Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Parallel universes are real, claim scientists

232 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

antonT

Wouldn't this fantastic idea of infinite parallel universes require so much energy that everything would disappear into a black hole?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat

Not enough computing power in our heads to model it. Start with the easy questions and go up, not the other way around.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Calibeliever
22 hours ago, aquatus1 said:

It is important to realize that there is a difference between parallel universes interacting and parallel universes connecting.  The new theory proposes that the universes interact, in that each one repulses the other away.  They don't connect, as in allowing any sort of transfer between one and the other.  No, ghosts, dreams, sliders, none of that is part of the new theory.

Think about it this way:  one of the theories about how the universe began in the first place proposes that it was the result of two dimensions "touching", which created the massive amount of energy we refer to as the Big Bang.  That's what happens when something from one dimension touches something from another.

In M-theory, the collision of two boundaries releases enough energy to create a new "Brane" inside the "bulk" of all space time. M-theory is a mathematical construct that allows gravity to be weak while the other 3 main forces are locally strong. Since gravity is not bound by the local construct of the Brane, it diffuses throughout the bulk of all space-time, or other dimensions. In this 5-dimensional model the "communication" of gravity is still pervasive across all dimensions which leaves open the door for other information to bleed through at a quantum level (theoretically, and if there is a quantum component to gravity). In this model, Branes are not considered dimensions as much as they are separate constructs within the bulk of the whole of space/time. So it is not necessarily impossible for information to pass between Branes if that is, in fact, how any of it works. 

Edited by Calibeliever
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Calibeliever
6 hours ago, Avinash Suresh said:

Hey guys, the fact that parallel universes are real is also shown in this book:

Thiaoouba Prophecy

I personally believe in the claims of the author. You decide for yourself. It is a TRUE story for me...

Well, there you have it. I'm convinced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
48 minutes ago, Calibeliever said:

In this 5-dimensional model the "communication" of gravity is still pervasive across all dimensions which leaves open the door for other information to bleed through at a quantum level (theoretically, and if there is a quantum component to gravity). In this model, Branes are not considered dimensions as much as they are separate constructs within the bulk of the whole of space/time. So it is not necessarily impossible for information to pass between Branes if that is, in fact, how any of it works. 

I'm not quite getting that from the theory.  The "communication" of gravity is in terms of repulsion, so I am not seeing how that leaves a door open for other information to bleed through.  Why would information other than gravity bleed through, and why would it bleed through if gravity itself is repulsive?  And regardless of whether branes are dimensions or dimensional constructs, why would the massive (as in, enough to create entire universes) energy release not occur?

Not that I'm not open to explanation, but that's not how I understood the explanation of the theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
badeskov
9 hours ago, Avinash Suresh said:

Hey guys, the fact that parallel universes are real is also shown in this book:

Thiaoouba Prophecy

I personally believe in the claims of the author. You decide for yourself. It is a TRUE story for me...

Good heavens. Seriously?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Calibeliever
2 hours ago, aquatus1 said:

I'm not quite getting that from the theory.  The "communication" of gravity is in terms of repulsion, so I am not seeing how that leaves a door open for other information to bleed through.  Why would information other than gravity bleed through, and why would it bleed through if gravity itself is repulsive?  And regardless of whether branes are dimensions or dimensional constructs, why would the massive (as in, enough to create entire universes) energy release not occur?

Not that I'm not open to explanation, but that's not how I understood the explanation of the theory.

You may be absolutely correct. My reading of the explanation of gravity "leaking" into our "dimension" lead me to infer that it propagates throughout the entire structure and thus allowed it to move between Branes. I didn't pick up on the repulsive aspect. Admittedly I'm a laymen (if even that) and this stuff gets very heady for me and M-theory is just one of several models out there. The previous comments are pure speculation on my part. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avinash Suresh
On 12/1/2016 at 3:15 PM, Rlyeh said:

And the force is real as shown by Star Wars.

"Star Wars"? Nice joke...:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avinash Suresh
On 12/1/2016 at 8:20 PM, Calibeliever said:

Well, there you have it. I'm convinced.

;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avinash Suresh
On 12/1/2016 at 11:10 PM, badeskov said:

Good heavens. Seriously?

:D I'm dead serious, though you may not think so. And don't ask me, find it yourself. You'll only believe what YOU understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
2 hours ago, Avinash Suresh said:

:D I'm dead serious, though you may not think so. And don't ask me, find it yourself. You'll only believe what YOU understand.

The opposite of science then.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avinash Suresh
On 12/15/2016 at 8:23 PM, Emma_Acid said:

The opposite of science then.

