Parallel universes: do they exist?

[Guest Scathane]

Well, do they? I read some argument in Michael Crichton's novel Timeline a while ago. I later saw a real life scientist explain it on television as well. Consider the following experiment (you can try this at home):

 

Take out a sheet of cardboard, a needle and a flashlight. Prick one hole with the in the cardboard sheet and hold the flashlight tightly against it. Dim the lights and light the flashlight. Project the light shining through the cardboard hole on a wall: you should see one spot of light on the wall. Now, prick a second hole not to far from the first (make sure the flashlight beam can cover both holes and do it again: you should see two spots of light coming through two holes. If you repeat this by making more holes, the number of spots on the wall goes up equivocally with the number of holes you pricked. So what?! you would say...

 

Well, now consider the following experiment (unfortunately, most of us can't do this at home):

 

Behind the sheet of cardboard we set up a small sensor array that is so sensitive that it can measure one single light particle, called a photon. We now fire one single photon at two holes. Now, as we will probably all understand, one single photon can only go through one of the holes. So, the expected result would be the same projection as if we were to shine our flashlight beam through one hole as described above. However, the sensor array records the same result as if we were to shine the flashlight beam through two holes as described above.

 

The conclusion is this: there must be another particle traveling through that other hole. This particle has the same qualities as a photon; it behaves like a photon and most probably is just that: a photon. The point is that we don't see it directly. The conclusion scientists have come up with is that this second photon is actually in another universe that is interfering with ours! Weird huh?!

Edited August 8, 2003 by Scathane

[igorimp]

The experiment is interesting, but the result seems very far fatched.

 

Now, I'm really not a scientist... ...in fact, I've had a bare grade of 2 out of 5 in my physics in high school , but the claim seems to me very distant.

 

To me, a more reasonable explanation is that the photon is divided into even smaller parts which we haven't yet come to know (in the same way as everything is divided into tiny atoms only sensitive equipment can detect), because if you look at the flashlight case, that's exactly what happens on a larger scale. A single beam of light is separated into smaller parts which part to go for one hole or another... On the other hand, if it is true and the other beam of light really COMES from another dimension, WHY would it go through the other hole...? Choose to? In fact, if (most likely) our laws of physics do not apply there, why would it be light... why wouldn't it be green in color... huge in size... smelling of old cheese... or something...

 

Now, again, I stress that I really don't know s*** about physics (which would probbably mean that I know even less then a scientist that claims that on television ), but I think their conclussion is just speculation...?

 

That's what experts call an "educated guess". It's not just guessing, it's guessing after 5 years of school...

[igorimp]

That said, I DO belive in other universes in a term of dimensions. We know four so far which are really simple. Given from the simplest examples upward and comparing our planet to the universe, I'd say there are about 791 of them...

 

Now, THAT's a guess...

 

Not even educated...

 

Just a plain, unagumented guess...

[Guest Scathane]

The experiment is interesting, but the result seems very far fatched.

I can understand that the jump from the experiment to the existence of multiple universes seems a big one. I will elaborate below.

 

To me, a more reasonable explanation is that the photon is divided into even smaller parts which we haven't yet come to know (in the same way as everything is divided into tiny atoms only sensitive equipment can detect)...

Now that's a very peculiar claim, since you were saying that the theory I stated was farfetched. In fact, what you're stating here is farfetched. To you, it seems more likely that the particle is split up because you live in a world where virtually everything you know can be split up. The point is that energy particles are among the smallest things we know (right up there with neutrinos and quarks). The nucleus of every atom is made out of particles... In fact, all matter in the universe is made up of particles. There is no scientific evidence whatsoever that suggests that particles can be split. Of course, that isn't to say that such a thing will not be discovered in the future, but the theory you feel is farfetched is scientifically sound according to mathematics and the laws of physics. The explanation you are so quick to grasp as a straw to hold on to what you think is common reality isn't.

 

...because if you look at the flashlight case, that's exactly what happens on a larger scale. A single beam of light is separated into smaller parts which part to go for one hole or another...

It isn't the same, in fact. In the flashlight case, a beam of light composed of particles and one group of particles goes through one hole, whereas another group goes through the other hole. In the single photon case, there's only one (directly visible) photon that goes through one hole. Even if it were to split up, we would have two half photons with different trademarks. Take, for instance, your comparison with atoms: if we split an atom, we don't get two of the same atoms behaving exactly the same as the original atom. The same would be the case with a split photon (if it proves to be possible to split a photon at all). But that's not what is happening: the results were exactly the same, remember?

 

On the other hand, if it is true and the other beam of light really COMES from another dimension, WHY would it go through the other hole...? Choose to? In fact, if (most likely) our laws of physics do not apply there, why would it be light... why wouldn't it be green in color... huge in size... smelling of old cheese... or something...

