Are parallel universes a valid concept?

[dstebbins]

I enjoy watching the BBC documentary "Parallel Universe." However, does this idea that M-Theory can lead to other universes really hold water?

 

Is there REALLY a universe where the events of Harry Potter actually took place?

 

Is there REALLY a universe that I rule over with an iron fist?

 

I know it seems extremely bizarre, but is it actually a valid theory that some degree-carrying scientists actually believe?

 

Or, is BBC just a ratings whore?

[toastywombel]

I enjoy watching the BBC documentary "Parallel Universe." However, does this idea that M-Theory can lead to other universes really hold water?

 

Is there REALLY a universe where the events of Harry Potter actually took place?

 

Is there REALLY a universe that I rule over with an iron fist?

 

I know it seems extremely bizarre, but is it actually a valid theory that some degree-carrying scientists actually believe?

 

Or, is BBC just a ratings whore?

 

BBC kinda throws it over the top, I think. It might be a valid theory. Remember the scientists are trying to unify all the laws of nature into one theory. gravity is the only force that is hard to unify with the others.

 

In an attempt to unify gravity with the other theories, mathematicians and physicists use equations and mathematical constructs assuming from state A to state B a particle assumes all possible paths. This, to some scientists, implies that there are parallel universes in which the particles assumed different positions.

 

Because of the "all possible paths", which is really referring to particles, some may conclude that there are parallel universes for any time-line ever possible as long as they are not contradicting. There are varying opinions on this among the science community though. However, again it should be noted that if there are parallel universes, in all practical purposes they would be unreachable and that the "if they exist?" question is a small topic in the search for the theory of everything.

 

Of course ratings probably played a roll in the presentation of that documentary (intense music/ commentary), but it provides some good commentary and description to a viewer who may not highly educated in physics of a picture of our universe.

[mulreay]

I have to say I watched the programme myself. As toastywombel stated there is substance into the theory when you look at how particles behave in our universe. These are such far out there theories and will most probably never be proven/dis-proven in this generation or the next.

That's not say that it's not a mind boggling subject that can be interesting to think about. So yes there is a possibility dstebbins that you rule with an Iron fist somewhere... Harry Potter?? The fundamental laws of physics will still play a part unfortunately.

[dstebbins]

In an attempt to unify gravity with the other theories, mathematicians and physicists use equations and mathematical constructs assuming from state A to state B a particle assumes all possible paths. This, to some scientists, implies that there are parallel universes in which the particles assumed different positions.

 

Oh yes, I understand that.

 

Essentially, gravity is actually from another universe, but by the time it gets here, it's only a faint signal.

 

This would essentially mean that magnetism and the other forces are actually to our universe, so in the gravity universe, MAGNETS are much weaker than gravity.

 

Yes, I understand that, but how does one come to the conclusion that "On top of the universe that we know of, there's an alternative universe where Al Gore is President and Elvis Presley is still alive."

 

Because of the "all possible paths", which is really referring to particles, some may conclude that there are parallel universes for any time-line ever possible as long as they are not contradicting.

So, "plotholes" are not possible?

 

Like, when I said that there's a universe where the events of Harry Potter really did happen, that can't be true, since a few minor inconsistencies exist in those novels?

 

There are varying opinions on this among the science community though. However, again it should be noted that if there are parallel universes, in all practical purposes they would be unreachable and that the "if they exist?" question is a small topic in the search for the theory of everything.

 

How can they be unreachable?

 

It seems to me that the "ultimate flight of fancy" of creating a universe in your own basement is not really the "ultimate" goal at all. Imagine the following:

 

"Mr. President, the world is at war. There's famine and disease. Let me go to another universe, and I'll go get Superman, and bring him back to this world, and he'll help us clean this world up."

 

It seems to me to just be a matter of learning how to tap into the 11th dimension.

[blood_pardon]

I enjoy watching the BBC documentary "Parallel Universe." However' date=' does this idea that M-Theory can lead to other universes really hold water?

 

Is there REALLY a universe where the events of Harry Potter actually took place?

 

Is there REALLY a universe that I rule over with an iron fist?

