Wednesday, May 27, 2020
Contact us    |    Advertise    |   Help    |   Cookie Policy    |   Privacy Policy    RSS icon Twitter icon Facebook icon
    Home  ·  News  ·  Forum  ·  Stories  ·  Image Gallery  ·  Columns  ·  Encyclopedia  ·  Videos
Find: in

Parallel universes are real, claim scientists


Posted on Monday, 28 November, 2016 | Comment icon 231 comments

How many alternate versions of you exist in parallel universes ? Image Credit: CC BY-SA 3.0 Kuroiniisan
The 'many interacting worlds' theory ties quantum physics to the idea of countless parallel universes.
The idea that we live in one of a practically limitless number of near-identical worlds is nothing new, having been proposed previously many times by physicists including Hugh Everett, who in 1957 put forward his 'many-worlds interpretation' of quantum mechanics.

Everett's theory suggested that there exists a potentially infinite number of parallel universes in which every possible permutation of history is played out.

In one universe for instance you may have died in a car accident last month, while in another you might have even become the President of the United States. Every conceivable outcome has happened in at least one of these universes - each version of history has played out somewhere.

One aspect of Everett's theory however, which suggests that none of these universes influence our own universe, has long drawn criticism because it makes the whole concept impossible to test out.
Now though, a team of physicists from Griffith University's Center for Quantum Dynamics and the University of California have come up with a new version - the 'many interacting worlds' theory.

This revised version of the theory echoes Everett's idea of potentially infinite parallel universes but differs in that it proposes that similar parallel worlds may experience a universal repulsive force which is how all quantum phenomena arise.

The new theory means that it may not only be possible to test for parallel universes, but that one day it may even be possible to view or interact with these alternative worlds as well.

"The beauty of our approach is that if there is just one world our theory reduces to Newtonian mechanics, while if there is a gigantic number of worlds it reproduces quantum mechanics," said Griffith University's Dr. Michael Hall.

"In between it predicts something new that is neither Newton's theory nor quantum theory. We also believe that, in providing a new mental picture of quantum effects, it will be useful in planning experiments to test and exploit quantum phenomena."

Source: Inquisitr.com | Comments (231)


Tags: Parallel Universe


Recent comments on this story
Comment icon #222 Posted by badeskov on 10 January, 2017, 18:23
Are you too lazy to point out what the pertinent paragraphs in the book are? Frankly, I love reading, but I refuse to waste my time on something that is simply wrong from the get go.  We already know what the truth is with respect to the book. As already explained by others. You are right, they certainly did not. They said, "Please reference the page number with the relevant evidence/deductions so I can independently verify your conclusion". That is how science works and any scientist would give you such in a heartbeat.  Yes, if someone wanted to read up on the complete works, indeed, and they... [More]
Comment icon #223 Posted by Sahir on 10 January, 2017, 19:10
Not true. Publishing your scientific work in a book is quite frankly, frowned upon. As it has not been through a scientific peer-review process before being published.  Any sincere scientist would supply their summarized work to a journal which then begins its peer-reviewing, before accepting it and finally publishing it. if you cannot even make it through the peer-review of the more, let's say "alternative" journals, then the quality of the context must be bad. 
Comment icon #224 Posted by Calibeliever on 10 January, 2017, 19:14
This
Comment icon #225 Posted by badeskov on 10 January, 2017, 19:32
Oh yes, they are indeed *very* different. Science relies on something tangible, something that can be observed and measured, independently verified. In another word, objective reality. Metaphysics does not. From Merriam-Webster: But before you get your arms up when you see cosmology mentioned, please note the next paragraph: I have bolded the pertinent parts for you (as a real scientist would). Also from Merriam-Webster we get the definition of science: See the difference now? Or will you continue to ignore the definition and peddle mysticism, Chakras and whatever else you have as scientific e... [More]
Comment icon #226 Posted by badeskov on 10 January, 2017, 19:37
Indeed. Scientific books are a summary of a scientific field based on peer reviewed journal papers with the proper citations included. And when referencing a book, one should always be able to point to the pertinent parts supporting one's claim. Cheers, Badeskov
Comment icon #227 Posted by badeskov on 10 January, 2017, 19:49
That is indeed how science works. I science one typically does not know for sure if one's premise/hypothesis (foundation) is sound, so one does one's work and at the end, test the conclusion reached either experimentally or against data sets that one knows should correlate. If the house falls apart, one goes back to the premise (foundation), tweaks it and start over.  Yes, that is the case here. The foundation is rotten. No true scientist would start from an obvious rotten foundation. Science does work like that.  Cheers, Badeskov
Comment icon #228 Posted by Sahir on 10 January, 2017, 20:10
Books are often written due to  financial reasons or due to an interest, sometimes both. However any "sincere" scientist would first have their idea or work published in a credible journal before attempting to write a book.  If you indeed wish to use a book as a reference, then you must be able to supply the page and the paragraph as a reference.  If you further want to discuss it on an online forum, then you must also be able to provide the actual text. One cannot be expected to buy a book, to validate its source.  This TED Talk by Dr Goldarce is quite informative, if you are inexperienced in... [More]
Comment icon #229 Posted by badeskov on 10 January, 2017, 20:21
Indeed. I personally always do that if I reference a book in a scientific setting. I am sadly experienced enough to make this thread hurt my eyes. Cheers, Badeskov
Comment icon #230 Posted by Sahir on 10 January, 2017, 20:26
This caught me off guard. I nearly choked on my coffee laughing. 
Comment icon #231 Posted by badeskov on 10 January, 2017, 20:40
My sincere apologies, Sahir!  Cheers, Badeskov  