That's completely irrelevant. The fact is that it seems to be happening. What you're asking is the same as the following example:

 

Let's say you would be able to travel to another planet. You observe that the planet has gravity that makes sure your feet stay on the ground and large fields of green grass that smells like grass on Earth. What you're asking is Why isn't the gravity on this planet pushing me away from it? and Why isn't this grass blue and doesn't it smell of cheese? Regardless of your questions, the point is that you already observed that it isn't so. The same goes for the particle thing.

 

Now, again, I stress that I really don't know s*** about physics (which would probbably mean that I know even less then a scientist that claims that on television ), but I think their conclussion is just speculation...?

It's not a problem that you don't know; I'm not a physics expert myself. In fact, what we're talking about is called quantum physics or quantum mechanics, because the particles we're talking about are called quanta. The thing is that scientists don't know why quantum physics works or even exactly how it works. Quantum physics is often a logic defying field of science because quanta are strange entities. You can't be sure where they are, you can't measure them exactly, and you cannot predict exactly what they will do. There are particles that sometimes behave like particles and sometimes behave like waves, they can exist in multiple states at the same time and, although we don't know why, they sometimes interact with each other although they're a million miles apart with no connection between them. However, the thing is, quantum theory gets confirmed over and over again. Moreover, supermarket scanners, lasers and computer chips all rely on quantum mechanics. So there isn't much doubt that quantum mechanics is the correct mathematical description of the universe.

[dinochick]

With out getting all technical, I would say that I do believe that there are parallel universes, and in my mind it makes since, bt if I tried to explain it it would probably get garbled in the translation from mind to ...urr...forum post . I would hate to think that there were no parallel universes, maybe things are better over on there side .......

[ricepr2001]

I didnt know you could have a light particle, since light is not an obgect, it is a frequence a vibration a wavelegnth. by that wouldnt it be possable (im just using these numbers as an example. If light behaves like sound, since it is pretty close to the same, when you started with one particle (if you could do it) in like 6 inches wouldnt you have like 9-10 particles.

Anyway that is my thoughts, i was always tought that light was a wavelegnth, the same as sound.

[dinochick]

On a side note, it is fuuny that you should have brought this subject up today. I don't know if you have heard of it or not, but in the mid 90's (I believe) there was a show called "Sliders" about people who are traveling througha worm hole to parallel universes (vage discription). I hadnt seen this show in a very long time, buut the SciFi channel had a little marrithon of that show on this morning.

[Jahled]

Emm...just take the humble Lemming.... there's more to this (multi) universe than we can hope to percieve... there are doors to these infinite dimensions in the least expected places...

[ricepr2001]

Jahled, does your day consist of browsing animated GIF's?

[Guest Scathane]

I didnt know you could have a light particle, since light is not an obgect, it is a frequence a vibration a wavelegnth. by that wouldnt it be possable (im just using these numbers as an example. If light behaves like sound, since it is pretty close to the same, when you started with one particle (if you could do it) in like 6 inches wouldnt you have like 9-10 particles.

Anyway that is my thoughts, i was always tought that light was a wavelegnth, the same as sound.

I'm not joking around here, ricepr2001. What I’m saying about particles is reality. A hundred years ago, physicist understood that energy, like light or magnetism or electricity, took the form of continuously flowing waves. We still refer to radio waves and light waves. In fact, the recognition that all forms of energy shared this wavelike nature was one of the greatest achievements of nineteenth-century physics.

Eventually, a problem arose. It turned out that if you shined light on a metal plate, you got an electric current. The physicist Max Planck studied the relationship between the amount of light shining on the plate and the amount of electricity produced, and he concluded that energy wasn’t a continuous wave. Instead, energy seemed to be composed of individual units, which he called quanta. The discovery that came in quanta was the start of quantum physics.

A few years later, Einstein showed that you could explain the photoelectric effect by assuming that light was composed of particles, which he called photons. These photons of light struck the metal plate and knocked off electrons, producing electricity. Pretty soon, physicists began to realize that not only light, but all energy was composed of particles. The particles are discrete units, or quanta. And the theory that describes how these particles behave is quantum theory: a major discovery of twentieth-century physics.

 

Moreover, I didn’t make up the experiment I described, ricepr2001, it really happened. If you don’t believe me, ask someone you do believe or read the following:

 

* The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes and Its Implications by David Deutsch, New York: Penguin 1997.

* Schrödinger’s Machines: The Quantum technology Reshaping Everyday Life by Gerard J. Gilburn, New York: W.H. Freeman, 1997.

[ricepr2001]

I dont disbelieve the experiment, i just think there has to be an explination besides a parellel universe.

I DO beliebe that there are other universes, weve found them)

I do NOT believe that particles, energy, or anyhting can be transferred between them like that.

The experiment proves something, but it doesnt prove anything about a parellel universe. just that there is a particle of energy that wasnt there before.

