Lucius E.E

Oops well I guess you're right. It's not just the atoms but the experiences, yes.

Thank you for that video. Very interesting, this coincides with what I believe precisely. Other than the means at which it occurs may vary(quantum fluctuations, string theory, etc) Yes however Hoopla's Universe still requires a beginning, see the following link here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4658.pdf It's easy to see that even if you have a static/eternal seed that eventually creates a "first" Universe, just the act of there being a "first" anything which doesn't repeat means that must have been a beginning.

I would do the same. However in regards to this question; if someone told me they "saw" god, whatever that may imply, I would be quite curious as to what they meant by it, and if they were under the influence of any mind altering substances. As I know that a god doesn't exist I would respond by letting them know they're delusional and need to get a grip on reality.

This one if fairly interesting, after doing a bit of reading it would appear as though it is very similar to the Copenhagen interpretation except instead the quantum world and classical world are both capable of breaking standard linear predictability after interaction. Unless I'm misinterpreting it, please correct me if I'm wrong; I like this interpretation as well.

You're fine; I fully comprehend what you're saying. Empirically the only interpretation as of right now we know to be correct is Copenhagen which is observable, and Many Worlds is just speculation as we cannot see this. I completely agree with you. I was just stating my own interpretation of Many Worlds which could work with Copenhagen without the need for a Multiverse that exists simultaneously.

I would imagine this is the most held view when talking about quantum interpretations. In many ways I posted this to be a plausible means of explaining a method by which the main idea behind Many Worlds could be incorporated into Copenhagen. Also would like to add to my original responce and say that perhaps someday we could test this; we just may not have a viable means of doing so now. Also just because it cannot be tested yet doesn't automatically mean it's not plausible. For example many physicists believe in string theory as it answers many questions and it's a direction science may be pointing towards, although it has been around since the late 1960's. We're just now coming up with methods to test string theory.

I'm not sure yet on how this would be tested, or if it ever could be tested. How is it different? It simply makes it plausible for Many Worlds and the Copenhagen to both be correct, at the same time. The wave function collapse occurs via probability while all possibilities eventually happen with a nonzero quantum mechanical probability. Thus making both interpretations accurate minus the Multiverse. Oops, lol! Thank you for the correction. If you don't like any of them, do you have a stance on quantum interpretation?

I'm going to start this thread off with a quote I pulled from a blog post about this very topic written by a physicist named Luboš Motl, and I will post the link down below along with a video of Prof. Lawrence Krauss. He had this to say: "At any rate, we may prove that the probability that the electron exists in both mutually exclusive states simultaneously is zero. It can't happen. The derivation is identical for any other mutually excluding alternative properties of any physical system." - Lubo's Motl I'm going to preface this by stating the obvious. Many Worlds and Copenhagen appear to be quite incompatible. I feel as though the central reason for this is the deterministic Many Worlds VS the random probability of Copenhagen. Now within the Many Worlds interpretation the wave function collapse doesn't matter, as all possible outcomes will occur. According to the Many Worlds all outcomes exist simultaneously, even though they don't have to, and I will explain why. After much though I now think it may be possible that there doesn't need to be a Multiverse for Many Worlds to be correct, although now it would make the name a bit of a misnomer. Now to explain my line of thinking. First before I begin let me say you should watch the video down below, and perhaps even read Lawrence's book or at least understand the concepts of causality and how it may not apply outside of this Universe. I also linked a forum thread that I started down below that goes into more detail about the way I look at the beginning of existence and the Universe(Hint: There isn't a beginning). My point here is simple, everything finite(like our Universe) needs a cause even if it goes on forever(although the Universe will die eventually). If you follow this logic then eventually you would need to reach a point of no beginning and no end. Let's for simplicity say that this point is the quantum vacuum that very well may exist outside of the Universe, contained within is virtual particles and random quantum fluctuations, Lawrence goes into much more detail about this topic in his book so I recommend you read it if you want more detail. This may be the beginning or perhaps it is some other cause, but ultimately the cause must undoubtedly have no beginning and no end to it.To put it simply if there's no beginning and no end then everything is random(nothing is linear) and thus everything repeats at some point. Take this illustration and quote for a better mental picture: "As viewed by cosmologists, there is no such thing as infinite time. The eternal universe had no beginning, not one an infinite time ago. No matter how many years you go into the past, it took a finite time to reach the present." Now how does this apply to the quantum interpretations? Well since the above is clearly TL;DR I will do my best to sum my conclusion up quickly.... In Many Worlds all possibilities are determined and exist simultaneously. Perhaps instead; what if there is only one Universe that exists at a time, but reoccurs at the Universe's death with the random potential for any possible given quantum wave function collapse, and these probabilities happen randomly as per the Copenhagen interpretation, however all possible outcomes do occur as in the Many Worlds interpretation due to the never ending time, and infinite repetition; they just do not exist simultaneously. What do you guys think? Edit: **I also would like to add if any moderators find it necessary to move this thread over to the speculations section, please do so.** Luboš Motl's Blog Post on Many Worlds - http://motls.blogspot.com/2012/08/simple-proof-qm-implies-many-worlds.html Lawrence Krauss on Infinity and Quantum Fluctuations -