You have too much trust on Science, right? I was just like you. I had thought Science can explain EVERYTHING concerning the reality. So, I took up interest in physics. I really thought that Physics + Chemistry + Mathematics + Biology = Reality.

Only later did I realize how TERRIBLY wrong I was, when I discovered my energy body and the Chakra system. I found that colours are more than just colours. They mean vibration, and each vibration signifies something. The 'energy' can directly affect our emotions. In fact, emotions constitute energy. Science knows nothing about energy, except the law of conservation.

Also, there are many theories proposing the structure of atom. No one has seen the atom, as to how it looks. So, I can't believe in any such theories. Science can only explain SOME aspects of the reality.

And there are still a lot of things I found that is possible, but can't be explained by (our current) Science. I now know, I can't believe in any theories or stories, either relating to religion or Science. Some aspects of religion are true, while some aspects of Science are true. I can't discard anything as illogical, until I see for MYSELF. I will believe only when I understand.

"Believing is not enough, you need to KNOW..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
8 hours ago, Avinash Suresh said:

You have too much trust on Science, right? I was just like you. I had thought Science can explain EVERYTHING concerning the reality. So, I took up interest in physics. I really thought that Physics + Chemistry + Mathematics + Biology = Reality.

Only later did I realize how TERRIBLY wrong I was, when I discovered my energy body and the Chakra system. I found that colours are more than just colours. They mean vibration, and each vibration signifies something. The 'energy' can directly affect our emotions. In fact, emotions constitute energy. Science knows nothing about energy, except the law of conservation.

Also, there are many theories proposing the structure of atom. No one has seen the atom, as to how it looks. So, I can't believe in any such theories. Science can only explain SOME aspects of the reality.

And there are still a lot of things I found that is possible, but can't be explained by (our current) Science. I now know, I can't believe in any theories or stories, either relating to religion or Science. Some aspects of religion are true, while some aspects of Science are true. I can't discard anything as illogical, until I see for MYSELF. I will believe only when I understand.

"Believing is not enough, you need to KNOW..."

Nope. There is no evidence for any of this, and as a great man once said "that which is asserted without evidence and be dismissed without evidence".

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Calibeliever
9 hours ago, Avinash Suresh said:

You have too much trust on Science, right? I was just like you. I had thought Science can explain EVERYTHING concerning the reality. So, I took up interest in physics. I really thought that Physics + Chemistry + Mathematics + Biology = Reality.

Only later did I realize how TERRIBLY wrong I was, when I discovered my energy body and the Chakra system. I found that colours are more than just colours. They mean vibration, and each vibration signifies something. The 'energy' can directly affect our emotions. In fact, emotions constitute energy. Science knows nothing about energy, except the law of conservation.

Also, there are many theories proposing the structure of atom. No one has seen the atom, as to how it looks. So, I can't believe in any such theories. Science can only explain SOME aspects of the reality.

And there are still a lot of things I found that is possible, but can't be explained by (our current) Science. I now know, I can't believe in any theories or stories, either relating to religion or Science. Some aspects of religion are true, while some aspects of Science are true. I can't discard anything as illogical, until I see for MYSELF. I will believe only when I understand.

"Believing is not enough, you need to KNOW..."

You seem to be confusing science with some sort of religion. Science is an action, not a believe system. The act of doing science is simple discovery through questioning, then testing. You don't need to "believe" in a theory, you simply need to be able to repeatably test for a result that fits it. Even then, you can't always assume that your theory is the only possible explanation for that result. At some point a new theory may come along that better explains those results and so on through time. 

Physics + Chemistry + Mathematics + Biology represent the Reality we can perceive demonstrably. Your perception of Chakras, colors and vibrations may or may not be explained someday by the above process, but the instruments don't currently exist to do so. And since there is no observable and agreeable "effect" that can be measured outside the individual mind, there isn't a practical scientific path to discovery yet. *shrug*

"Scientists" don't claim to have all the answers, they just continue to look for them.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Frank Merton

If the "multi-universe" interpretation of the various slit experiments is real (and I have to say it is the only interpretation that avoids what I see as mystical influences by the observer), one should sit back and think about how really extravagant it is.

Take an atom of uranium.  At some random point in time it will decay, but when it will do so is utterly unpredictable ("truly" random).  The only thing we can do is observe a probability, based on observing billions of such atoms and calculating their rate of decay (in this case it says that in several billion years there is a 50% chance that it will have decayed).

However, the given atom "decides" each Plank moment (if you have any idea how short a time that is, raise your hand) whether or not to decay or not.  In the multi-universes interpretation, a number of universes branch -- almost all not decaying (billions upon billions upon billions) and one decaying.  So, each Plank moment, for each uranium atom in the universe, such a number of otherwise identical universes branch away.

