• This forum is specifically for the discussion of factual science and technology. When the topic moves to speculation, then it needs to also move to the parent forum, Science Fiction and Fantasy (SF/F).

    If the topic of a discussion becomes political, even remotely so, then it immediately does no longer belong here. Failure to comply with these simple and reasonable guidelines will result in one of the following.
    1. the thread will be moved to the appropriate forum
    2. the thread will be closed to further posts.
    3. the thread will remain, but the posts that deviate from the topic will be relocated or deleted.
    Thank you for understanding.​

Mathematical proof of parallel universes

RumpleTumbler

Loves Joni Mitchell
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 30, 2006
Messages
2,471
Reaction score
1,462
Location
Georgia
I'm hope I'm getting laid in a parallel universe cause I sure as hell ain't in this one.
 

totidem_verbis

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
75
Reaction score
21
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
I was just discussing this with a co-worker earlier today. Synchronicity?

According to quantum mechanics, nothing at the subatomic scale can really be said to exist until it is observed. Until then, particles occupy nebulous "superposition" states, in which they can have simultaneous "up" and "down" spins, or appear to be in different places at the same time.

Observation appears to "nail down" a particular state of reality, in the same way as a spinning coin can only be said to be in a "heads" or "tails" state once it is caught.

If the universes are created at the moment a decision is made, how do you know you're you and which universe you occupy? Am I me or version 1456000033322 of me? LOL
 

Rolling Thunder

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
15,209
Reaction score
5,341
There has been some speculation in quantum mechanics that the 'big bang' was caused by two parallel dimensions colliding with each other. PBS had a great series 'The Elegant Universe' where much of this was discussed.

Another idea put forth was that living mass, such as us, exists on this parallel universe and when we 'die' the energy passes to another, recreated as a different form of life. Great series. If you haven't seen it, keep an eye open.

ETA: Nerd link - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/
 

III

rockin the suburbs
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 21, 2006
Messages
4,672
Reaction score
3,566
Location
Spurs Country
Website
www.jayyoungweb.com
I loved that 2 part Nova special on String Theory - The Theory of Everything. If they can make ME understand string theory, they're doing something right!
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
There has been some speculation in quantum mechanics that the 'big bang' was caused by two parallel dimensions colliding with each other. PBS had a great series 'The Elegant Universe' where much of this was discussed.
I read the book, by Brian Greene, which went into string theory in much more depth. So much so that I was out of mine (depth, that is) despite being relatively scientifically literate.

It did provide me with the illusion that I understood it, however. Until I attempted to explain it to someone else.
 

Rolling Thunder

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 12, 2006
Messages
15,209
Reaction score
5,341
I haven't read the book, just watched the NOVA series. I doubt I'd grasp the concepts by reading them. Not enough blinky lights and stuff to mesmerize me.
 

Higgins

Banned
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
4,302
Reaction score
414
I read the book, by Brian Greene, which went into string theory in much more depth. So much so that I was out of mine (depth, that is) despite being relatively scientifically literate.

It did provide me with the illusion that I understood it, however. Until I attempted to explain it to someone else.


Skip the "observed" thing...it is absolutely the most misleading explanation ever made. Observed just means "interacted"...and the proof is simply that an infinite regression is created (every observation must also be observed etc) unless you just mean interacted.

BUT the other universe thing has some merit in 'brane theory or so I'm told.

eg:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0103239
 

small axe

memento mori
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
1,940
Reaction score
261
Skip the "observed" thing...it is absolutely the most misleading explanation ever made. Observed just means "interacted"...and the proof is simply that an infinite regression is created (every observation must also be observed etc) unless you just mean interacted.

Could you explain that, please?

What about it is 'misleading' ?

And what about it demands 'an infinite regression' ?

One person 'observes' or 'measures' the particle's position or speed, right? The information enters into human consciousness, it is quantified, that's all 'observed' means (or not? Again, please explain)

Where does 'infnite regression' occur? One human awareness is what it takes?
 

Melisande

Banned
Flounced
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
1,027
Reaction score
311
Location
Finally in Paradise
I seem to remember reading a book (or was it a short story?) about this guy who entered a parallell universe, and then had some severe trouble finding the one he originated from.