I applaud your critique of this, unfortunately ostensible article. The header should read as follows: "178 Nanotube transistors successfully integrated on a single chip wafer" However I do find this to be a magnificent proof-of-concept. Ultimately I feel as though carbon nanotube processors are possible, and in the not so distant future we will see nano computers, and not long after quantum computers. The exponential rise in technology isn't slowing down; it is accelerating every year. Carbon nanotube processors are right around the corner; considering we can already compute basic numerical calculations.

Upvoted, and I agree with you. This shouldn't be in the speculations section. Generally as far as the trajectory of a particle is concerned, it benefits to also have the velocity as they're always tangent. See Here for more information for obtaining a particles trajectory. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration#Tangential_and_centripetal_acceleration

I'm sorry if my response came off as snarky, or if I had misquoted you. That wasn't my intention.

Perfect; The online educational industry(E-learning) is booming currently, and is only going to subsume more of the education industry in the next decade. Now in regards to recommendations to online courses these are free course materials from MIT: http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/biological-engineering/ http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/biology/7-90j-computational-functional-genomics-spring-2005/ http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/biology/7-03-genetics-fall-2004/ You may also wish to consider getting into this paid course at Berkeley: http://extension.berkeley.edu/search/publicCourseSearchDetails.do?method=load&courseId=41578 Hope this helps.

What state do you currently reside in? I may be able to recommend some courses.

I get the feeling, and correct me if I'm wrong but you must not understand infinity. You say the void has always existed and needs no beginning, however you claim the following: "but at any one point, a theoretical impartial observer of the entire scene could observe the number of universes that has occurred since the first one and tally how many had been" If there was a first universe than the void has not always existed. There couldn't be a first as there would be no linear flow of time within a system that has always existed, hence also why repetition is essential. If it has always existed what caused it to begin making a Universe/Multiverse? It must have existed infinitely before it begun randomly creating them. Also it wouldn't be timeless in the sense that the flow of time going forward would be measurable by going back to the first Universe/Multiverse, given that it doesn't repeat, and thus can be seen as a point of linearity. So here you couldn't say time is moving infinitely forward even if it does or is projected/predicted to do so, as by definition infinity is not measurable. Once it is measurable in any way it ceases being infinite and becomes measurable and thus linear. If it produced a Universe/Multiverse within a set period of time, and it truly has no beginning, then it will produce the same Univere/Multiverse given the same or similar amount of time; otherwise it is linear. We can then conclude it cannot be without a beginning as the same event would take place again it it were without a beginning. As a finite amount of time must have taken place before this linear time point as well(if it works in the opposite direction), you just don't know what it is, and are unable to measure it backwards, however with a linear event that occurs once you can measure time forward from the event, and know that a set amount of time before the event took place. So it isn't infinitely reversed either as there was a linear "break point" so to speak. So even if the time before is not measurable it cannot by definition be infinite either as there is a point where it ends, and infinity; by definition, never ends. This automatically disproves anything else you believe until this problem with your thinking is resolved, however I do find your ideas interesting.

Did you actually read my entire post above before writing this? "The probability of a specific event, X, is either 0 or 1 (it either happens or it doesn't and nothing can change that)" This isn't true. If it were all events would occur 50% of the time, and this isn't observed within our Universe; whether deterministic or not. Please elaborate further, or re-read my post above. "You are confusing the "chance" (more accurately, frequency)" No I'm not. Chance is the possibly of a particular event occurring; frequency is the number of said occurrences. "chance" (as you define it)" As Merriam Webster defines it, actually. Chance - Noun: The possibility that something will happen. An amount of time or a situation in which something can be done. The way that events happen when they are not planned or controlled by people. Please Elaborate. Edit: Also if interested please check out this short read on probabilities in physics, and how they can be used to predict events. Given this is a Bayesian interpretation of probability which is less about frequency and more about proposition and hypothesis; contrary to what we were discussing above but still applies. http://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0310073v2.pdf