Wednesday, May 25, 2022
Contact    |    RSS icon Twitter icon Facebook icon  
You are viewing: Home > News > Science & Technology > News story
Welcome Guest ( Login or Register )  

Did you know that you can now support us on Patreon ?

You can subscribe for less than the cost of a cup of coffee - and we'll even throw in a range of exclusive perks as a way to say thank you.
Science & Technology

Parallel universes are real, claim scientists

November 28, 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)


Recent comments on this story
Comment icon #222 Posted by badeskov 5 years ago
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 5 years ago
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 5 years ago
This
Comment icon #225 Posted by badeskov 5 years ago
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 5 years ago
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 5 years ago
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 5 years ago
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 5 years ago
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 5 years ago
This caught me off guard. I nearly choked on my coffee laughing. 
Comment icon #231 Posted by badeskov 5 years ago
My sincere apologies, Sahir!  Cheers, Badeskov  


Please Login or Register to post a comment.


 Total Posts: 7,267,586    Topics: 298,928    Members: 197,020

 Not a member yet ? Click here to join - registration is free and only takes a moment!
Recent news and articles