I'm not sure that I believe in it, but the thought is kind of appealing..., i.e. it is rather comforting to think that all the embarassing mistakes I've done in this universe, might not have happened in another. Then again, what a drag it must be for my parallell me, to realize that, in some other universe, there must be a parallell her out there who actually was stupid enough to make all those mistakes....

The very thought makes my head swim. :eek:
 

JimmyB27

Hoopy frood
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
925
Age
42
Location
In the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable e
Website
destinydeceived.wordpress.com
Could you explain that, please?

What about it is 'misleading' ?

And what about it demands 'an infinite regression' ?

One person 'observes' or 'measures' the particle's position or speed, right? The information enters into human consciousness, it is quantified, that's all 'observed' means (or not? Again, please explain)

Where does 'infnite regression' occur? One human awareness is what it takes?
I think he means that in order for the observer to exist, it must also be observed. Then that observer must be observed. Then that observer must be observed. Then that....and so on.

ETA - The observed thing is daft anyway - it would mean that nothing could have existed before we came along to observe it. So where did we come from?
 

small axe

memento mori
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
1,940
Reaction score
261
I think he means that in order for the observer to exist, it must also be observed. Then that observer must be observed. Then that observer must be observed. Then that....and so on.

The observer is observed -- by itself. The suggestion is that existence (other than mere potential) arises from a foundation of Awareness -- 'cogito ergo sum' --

So it seems that what we are NOT discussing is the sort of "the world is supported by an elephant, which is standing upon a turtle, which is standing upon a yak. But what is the yak standing upon? Oh, the yak is standing on a lizard, which is standing on a penquin ... etc" infinite regression.

Awareness doesn't 'regress' infinitely; Awareness arises as the fundamental ground-source of Being (or so the idea suggests).

So, perhaps he could explain what he meant, hisself?

ETA - The observed thing is daft anyway - it would mean that nothing could have existed before we came along to observe it. So where did we come from?

Well, it isn't 'daft' in that it does work within its own model (the same must be said of Physics): We don't 'come' from anywhere, Awareness simply is aware.

"So where did we come from?" is indeed a valid question -- but the answer is an issue of THE BIG BANG. Is that 'daft' too?

Then all Existence must be 'daft' ... and even then there is one thing NOT daft. The AWARENESS that things are daft is not a daft observation, it is a fundamental truth.

*************************

I'd also still like to understand his comment about things being 'misleading' ...

Misleading IN WHAT WAY?

That's a sincere question!
 

JimmyB27

Hoopy frood
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Dec 29, 2005
Messages
5,623
Reaction score
925
Age
42
Location
In the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable e
Website
destinydeceived.wordpress.com
The observer is observed -- by itself. The suggestion is that existence (other than mere potential) arises from a foundation of Awareness -- 'cogito ergo sum' --

So it seems that what we are NOT discussing is the sort of "the world is supported by an elephant, which is standing upon a turtle, which is standing upon a yak. But what is the yak standing upon? Oh, the yak is standing on a lizard, which is standing on a penquin ... etc" infinite regression.

Awareness doesn't 'regress' infinitely; Awareness arises as the fundamental ground-source of Being (or so the idea suggests).

So, perhaps he could explain what he meant, hisself?



Well, it isn't 'daft' in that it does work within its own model (the same must be said of Physics): We don't 'come' from anywhere, Awareness simply is aware.

"So where did we come from?" is indeed a valid question -- but the answer is an issue of THE BIG BANG. Is that 'daft' too?

Then all Existence must be 'daft' ... and even then there is one thing NOT daft. The AWARENESS that things are daft is not a daft observation, it is a fundamental truth.

*************************

I'd also still like to understand his comment about things being 'misleading' ...

Misleading IN WHAT WAY?

That's a sincere question!
Your turn to explain. That just made my head hurt.
 

oscuridad

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Messages
378
Reaction score
52
this all brings us to the spectacular solipsism that the Universe exiss so that we can observe it...

