What evidence is there that parallel universes exist?

[mad_scientist]

Anyone know?

[imatfaal]

None whatsoever. Presuming you are talking about multiverse ideas rather than Sci-Fi parallel universes; it is a very good and useful interpretation of some aspects of science. But the very nature of our definitions means that there can be no evidence of something outside our universe; there are some anomalies (eg the cold spot on WMAP ) that some wishful thinking claims to be the influence of other universes upon our own - but most of them rely on the multiverse being the default explanation in absence of any other proven idea. This smacks of religion to me - if you cannot explain it then it might be God (or in this case the Multiverse) which is failing to acknowledge that pink unicorns have the same explanatory value.

[geordief]

But the very nature of our definitions means that there can be no evidence of something outside our universe

Yes I never hear this obvious(ly correct) point being put forward. Once we find another universe it immediately becomes a part of "our" universe ,no matter how bizarre.

 

Even the universe of ideas I take to be a subset of the universe (although which way round that is I can't say)

Edited May 29, 2017 by geordief

[dimreepr]

Once we find another universe it immediately becomes a part of "our" universe ,no matter how bizarre.

 

That's not what he meant, because this is impossible/paradox: Edit

 

Impossible because the laws of physics, as is currently understood (even by me ), wouldn't allow us; at best all we could ever do is imply it's existence.

 

Paradoxical because the laws of language doesn't allow it; if we find another universe it's ipso facto not part of ours.

Edited May 29, 2017 by dimreepr

[geordief]

 

That's not what he meant, because this is impossible/paradox: Edit

 

Impossible because the laws of physics, as is currently understood (even by me ), wouldn't allow us; at best all we could ever do is imply it's existence.

 

Paradoxical because the laws of language doesn't allow it; if we find another universe it's ipso facto not part of ours.

Did you mean to write "if we find another universe it's ipso facto part of ours" rather than "if we find another universe it's ipso facto not part of ours" ?

[dimreepr]

Did you mean to write "if we find another universe it's ipso facto part of ours" rather than "if we find another universe it's ipso facto not part of ours" ?

 

Yes, because, if it's another/different universe then it can't possibly be part of our, completely separate/different, universe.

It's not physics because the laws won't allow it and it's not meta-physics because it makes no sense.

Edited May 29, 2017 by dimreepr

[imatfaal]

Further to Geordief and Dimreeper's comments - the Many-world's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is the most regularly seen version of this concept of multiple independent universes. By its very nature as one of many interpretations there can be no evidence for it at present - as soon as there is evidence or even the possibility of evidence then it stops being a member of the group of interpretations and stands out as a part of testable empirical quantum theory. At present none of the interpretations have characteristics which are testable by currently envisaged means - some have tests that might become possible in the future. This does not stop it being a great thing to think about - especially as it has jaw-dropping notions which even the layman can repeat and seem to understand

[StringJunky]

To me, 'parallel universes' is synonymous with 'It's turtles all the way down'

[KipIngram]

Some people get really intense about MWI, though - I've been reading over on another website where a guy offers up what seems like a fairly good presentation of quantum theory, from the ground up. In the beginning there's no controversy - he just starts out with configurations and amplitudes and it all holds together pretty well. But it's a long series of posts, and by the end of it he's taking the position that MWI is the only rational way to look at it all. I've never gotten comfortable with that interpretation so I didn't enjoy that part as much. But he's very... "zealous" about it.

[dimreepr]

Further to Geordief and Dimreeper's comments - the Many-world's Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is the most regularly seen version of this concept of multiple independent universes. By its very nature as one of many interpretations there can be no evidence for it at present - as soon as there is evidence or even the possibility of evidence then it stops being a member of the group of interpretations and stands out as a part of testable empirical quantum theory. At present none of the interpretations have characteristics which are testable by currently envisaged means - some have tests that might become possible in the future. This does not stop it being a great thing to think about - especially as it has jaw-dropping notions which even the layman can repeat and seem to understand

 

 

Yes I get it, good point, damn it +1.

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

 

 

Yes I get it, good point, damn it +1.

 

Anyone know?

 

 

If there was more than one; why not infinitly many univers~ and called ~ ""Super Univers''

[KipIngram]

Aside from MWI (which is the most common way other universes come up, as imatfaal noted), the most common other thing I've seen mentioned is other universes on the "back side" of black holes. But is this really serious science, or is it popular folklore? I don't know enough about it to know.

[imatfaal]

Some people get really intense about MWI, though - I've been reading over on another website where a guy offers up what seems like a fairly good presentation of quantum theory, from the ground up. In the beginning there's no controversy - he just starts out with configurations and amplitudes and it all holds together pretty well. But it's a long series of posts, and by the end of it he's taking the position that MWI is the only rational way to look at it all. I've never gotten comfortable with that interpretation so I didn't enjoy that part as much. But he's very... "zealous" about it.

 

You picked up on exactly the point I was thinking of - people are zealous, and over-defensive about their interpretations; that was what made me use the god/religion analogy.