This applies to each quantum event anywhere in the universe, such as an electron deciding to decay from an excited state, or a proton deciding to decay (and the number of non-decay "decisions" here must truly be outrageous, since protons live much, much longer than uranium atoms), throughout the entire universe (which is immensely larger than the billions of galaxies that are observable).

In short, the theory is so extravagant that most who understand it tend to recoil, not on any logical basis but just because it is so extravagant.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam
On 11/28/2016 at 3:43 PM, Hawkin said:

So then in another universe, Hilary Clinton is elected president.:rofl:

Glad I'm in this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid

Some thoughts on Frank Merton's post #67 about the many worlds interpretation.

The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is extravagant indeed. Before we measure something (an elementary particle) we don't know its state or identity (superposition). After measurement we know its state or identity. If, before measurement, we can calculate the probabilities of possible states it will become when measured, and after measurement it realizes (real-izes) into one of these probable states, what has happened to the probable states that have not been realized by our measurement?

This realized state is local to our measurement. This is our reality. We cannot know the state of what we want to measure after our measurement, we can only know its future state at another measurement. So, in this view, our reality occurs only now, but is determined by the histories of all other measurements and interactions.

A question is, in the many worlds interpretation, if a measurement is taken at another location, how does this probabilistic realization affect our location?

Another question is, what is reality? Reality occurs only by measurement or interaction on the quantum scale. Is superposition, the combined possible states before measurement or interaction the actual or fundamental reality? In this sense, reality is something we cannot know. Only our local reality can be known.

 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acute

I've heard that Trump is planning to build a wall around our universe to prevent interdimensional economic migration.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avinash Suresh
21 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

Nope. There is no evidence for any of this, and as a great man once said "that which is asserted without evidence and be dismissed without evidence".

Can you get the EVIDENCE when you are looking at the wrong place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
3 hours ago, Avinash Suresh said:

I know how well I can think, you don't need to tell me. BTW, I do NOT want to be like her in any way. I have been there and I don't want to be there again.

So you agree that the theories of science are subject to change(I really mean change, not improvement)? Then why do hold on to scientific theories, not letting it go?

You don't understand science.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aquatus1
4 hours ago, Avinash Suresh said:

I know how well I can think, you don't need to tell me. BTW, I do NOT want to be like her in any way. I have been there and I don't want to be there again.

So you agree that the theories of science are subject to change(I really mean change, not improvement)? Then why do hold on to scientific theories, not letting it go?

The fundamental error you are making is not in assuming people do not believe science can change, but rather in failing to acknowledge how science changes.

This isn't a game of "Gotcha!", where you think admitting that theories are subject to change is a victory.  Theories evolving with out understanding is such a basic aspect of science that most scientifically literate people don't mention it simply because it is assumed.  By saying "So you agree...", you are implying that there were actually people who did not agree, and this is not the case.  The only person in this discussion who has advanced the notion of science being unchanging is yourself.  The rest of us have been fully aware of it for quite some time.  So, while for you, saying that theories can change is a big deal, for the people you are talking to, it is little more than a sigh of relief that, at a minimum, you do finally understand at least one aspect of science.  To scientifically literate people, this isn't you saying "Gotcha!".  This is them saying "Finally, now he gets it!"  This is you finally arriving at the starting line most of us left behind a long time ago.

So, now that you are at the starting line, you need to ask yourself, "What is it that makes a scientific theory credible?"  Once you can answer that question, you question as to why it is difficult to let one go will be answered.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avinash Suresh
On 21/12/2016 at 5:07 AM, Emma_Acid said:

You don't understand science.

 

On 21/12/2016 at 6:18 AM, aquatus1 said:

The fundamental error you are making is not in assuming people do not believe science can change, but rather in failing to acknowledge how science changes.

This isn't a game of "Gotcha!", where you think admitting that theories are subject to change is a victory.  Theories evolving with out understanding is such a basic aspect of science that most scientifically literate people don't mention it simply because it is assumed.  By saying "So you agree...", you are implying that there were actually people who did not agree, and this is not the case.  The only person in this discussion who has advanced the notion of science being unchanging is yourself.  The rest of us have been fully aware of it for quite some time.  So, while for you, saying that theories can change is a big deal, for the people you are talking to, it is little more than a sigh of relief that, at a minimum, you do finally understand at least one aspect of science.  To scientifically literate people, this isn't you saying "Gotcha!".  This is them saying "Finally, now he gets it!"  This is you finally arriving at the starting line most of us left behind a long time ago.

So, now that you are at the starting line, you need to ask yourself, "What is it that makes a scientific theory credible?"  Once you can answer that question, you question as to why it is difficult to let one go will be answered.

 

Dear Science-lovers,

I would like to tell you, how science evolved as far as I know...