 

I know it seems extremely bizarre, but is it actually a valid theory that some degree-carrying scientists actually believe?

 

Or, is BBC just a ratings whore?[/quote']

 

 

Historically human beings that harness supernatural powers by spiritual means actually do exist. I would say the world of Harry Potter could technically exist in our own universe. Did you see the order of the phoenix movie? At the end Dumbledore puts Voldemort in a ball of water and drowning him that was amazing on screen.

 

 

Yeah but to answer the OP:

 

I would ask Edward Witten how he related Jesus Christs birth death and ressurection to the M-theory. If he said all religious ideas were exlcluded I would tell him that all secular ideas about how the universe became existant will be forgotten.

[insane_alien]

Historically human beings that harness supernatural powers by spiritual means actually do exist.

 

proof?

 

I would ask Edward Witten how he related Jesus Christs birth death and ressurection to the M-theory. If he said all religious ideas were exlcluded I would tell him that all secular ideas about how the universe became existant will be forgotten.

 

why jesus? why not vishnu? what about the flying spaghetti monster? yoda?

 

just because you believe god needs to be involved in everything doesn't make it true. reality trumps belief ALWAYS.

[ajb]

I would ask Edward Witten how he related Jesus Christs birth death and ressurection to the M-theory.

 

LOL, he is from a Jewish family.

[Sisyphus]

 

Essentially, gravity is actually from another universe, but by the time it gets here, it's only a faint signal.

 

This would essentially mean that magnetism and the other forces are actually to our universe, so in the gravity universe, MAGNETS are much weaker than gravity.

 

Where did you get that? That's not part of any theory or interpretation I know of.

 

So, "plotholes" are not possible?

 

Like, when I said that there's a universe where the events of Harry Potter really did happen, that can't be true, since a few minor inconsistencies exist in those novels?

 

Well sure, if it's self-contradictory it doesn't exist. But it's more than that. The laws of physics are different in the Harry Potter books than they are in real life, because there is magic. The many worlds interpretation does not say "anything that you can imagine exists," it says that anything that might have happened, statistically, if a wave function had collapsed a different way, did happen. So while that does mean that the universe "splits" uncountably many times every instant, it doesn't mean that anything is possible. It means that anything that is possible is true. What counts as "possible" would be the same always.

 

However, "possible" does include "ridiculously unlikely." There is a finite - though very very very very small - probability that all the electrons in the floor beneath you will decide to be somewhere else for a few seconds, and you will fall through. This is so unlikely that something like that has almost certainly never happened in the whole history of the observable universe, but if the many worlds interpretation is correct, then in a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny (you get the idea) minority, that did happen, as you were reading this.

 

How can they be unreachable?

 

Because it's not our universe. It's not just "elsewhere" or "out in another dimension somewhere."

[blood_pardon]

proof?

witchcraft has been reported for thousands of years all around the world. demon possession was believed to be real until recent centuries.

 

why jesus? why not vishnu? what about the flying spaghetti monster? yoda?

 

just because you believe god needs to be involved in everything doesn't make it true. reality trumps belief ALWAYS.

 

Vishnu wasn't the Son of God. The FSM isn't worshipped by half the worlds population (abrahamic faiths combined) and hasn't been for thousands of years. Although the Star Wars series is popular no one is as popular as the one I do worship. No one is shown in such a greater light.

 

Reality always does get victory over a belief which is what I was saying when I said that secular ideas will be forgotten. When Jesus returns no one will believe them anymore.

[Sisyphus]

witchcraft has been reported for thousands of years all around the world. demon possession was believed to be real until recent centuries.

 

If "witchcraft" means invoking invisible causes to blame one another for our problems without any evidence, then it's surely been around for tens of thousands of years, at least. What's your point?

 

Vishnu wasn't the Son of God.

 

Nope, he's the supreme god. And people have believed since well before the year one in our calendar. Not that that matters in the slightest to its validity, but you seem to think it does. And there are far older gods, too.

[dstebbins]

Historically human beings that harness supernatural powers by spiritual means actually do exist. I would say the world of Harry Potter could technically exist in our own universe. Did you see the order of the phoenix movie? At the end Dumbledore puts Voldemort in a ball of water and drowning him that was amazing on screen.

