom, are swirling around in multiple states at the same time -- they're hard to pin down. It's only when we measure the position of an electron that we force it to have a specific location. Cleland's breakthrough lies in taking that hard-to-grasp yet true fact about the atomic particle and applying it to something visible with the naked eye.

What does it all mean? Let's say you're in Oklahoma visiting your aunt. But in another universe, where your atomic particles just can't keep up, you're actually at home watching "The Simpsons." That may sound far-fetched, but it's based on real science.

"When you observe something in one state, one theory is it split the universe into two parts," Cleland told FoxNews.com, trying to explain how there can be multiple universes and we can see only one of them.

The multi-verse theory says the entire universe "freezes" during observation, and we see only one reality. You see a soccer ball flying through the air, but maybe in a second universe the ball has dropped already. Or you were looking the other way. Or they don't even play soccer over there.

Sean Carroll, a physicist at the California Institute of Technology and a popular author, accepts the scientific basis for the multi-verse -- even if it cannot be proven.

"Unless you can imagine some super-advanced alien civilization that has figured this out, we aren't affected by the possible existence of other universes," Carroll said. But he does think "someone could devise a machine that lets one universe communicate with another."

It all comes down to how we understand time.

Carroll suggests that we don't exactly feel time -- we perceive its passing. For example, time moves fast on a rollercoaster and very slowly during a dull college lecture. It races when you're late for work . . . but the last few minutes before quitting time seem like hours.

Back to the Future

"Time seems to be a one-way street that runs from the past to the present," says Fred Alan Wolf, a.k.a. Dr. Quantum, a physicist and author. "But take into consideration theories that look at the level of quantum fields ... particles that travel both forward and backward in time. If we leave out the forward-and-backwards-in-time part, we miss out on some of the physics."

Wolf says that time -- at least in quantum mechanics -- doesn't move straight like an arrow. It zig-zags, and he thinks it may be possible to build a machine that lets you bend time.

Consider Sergei Krikalev, the Russian astronaut who flew six space missions. Richard Gott, a physicist at Princeton University, says Krikalev aged 1/48th of a second less than the rest of us because he orbited at very high speeds. And to age less than someone means you've jumped into the future -- you did not experience the same present. In a sense, he says, Krikalev time-traveled to the future -- and back again!

"Newton said all time is universal and all clocks tick the same way," Gott says. "Now with Einstein's theory of Special Relativity we know that travel into the future is possible. With Einstein's theory of gravity, the laws of physics as we understand them today suggest that even time travel to the past is possible in principle. But to see whether time travel to the past can actually be realized we may have to learn new laws of physics that step in at the quantum level."

And for that, you start with a very tiny paddle in a bell jar.

Cleland has proved that quantum mechanics scale to slightly larger sizes. The next challenge is to learn how to control quantum mechanics and use it for even larger objects. Do so -- and we might be able to warp to parallel universes just by manipulating a few electrons.

"Our concepts of cause and effect will fly out the window," says Ben Bova, the science fiction author. "People will -- for various reasons -- try to fix the past or escape into the future. But we may never notice these effects, if the universe actually diverges. Maybe somebody already has invented a time machine and our history is being constantly altered, but we don’t notice the kinks in our path through time."

They haven't figured out (yet) that all living things, sentient beings (observers) generate the quantum fields by which the objective reality (the observed) is ordered, but they're on the right track with the Eye, and the simultaneity of stillness & motion in objects (the illusion of transposition) IMO.

nunoyabiznez
01-05-2010, 01:17 AM
Interesting....

sadukan
01-05-2010, 10:49 PM
We discussed a similar point the other day in the Nassim Haramein thread - here (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058805271&postcount=2351).

My objection to the phrase "multiple universes" still stands.

Though it's more one of incorrect syntax than incorrect semantics per se I prefer the term "omni-verse" for the reasons I gave in that post. Using incorrect syntax can lead to adopting an erroneous conclusion, as I will attempt to demonstrate.

Surely, on a basic level, if you "split the universe into two parts" then it isn't a universe anymore. In fact, this is what I mean by an "omni-verse"... both "parts" would still be included.

Strictly, if two universes exist then they can't interfere or they'd be a single entity. This single entity would then be the "omni-verse".