String Theory is pretty much debunked now, I believe, althogh in anothre Universe I could be wrong( would that be right, quick someone come and observe my indecision so that its probability wave from collapses into a yes or no state, or I collapse into something else..)
 

small axe

memento mori
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 6, 2007
Messages
1,940
Reaction score
261
Your turn to explain. That just made my head hurt.

'Explain' what?

My 'turn' nothing; I asked Sokal a question:

Quote:
Skip the "observed" thing...it is absolutely the most misleading explanation ever made. Observed just means "interacted"...and the proof is simply that an infinite regression is created (every observation must also be observed etc) unless you just mean interacted.
Could you explain that, please?

What about it is 'misleading' ?

And what about it demands 'an infinite regression' ?

One person 'observes' or 'measures' the particle's position or speed, right? The information enters into human consciousness, it is quantified, that's all 'observed' means (or not? Again, please explain)

Where does 'infnite regression' occur? One human awareness is what it takes?

Does a question require explanation?
 

Pat~

Luftmensch Emeritus, A.D.D.
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
6,817
Reaction score
2,975
Maybe more like a translation. ;)
 

oscuridad

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Messages
378
Reaction score
52
if my ignorance serves me correctly this whole 'observation' thing got out of hand from the original point, which was that to observe a particle you have to hit it with a photon - now in that interaction something will change - either the particle's speed or position, for example. Therefore, by the nature of the means of observation (hitting the particle with a photon) you can know its position (verified by the collision) but not its speed (changed by the collision). That is what is meant, I believe.

Infinite regression again buys into the Solipsism and is a red herring.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
Indeed, I think this conflatres a mathematical 'proof' from an it-must-be-true 'proof'. The two are only the same for people who accept all of the starting assumptions of the former.
 

Pthom

Word butcher
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
7,013
Reaction score
1,207
Location
Oregon
Miles, this is the Science Fact subforum. As such, we try to deal here with, ah, the facts of science and technology. Although your question may have merit for discussion, this isn't the place for it. “What if” questions belong in the main Science Fiction and Fantasy Forum.

Thanks.
 

Higgins

Banned
Joined
Sep 1, 2006
Messages
4,302
Reaction score
414
Could you explain that, please?

What about it is 'misleading' ?

And what about it demands 'an infinite regression' ?

One person 'observes' or 'measures' the particle's position or speed, right? The information enters into human consciousness, it is quantified, that's all 'observed' means (or not? Again, please explain)

Where does 'infnite regression' occur? One human awareness is what it takes?

What is misleading is that "the observation" consists of an immense number of quantum events none of which have anything at all to do with the interaction. The observation is just shorthand for "thing A and thing B have an interaction", which means quite a lot about the states of A and B, but nothing at all about anything else. The interaction can be described in artificial isolation in quantum mechanics...but the event as an event can only be explained within field theory...so the "observation" (which made a nice shorthand at one time in QM and was useful for specifying what aspects of a quantum object can be isolated...before the term was systematically misunderstood) is fantastically misleading in terms of what a observation is in everyday terms and fantastically misleading in terms of the field theoretic explanation of QM interactions, which, by the way are never called observations. It's just the usual urban legend level of bad luck that the word "observation" ever got stuck in the QM world. If you use the term "interaction" you will be fine.
 

joetrain

blank
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
392
Reaction score
175
The observer is observed -- by itself. The suggestion is that existence (other than mere potential) arises from a foundation of Awareness

i think sokal's correct here on the technical definition of "observation" dealing with physical interactions. i don't think mathematicians and physicists recognize human awareness as the initiator of existence.


Awareness doesn't 'regress' infinitely; Awareness arises as the fundamental ground-source of Being (or so the idea suggests).


Infinite regression again buys into the Solipsism and is a red herring.

a fella named hofstadter wrote an incredible book called godel, esther, bach proposing the theory that consciousness is an infinite regression of awareness. it is what makes human cognition significant: that the human can observe herself observing herself observing herself.... he advanced his theory by combining music and art theory with godel's incompleteness theorem. (and, as i understand it, godel's theorem, possibly the greatest modern advancement in pure mathematics, even pointed to infinite regressions in logic as proof of pervasive mathematical uncertainty.) but it doesn't seem that such "interior" regressions apply appropriately to the infinite universes theory.