 

Exactly. For example, the shrinking spell can simply tighten the spaces between electrons and the nuclei. The confundus charm can confuse its victim by temporarily altering its brainwaves. The levitation charm can simply put a blanket of energy underneath the object being levitated, like an invisible flying carpet.

 

However, super-imposed on top of the universe that we know of, if M-Theory and parallel universes are true, is there actually a universe where the events of Harry Potter DID take place (as in, a guarantee?)

 

Also, actually traveling to these other universes doesn't seem all that impossible (maybe it's impossible with current technology, but not impossible altogether). The 11th dimension is supposed to be the one dimension that is shared by every universe in the entire multiverse, right? So, it seems like a mere matter of tapping into the eleventh dimension. A person traveling to another universe could potentially appear to just instantaneously vanish into thin air, like the time machine in Back to the Future, when in fact, it would have a similar effect to us looking at a sheet of paper from the side; it's their, just in the wrong dimensions. It would be kind of like in the video game Super Paper Mario, where Mario switches from a side-scrolling view to a 3D view, and side-scrolling NPCs remark about how he appeared out of nowhere, while 3D NPCs remark that he just disappeared.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Where did you get that? That's not part of any theory or interpretation I know of.

The BBC documentary I mentioned in the OP is where I got that.

 

Well sure, if it's self-contradictory it doesn't exist. But it's more than that. The laws of physics are different in the Harry Potter books than they are in real life, because there is magic.

Isn't that what parallel universes are about? Each one has a different law of physics?

 

In one universe, the proton is unstable, and so atoms dissolve and DNA cannot form, and therefore, there's no intelligent life in these universes.

 

The many worlds interpretation does not say "anything that you can imagine exists," it says that anything that might have happened, statistically, if a wave function had collapsed a different way, did happen. So while that does mean that the universe "splits" uncountably many times every instant, it doesn't mean that anything is possible. It means that anything that is possible is true. What counts as "possible" would be the same always.

Again, that conflicts directly with the documentary that I'm referring to.

 

Not all of them will have life, but some fraction of them will have life, and so, if there's an infinite number of universes, there's an infinite number of universes with technological civilizations.

 

Because it's not our universe. It's not just "elsewhere" or "out in another dimension somewhere."

That doesn't seem to convince me of much.

Edited January 24, 2010 by dstebbins
Consecutive posts merged.

[blood_pardon]

No Comment.

[dstebbins]

It's like infinite amount of parallel universes and every possible event that could be imagined actually did take place. Do you buy it?

 

Stranger things have happened!

[Mr Skeptic]

Are parallel universes a valid concept?

 

Yes, for example as an interpretation for quantum mechanics. Likewise, some models of the universe, or of universe creation, give infinite universe where anything that is possible must logically happen an infinite number of times. Some even make for universes with different rules. But, I don't think any of them allow for humans that can do magic with sticks and bad Latin. An important thing to note is that "possible" does not include "impossible" nor "anything you can imagine", even if it does include things that might be called impossibly unlikely.

 

The catch is, there is currently no evidence for any of it, nor any evidence against it. Real scientists will remain agnostic on this issue.

[Sisyphus]

It sounds like we're mixing up a few different concepts. I was thinking if it was about "parallel universes" then it must be talking about the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. But now I realize (and should have earlier) that they're just talking about some kind of crazy brane cosmology that presumably follows from some interpretations of some versions of string theory. IOW, stuff I'm largely ignorant of.

 

The difference is that with MWI you've got one universe splitting off different versions of itself (i.e., closer to a traditional concept of "parallel universe"), but here we're just talking about totally separate 3D "branes" within a higher dimensional "bulk." Ok, so then I don't understand why there would be different versions of you (let alone Harry Potter). Because there would be an infinite number? But infinite doesn't imply that everything has to happen, only that an infinite number of things will happen. (What I mean is that infinity doesn't equal infinity. You could have every odd number representing a brane, and they'd be infinite and all different. But there still wouldn't be a six. Maybe six is Harry Potter. Maybe all the infinite possible "yous" are 2.3 through 2.31. Etc.) And, while they could be "close by" in some orthogonal direction, would they have to be?