So, if we define our terms sufficiently to admit "multiple universes" we must also retain an essence of collectivism in the "omni-verse" to avoid the problems of infinite regression and a seemingly arbitrary selection process which determines which of these worlds we live in, to the complete exclusion of the others. Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor) and all that. "Do not multiply entities beyond necessity," in paraphrase.

If I throw a dice, does the "world" split into 6 universes?
Perhaps, within an omni-versal range of options.

What about if my dog eats it...? (7 universes?)

Also, there has to be some kind of "nesting" process whereby each separate event further along the branch is included in all further successive events.

This suggests a kind of duplication rather than bifurcation. Not a split, but a copy. A "split" that is a copy would then not require us to think in terms of "this universe" as oppose to "that" universe, for the reasons I gave in the Nassim Haramein thread relating to "pseudo-verses".

I think Nassim's approach deals with my objections to this proposal.
I'm not saying the experiment isn't important, I just think that the way we interpret the observation and the terminology we use to describe it is crucial to our understanding about how we formulate the "fizzyx" to explain it.

sadukan.

PS To me, it suggests an analogy to a discharge of current in a lightning strike. The charge first has to find its path (multiple "branching" within the omniverse) - then it strikes and drains all the excess charge from each pseudo-path into a single channel (a single nested "outcome"). So then, not multiple (parallel) universes, but a single omniverse which can channel energy into a nested structure. The key conceptual difference is between describing the split as "parallel" (separate independently existing worlds each with its own "sum-of-histories") versus "nested" (a single world with a unique "sum-of-history"). In my understanding, Nassim's approach takes the latter view, whereas most other fizzycysts seem to prefer the former view which uses flawed terminology to arrive at an erroneous conclusion, and by Occam's Razor should be rendered redundant.

PPS This debate also touches on the "Double Slit Experiment" and subsequent "wave/particle duality" - whereby the conclusion reached is again similar - that a single photon travels through BOTH slits. Same "problem" (as I have described it) exists here too. My suggestion for this scenario is similar to the suggestion I have just given. The reason only ONE photon is measured is due to the atom in the source from which the photon has emanated and subsequently registers as a diffraction pattern due to the detector being more sensitive to this amount of energy - it would not register anything if the energy was too small to detect!!! (This depends on the photovoltaic response of the detector material.)
So, the "photon" remains as a packet of energy - it is just NOT localised when in transit. This is the same argument for saying that "multiple universes" do not exist until your dog eats the dice (as it were - and by then it's too late).
This also explains the spooky "action at a distance" effect, due to the "particles" involved being non-local.
The "localised" effect only "materialises" (pardon the pun) when atoms turn up in a detection process as an inferred emanation from the source of energy.

PPPS The apparent confusion comes by adhering to faulty terminology and, like any unsolved Zen Koan, leads us to paradox by way of oxymoronic terms. A "universe-that-is-not-a-universe" and a "particle-that-is-not-a-particle" or a paddle that "moves and does not move" are such examples.
In my analysis, these "fizzycysts" have it wrong.

Nassim Haramein to the rescue.

[Super-advanced alien civilisation not required.]

"over it is 19 (http://www.virtuescience.com/19.html)"[74:30]
(DiYu - 18 Levels of Hell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diyu#Eighteen_levels_of_Hell))
Philip LeMarchand (http://www.pyramid-gallery.com/)
http://www.pyramid-gallery.com/LamentTN.jpg
Wei-Qi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(board_game))

zetetic0void
02-05-2010, 03:15 PM
Interesting article ... kind of boggles the usual thinking we are used to

My objection to the phrase "multiple universes" still stands.


I'm disliking the increasing use of the term Multiverse where they say there are many 'universes'.


Linguistically, this is like saying there is a Unicycle with 2 wheels (no, that automatically disqualifies that from being labelled a Unicycle ... it is a bicycle). The "uni" means one....that's the purpose of the word.


And so, I feel that the term "Universe" should be saved only for the theoretical entirety of everything. If this is an infinite "presence" willed with trillions of bubble 'sub-universes' with a million dimensions and levels, then the Universe is the entirety of all of it.