Please Login or Register to post a comment.


  On the forums
Virgin Orbit debut rocket launch ends in failure
5-26-2020
Sir Richard Branson's new satellite launching company didn't have much luck with its debut flight yesterday.
Mystery big cats reported across Scotland
5-26-2020
Recent accounts have indicated that the Loch Ness Monster is not the only thing lurking in the Scottish wilds.
Super-rare white grizzly bear spotted in Canada
5-26-2020
A very unusual bear has been captured on film in Banff National Park in Canada's Rocky Mountains.
Blind 'see' letters delivered to their brains
5-25-2020
Scientists have found a way to communicate letters and shapes by 'tracing' them directly into the brain.
Stories & Experiences
Orb of light in room
5-9-2020 | USA/Texas/Waco
 
Not sleeping alone
5-9-2020 | Los Angeles
 
Glowing red eyes
5-9-2020 | Fields, Louisiana
 
Two creature sightings
5-1-2020 | Augusta and Louisana
 
 
My haunted home
5-1-2020 | Rainham, Essex, UK
 
In over my head
3-3-2020 | CA
 
Stranger at night
3-3-2020 | Merritt Island, FL, U.S.
 
The babysitter
2-8-2020 | ON
 
Mystery brain surgery and JFK
2-7-2020 | Toronto Ontario Canada
 

         More stories | Send us your story
Featured Videos
Gallery icon 
NASA studies underwater 'white smoker' vents
Posted 4-17-2020 | 0 comments
Hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor can teach us about possible habitats on other worlds.
 
10 strange things about our solar system
Posted 3-17-2020 | 0 comments
A look at some of the most mysterious things about our solar system.
 
Lizzie - Scotland's other loch monster
Posted 3-8-2020 | 0 comments
Amelia Dimoldenberg investigates the Loch Ness Monster's neighbor.
 
Adam Savage and Spot
Posted 2-14-2020 | 4 comments
Adam Savage tests out Boston Dynamics' impressive Spot robot.
 
NASA 2020: Are you ready ?
Posted 1-1-2020 | 3 comments
A look at what's coming up in the world of spaceflight this year.
 
 View: More videos
 
Top   |  Home   |   Forum   |   News   |   Image Gallery   |  Columns   |   Encyclopedia   |   Videos   |   Polls
UM-X 10.712 Unexplained-Mysteries.com (c) 2001-2020
Terms   |   Privacy Policy   |   Cookies   |   Advertise   |   Contact   |   Help/FAQ