 

it is amazing how people can be far more extreme in both their defence of and loyalty towards that which can have no proof than they are for things with empirical validity. I suppose it is part of the equation of investing time, effort, and love (?) into something so abstract which cannot yield specific reward that one must never allow complacency to merge into equivocation to become doubt; it is a spiritual/mental sunk costs fallacy.

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

Aside from MWI (which is the most common way other universes come up, as imatfaal noted), the most common other thing I've seen mentioned is other universes on the "back side" of black holes. But is this really serious science, or is it popular folklore? I don't know enough about it to know.

 

 

I would like to add << Doesn't,, Univers? the ever ending word !~for ; all the bodys contained in Space ..

If w're looking for an other Univers ,,/ than the word univers do not have any meaning.

Edited May 29, 2017 by Roger Dynamic Motion

[Daecon]

Is there a valid connection between the idea of multiple Universes and brane theory?

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

Aside from MWI (which is the most common way other universes come up, as imatfaal noted), the most common other thing I've seen mentioned is other universes on the "back side" of black holes. But is this really serious science, or is it popular folklore? I don't know enough about it to know.

<< That!~ I think is very possible because, if the universe witch we are a part of it; is in motion, than for this ;it is possible; but it will be in line to the opposite side . Edited May 30, 2017 by Roger Dynamic Motion

[KipIngram]

<< That!~ I think is very possible because, if the universe witch we are a part of it; is in motion, than for this ;it is possible; but it will be in line to the opposite side .

 

I don't understand what you mean. I'm very skeptical of it myself, give what I've heard others here say: that the right thing to say is that we have NO IDEA what's going on with black holes because the "singularity" is just a sign that our theory is incomplete in that regime.

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

I don't understand what you mean. I'm very skeptical of it myself, give what I've heard others here say: that the right thing to say is that we have NO IDEA what's going on with black holes because the "singularity" is just a sign that our theory is incomplete in that regime.

<< well !~ to tell you the trough about my understanding of ''Motion'' for the Universe to be in motion as a singularity the sun as to be the generator of the vectors to be set in motion ;and that is from the beginning of motion at the formation of the Sun;the birth of what we know today. Edited May 30, 2017 by Roger Dynamic Motion

[Strange]

<< well !~ to tell you the trough about my understanding of ''Motion'' for the Universe to be in motion as a singularity the sun as to be the generator of the vectors to be set in motion ;and that is from the beginning of motion at the formation of the Sun;the birth of what we know today.

 

 

The universe, including black holes, existed (and was in motion) for many billions of years before the Sun was formed.

[Silvestru]

<< well !~ to tell you the trough about my understanding of ''Motion'' for the Universe to be in motion as a singularity the sun as to be the generator of the vectors to be set in motion ;and that is from the beginning of motion at the formation of the Sun;the birth of what we know today.

 

Roger, I see that your Keyboard and your sense of logic suffered the same fate.

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

Roger, I see that your Keyboard and your sense of logic suffered the same fate.

[/quotes

Silvestru ; Before to wright an affirmation be sure you can prove it .

_________________________

The universe, including black holes, existed (and was in motion) for many billions of years before the Sun was formed.

 

+ - 0

Quote

MultiQuote

My Quote. How can you prove to this forum; that the universe was and is in Motion? << Good luck!++

Roger, I see that your Keyboard and your sense of logic suffered the same fate.

The universe, including black holes, existed (and was in motion) for many billions of years before the Sun was formed.

The universe, including black holes, existed (and was in motion)

________________________

 

The universe in motion ? That impossible to prove..

[Strange]

The universe in motion ? That impossible to prove..

 

 

You said that motion in the universe was started when the Sun came into existence. I was just pointing out that things have always been in motion (before the sun existed). The evidence for this is the fact that we see stars, galaxies and other structures in the universe.

 

You also said that black holes did not exist before the Sun came into existence. That is even more bizarre. But the evidence is that there are black holes in the centre of nearly every galaxy and they predate the existence of the Sun.

 

And what is wrong with your keyboard? What all the random punctuation in your posts? ~<<=-??/!@£$%^&

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

You said that motion in the universe was started when the Sun came into existence. I was just pointing out that things have always been in motion (before the sun existed). The evidence for this is the fact that we see stars, galaxies and other structures in the universe.

 

You also said that black holes did not exist before the Sun came into existence. That is even more bizarre. But the evidence is that there are black holes in the centre of nearly every galaxy and they predate the existence of the Sun.

 

And what is wrong with your keyboard? What all the random punctuation in your posts? ~<<=-??/!@£$%^&

The evidence for this is the fact that we see stars, galaxies and other structures in the universe __

in Motion? who sees that?

Edited June 2, 2017 by Roger Dynamic Motion

[Strange]

The evidence for this is the fact that we see stars, galaxies and other structures in the universe __

in Motion? who sees that?

 

 

Look up at night.

[Roger Dynamic Motion]

Look up at night.

Very funny Strange

Very funny Strange

Tell me strange _are we in motion with all the galaxy.