 

And, of course, there's still no way to travel between them. Maybe for the best, as a piece of this universe (which is what you and I are) with our laws of physics might not enjoy it someplace with different laws. Did the documentary have any suggestions as to how travel might be accomplished, or was it more of a "if we could do that, it would be crazy!" kind of thing?

Edited January 25, 2010 by Sisyphus

[immortal]

 

 

Vishnu wasn't the Son of God. When Jesus returns no one will believe them anymore.

 

I think this is off topic because this is a science forum not a spirituality forum. I am an hindu and I also believe that jesus died for our sins and he is the saviour because it is metioned in our sacred scriptures that the saviour(world leader) will be born in Persia(modern Iran).

As the other member said there were many gods before Jesus Christ. There was YAHWEH the jewish god. The persians and greeks had thier own pantheons. The SUN GOD of egyptians was called AMON-RE. Greeks worshipped the sun god has Helios. Persians worshipped him as Mithra.

In Hindu even though there are hundred gods they are all different forms of the SUN GOD. That is why we worship him daily. Where ever the aryans travelled there all you can see the cultures believing in gods.

Even though Vishnu has his own individuality(i.e. just a name) but the reality is that the SUN GOD which is present inside him gives all the powers. In fact it is the light of sun present in each and every one of us which stimulates our intellect to know our universe better.

 

When Jesus christ returns he will not say not to believe in this or that. But to find whether it is true or not before you start believing in it.

[toastywombel]

I just have to voice my frustration here. Blood_Padron what is your point here. You come onto a science forum, attempt to engage in scientific discussion, but you always have to inject Jesus or God into the discussion.

 

Religion is called faith, do you know what faith is?

Faith-Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is

declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his

authority and veracity; reliance on testimony.

 

This forum tries to be about hard facts in science, we do have a speculation channel. Really though, one should not need science to back up their faith, if they truly have faith in their god(s).

 

Furthermore, seriously. . . What are you hoping to achieve. You come in here and say something like "I disagree" or "God breathed the universe into existence". Really what do you expect from that? I can assume you knew we would disagree with you? Then what is your motive?

 

Its cool to have beliefs but try to keep it separate from a science forum maybe? If you want to talk about scientific things (tested by experiments and/or valid concepts) I think it is totally your right to speak your mind, and I hope you do! But again, just religion is not a good topic on a science forum.

 

I mean its not like I am going to go onto a Christian Forum and start talking about evolution and telling them they are all wrong.

 

Just try to think about it from our shoes. I think everyone does there part in trying to educate people who ask questions or who are misinformed on something. It is really rather frustrating when you go to that effort and the reader just brushes it off as if he re-fused the theory from the get-go.

Edited January 25, 2010 by toastywombel

[Chriton]

I just have to voice my frustration here. Blood_Padron what is your point here. You come onto a science forum, attempt to engage in scientific discussion, but you always have to inject Jesus or God into the discussion.

 

Religion is called faith, do you know what faith is?

Faith-Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is

declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his

authority and veracity; reliance on testimony.

 

This forum tries to be about hard facts in science, we do have a speculation channel. Really though, one should not need science to back up their faith, if they truly have faith in their god(s).

 

Furthermore, seriously. . . What are you hoping to achieve. You come in here and say something like "I disagree" or "God breathed the universe into existence". Really what do you expect from that? I can assume you knew we would disagree with you? Then what is your motive?

 

Its cool to have beliefs but try to keep it separate from a science forum maybe? If you want to talk about scientific things (tested by experiments and/or valid concepts) I think it is totally your right to speak your mind, and I hope you do! But again, just religion is not a good topic on a science forum.

 

I mean its not like I am going to go onto a Christian Forum and start talking about evolution and telling them they are all wrong.

 

Just try to think about it from our shoes. I think everyone does there part in trying to educate people who ask questions or who are misinformed on something. It is really rather frustrating when you go to that effort and the reader just brushes it off as if he re-fused the theory from the get-go.

 

 

This is a Thoretical Physics Thread!...All theories ar valid, Math is not needed thank you! Wombel.