Science evolved through questions. Every discovery that has been made is just because scientists questioned natural phenomena. And they questioned what they EXPERIENCED. They tried to explain such phenomena using various theories. To find out if the theories were true, they carried out experiments. Experimental verification gave them enough 'proof' that the theory they have made is correct. But then, they find the theory cannot explain certain aspects of the phenomenon and replace the old theory with a new one. We again find that this new theory is not capable of explaining still more aspects of the phenomenon under study and find a new theory. This process goes on... So, Science is continually changing, and you all know this.

If Science is continually changing, you must admit that it is not a good idea to be dependent on it. Since no one has seen the atom, all the theories relating to the atom may not be true. The reality may be completely different from what the theories suggest! And the thing is, if we don't see it, we can't say for sure how the atom looks. We may still make more theories, but there will still be doubt unless we SEE the structure of atom. And if there is doubt, it's NOT knowledge, it's faith- faith in scientific methods. Science HAS limitations...

As for the energy body, you know nothing about it. But you 'THINK' that you know. If you have meditated, tried making a psi ball, tried studying the aura, tried developing your abilities,                  have at least a rough idea about Kirilian research, or the NEW system   there is point in discussing further. There is absolutely no point in arguing without knowledge.

If you have tried any of these, you will know. But you don't want to CONSIDER the possibility. You think that Science is superior and that Science can never be wrong. You will say that these things are IMAGINATIONS of some fools, but will never admit that you don't know about it. If you say that these things are imaginary, prove it! You can't prove it because you are STUCK with the physical world, yet all these things concern the MIND. Have you studied the MIND(not brain)?

" If you INSIST that only crawling is possible, you will never learn to fly..."

Edited by Kismit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
3 hours ago, Avinash Suresh said:

" If you INSIST that only crawling is possible, you will never learn to fly..."

So empirical learning about the universe (learning which has brought us all modern medicine, space flight, computers, etc) is "crawling", while Making Stuff Up is "learning to fly".

I think maybe the oxygen's a bit thin up there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Avinash Suresh
8 minutes ago, Emma_Acid said:

So empirical learning about the universe (learning which has brought us all modern medicine, space flight, computers, etc) is "crawling", while Making Stuff Up is "learning to fly".

I think maybe the oxygen's a bit thin up there.

You might think that we are modern and have very advanced technology. You might think we are highly civilized. The truth is exactly the opposite of this. Due to material technology, we humans have become a robot. We have become robots, living a monotonous life, working for money. And that seems to be the sole aim in life: acquire as much money as possible. If you have respect for individual freedom, you will immediately recognize the non-sense of accumulating wealth. We have feelings, but who pays attention to them?

How do you define "human"? I'm sure you would use the term "homo sapiens" to define a human. But what do you mean by that? Nothing more than a physical body, with brain used for thinking. Nothing more than a violent creature who thinks to have become "civilized" now, by the use of money. If I ask you about Biology, you will talk about everything that can be seen and touched- everything material. But you are not aware about other non-physical bodies. And you don't even want to consider the possibility of such things existing, for everything non-material is fake or imaginary to you.

In Science, you like to analyze everything... Why don't you analyze your feelings? You will learn a lot that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
45 minutes ago, Avinash Suresh said:

You might think that we are modern and have very advanced technology. You might think we are highly civilized. The truth is exactly the opposite of this. Due to material technology, we humans have become a robot. We have become robots, living a monotonous life, working for money. And that seems to be the sole aim in life: acquire as much money as possible. If you have respect for individual freedom, you will immediately recognize the non-sense of accumulating wealth. We have feelings, but who pays attention to them?

Yadda yadda yadda. So working for money and liking owning things makes me a "robot" with no feelings. This is one of the reasons I really dislike the spiritual/new age side of things, is just how utterly on their high horse they are about everyone else. You know what? I like like working. I like earning money. And I like buying things. Stop thinking you're so much more superior.

 

47 minutes ago, Avinash Suresh said:

How do you define "human"? I'm sure you would use the term "homo sapiens" to define a human. But what do you mean by that? Nothing more than a physical body, with brain used for thinking. Nothing more than a violent creature who thinks to have become "civilized" now, by the use of money. If I ask you about Biology, you will talk about everything that can be seen and touched- everything material. But you are not aware about other non-physical bodies. And you don't even want to consider the possibility of such things existing, for everything non-material is fake or imaginary to you.

Actually we became civilised through agriculture, not money.

 

48 minutes ago, Avinash Suresh said:

In Science, you like to analyze everything... Why don't you analyze your feelings? You will learn a lot that way.

Er, nope, I don't think that's a good summary of what science is. And I do analyze my feelings, thanks.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.