Just a pet peeve of mine ... I will fight using the term "Multiverse" :D

sadukan
04-05-2010, 02:09 AM
I remembered hearing about the term "Omniverse" a few years ago.

Rob Bryantan has mentioned the term in his "Imagining the 10th Dimension (http://imaginingthetenthdimension.blogspot.com/)" blog.
One of many videocasts can be found - here.

His blog seems to be updated on a regular basis, so it might be worth searching through to see if there is more relevant information.

I heard about Rob from reading Gevin Giorbran's book "Everything Forever (http://everythingforever.com/author.htm)".
The book goes into De Broglie–Bohm theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Implicate and explicate order according to David Bohm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ordering principles. This also refers back to the Double Slit experiment mentioned previously.

I sent a couple of emails to Gevin about his way of representing numbers in spring of 2000. At the time I was beginning to formulate my own understanding of numbers and dimensions with particular emphasis on the metaphysical meaning of "zero".

Marko Rodin (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=61370)'s Vortex Based Math (VBM) is a current focus of my studies, as it fills in a gap in my own project and linked with Nassim Haramein (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32453)'s work seems to form an essential part of the underlying basis of the world around us.

Garrett Lisi's E8 formalism could well become a dimensional nexus providing a top-level perspective on the physical omniverse. I suppose the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will provide us with evidence in favour, or against.

My own analysis renders all dimensions arbitrary, since any "constructed" spatial dimension can be "deconstructed" into a temporal sequence.

The constant factor is that of the total number of dimensions, the ratio of spatial to temporal dimensions is arbitrary depending upon your point of observation.

String Theory/M-Theory etc have formalisms based on multiple dimensions, but I think they have missed something important.

That something is Dogon Cosmology (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5870559652086657759#).

I would highly recommend Laird Scranton's take on how the Dogon system of metaphysics is related to Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs and also modern conceptions of physics.

It seems that the Ancients knew a lot more than we give them credit for.
I expect that the "Hall of Records" will see the light of day fairly soon.

2012...?

sadukan.

PS The Dogon have a mytho-allegory of the "10 woven fibres" which may relate to the 10 dimensions which Rob Bryantan refers to.

PPS I also found an interview with Robert Temple about the Dogon - here. This also goes into the "Sirius" connection. A major clue is in the AE hieroglyph for Sopdet (Sirius).

PPPS The Dogon version of the "Omniverse" is termed "Amma's Egg". 266 = 14 x 19 = (6 x 19) + (8 x 19) = 114 + 152.

"over it is 19 (http://www.virtuescience.com/19.html)"[74:30]
(DiYu - 18 Levels of Hell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diyu#Eighteen_levels_of_Hell))
Philip LeMarchand (http://www.pyramid-gallery.com/)
http://www.pyramid-gallery.com/LamentTN.jpg
Wei-Qi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(board_game))

chipple
23-08-2010, 04:46 AM
The theories of parallel universes that i have read state something similar to "what if I....instead of...."
I believe that this is faulty reasoning as it creates the premise, to me, that there are random actions or results. There is no randomness. Results of a decision or action are made through mental or mathematical processes. The results of a toss of dice are not random when physics is applied. The dice enter our hand, they are shaken, released, bounce and stop with a "random" result.
If we measure and calculate each one of the actions (time/energy) and could recreate them, without additional variables, the dice would produce the same result. This can be applied to everything from the fall of a leaf to which person you marry.
Someone will need to do better than an omi-verse where each possible result from a decision or action exists.

That said, I believe it is possible for a multi-verse because mathematics does not produce randomness and fractals are beautiful.

godgoo
23-08-2010, 05:22 AM
The multi-verse theory says the entire universe "freezes" during observation, and we see only one reality. You see a soccer ball flying through the air, but maybe in a second universe the ball has dropped already. Or you were looking the other way. Or they don't even play soccer over there.


Exageration.

Or they don't play soccer that day, because there was a telephone call that morning off the coach. He felt sick that evening,so he said to his wife "He may not be in tomorrow" is he feeling better before 9am?????.

Soccer doesn't exist? No way does that happen, it isn't like that. That is a complete whole different universe, that is not possible. It isn't that dramatic.

godgoo
23-08-2010, 05:24 AM
Who says it is a whole parallel Universe?