 

All Discoveries in Physics have been done by Visionarys, people who think outside the Box, Not mathmatitions, Blinkered people are living in the past and will be proved wrong, Insite and Intuition are the key to further our Knowledge not Dogma, and who is to say that God is not part of that?...YOU?

[CharonY]

This is so terribly wrong.

[Chriton]

This is so terribly wrong.

 

Why?

I do not believe in God as such but do we just dismiss the concept because Science cannot incorporate the idea into their Math???? NO!

[Phi for All]

All Discoveries in Physics have been done by Visionarys, people who think outside the Box, Not mathmatitions, Blinkered people are living in the past and will be proved wrong, Insite and Intuition are the key to further our Knowledge not Dogma, and who is to say that God is not part of that?...YOU?

QFH*.

 

 

 

 

 

 

*Quoted for hilarity.

[adam SA]

Let we start on thesubatomic level,

at this level we can never say for sure what is going to happen we can merely predict what may happen, and again this is not always the case.

i.e the more precisely we know one property about an electron, the less certain we can know another, heisenbergs principal.

 

An electron may take any/or all possible paths to its destination simultaneously. At the subatomic level nothing is certain.

 

Yet as the number of particles in a system increases (approaches infinity), as we experience in everyday life, we are able to be much more precise with our predictions, in that; as the number of "particles" in a system increases (approaches infinity), we experience the most likely outcome.

This to me is evident in the way we experience matter and that we may use more accurately newtonian physics as the amount of particles in that system approaches infinity (though it does break down at the extreme with blackholes etc).

 

So as we approach larger quantities of particles, the most likely result will be observed. (if you roll 2 dice you will not always get the most probable 7, although if you roll it enough times it is the most likely number, the physicssuggests the most likely outcome is governed by newtonian physics not quantum as we reach larger quantities of particles in a system)

 

now let me relate this for a second to infinite universes, let us assume there are infinite universes.

We know by the nature of infinity, that if there were such thing, there would be infinite more of the most likely universe ( in that me rolling a 7 is more likely than a 2, more likely me to be typing than to be struck by a gamma ray burst, which caused hubble to fall to earth and sever my left arm and for me to survive )

 

So now lets assume there infinite universes for a second, and there is such thing as a more likely universe. Therefore there are infinite more of the most likely universe.

Now let us assume for a second we can travel to another universe, could we ever, experience anything but the most probable universe since there are infinite more of them. (this does not assume nothing unlikely will happen, if you rolled 2 dice millions of times, by the nature of the large sample size, it is likely something unlikely will happen somewhere in the sample, Hence in the universe it is likely something unlikely will happen due to the large "sample" (Energy/Space/time), i.e. life)

 

This didnt hold much merit even to myself until i started studying the quantum level, in which it seems to suggest as the system gets larger, the results are more easier to predict.

 

I do not know whether infinity does actually exist anywher in nature, the so far general concensus of the big bang seems to suggest th universe has an end, and in some documentaries they suggest to have plotted the boundaries using low radiation, and red shift mechanisms

 

Watch this if you would like some things spelled in laymans terms (mind the animations)

 

 

And i do not know the answer, it would be naieve to suggest anyone does,

 

Please Discuss

[npts2020]

This is a Thoretical Physics Thread!...All theories ar valid, Math is not needed thank you! Wombel.

 

All Discoveries in Physics have been done by Visionarys, people who think outside the Box, Not mathmatitions, Blinkered people are living in the past and will be proved wrong, Insite and Intuition are the key to further our Knowledge not Dogma, and who is to say that God is not part of that?...YOU?

 

Can you name even one significant contributor to the field of physics that was not also a very good mathematician?

[Bob_for_short]

I enjoy watching the BBC documentary "Parallel Universe." However, does this idea that M-Theory can lead to other universes really hold water?

 

Some scientists use modestly a rig to sweep their garbage under, and some need parallel universes.

Edited January 26, 2010 by Bob_for_short

[blood_pardon]

I do not believe in God as such but do we just dismiss the concept because Science cannot incorporate the idea into their Math???? NO!