Possably the particle charged other nuetral particles around it.

I dont know about quantum phisics so this is just a speculation.

[Jahled]

Jahled, does your day consist of browsing animated GIF's?

 

Why YES!!

 

I've often wondered where the lemming went, and how cat's appeared from nowhere... NOW I KNOW! YES! From other dimensions!

 

It's obvious...

[ricepr2001]

YES!!!!

I GET IT!!!

Jahled's gif's explain it all.

The world finally makes sense.

Thanks Jahled.

[Paul]

I believe in other dimensions, and need no proof. It's just a hunch or personal feeling- no quantum physics are necessary. - Grand Moff Conway

[Guest Scathane]

I DO beliebe that there are other universes, weve found them)

How do you believe we've found them?

 

By the way, I'm not talking about other dimensions, I'm talking about other universes. That is not the same; it isn't a proven fact that even our universe has just three dimensions... There's just the proven fact that we humans can only detect three...

[the_mask]

Well, while I also believe in parallel dimensions (I mean somewhere

I ought to won in the lottery by now ), I also think it's possible,

that more dimensions than the three (four, if you count 'time') we

already know of.

But even without taking the parallel dimensions into account, that

couldn't explain the outcome of the experiment. Because if that second

photon would be just an alternative way, where it could have gone, the

two alternative dimensions couldn't exist in the same place, as far as

I "understand" this theory. So it has to be something else, that happened

to the photon here, if it was indeed the same photon, which would be

impossible to prove, I think.

 

 

Dinochick, did they ever find their way home in Sliders ? I can't remember,

the last thing I know is, that John Ryse Davis stayed in on of the dimensions,

but I also think the show was suddenly cancelled, before it was finished, or

am I mixing something up here ?

[Guest Scathane]

For some reason, I just can't help wondering why you guys have so much trouble with what the worlds leading scientists seem to regard as reality...

[the_mask]

Because nobody knows, if they are wrong. I mean think about how often there were new theoretical models for atoms, or that the world would be a disc , the examples are numerous and lead me to one conclusion, someday we will know, some other day we'll know better

[masterjojobinks]

Just because the worlds scientists regard something as reality does not mean it is correct. If you take evolution for example. That is regarded as fact by most of the worlds scientists and is taught as fact in school text books. But it is only a theory. Parallel dimensions are also only a theory.

[Guest Scathane]

Just because the worlds scientists regard something as reality does not mean it is correct. If you take evolution for example. That is regarded as fact by most of the worlds scientists and is taught as fact in school text books. But it is only a theory. Parallel dimensions are also only a theory.

True, but it is a founded theory. I'm not saying that the theory I quoted was trueas such... Moreover, we know that there's such a thing as gravity. Yet, we don't know why it is there. Still the theory explaining it is fairly old in essence (it was modified later on, but the basis till applies).

 

Because nobody knows, if they are wrong. I mean think about how often there were new theoretical models for atoms, or that the world would be a disc , the examples are numerous and lead me to one conclusion, someday we will know, some other day we'll know better

I understand what you're saying. But there are some differences, you know.... We thought the world was a disc but we had never observed that directly or indirectly. We thought that up; it was belief or faith or whatever you want to call it. It was science that took these beliefs to trial and proved them wrong. That same science is now making very daring remarks about our reality. I once read an interesting statement about magic and science, stating that they weren't different but rather had a difference in viewpoint:

 

Science is a way of talking about the universe in words that bind it to common reality. Magic is a way of talking to the universe in words that it cannot ignore. The two are rarely compatible.

 

Now that we have discovered quantum physics, the two may well seem to be compatible and yet, you guys diss it the first chance you get.

 

Moreover, you guys keep telling me that the conclusion to the experiment is farfetched. Yet, you come up with other explantions or counter arguments that are either equally farfetched, totally unfounded or plain wrong. To give examples from your posts:

 

To me, a more reasonable explanation is that the photon is divided into even smaller parts which we haven't yet come to know

Why is this more reasonable? (Sorry to get back to you again, since we already had a PM about it)

 

I didnt know you could have a light particle, since light is not an obgect, it is a frequence a vibration a wavelegnth. by that wouldnt it be possable

What isn't possible? Light is made up out of particles called photons. This is a plain fact. It is pointless to call it impossible...

 

But even without taking the parallel dimensions into account, that

couldn't explain the outcome of the experiment. Because if that second

photon would be just an alternative way, where it could have gone, the

two alternative dimensions couldn't exist in the same place, as far as

I "understand" this theory.

Why couldn't this be the explanation of the argument? On what do you base this? You state that two alternative dimensions couldn't exist in the same place. This may be true (I honestly do not know) but as I said before, I'm not talking about alternative or parallel dimensions, I'm talking about alternative universes.

 

For those of you unclear about the difference between dimension and universes... We have three dimensions (four if you take time into account, as Mask so accurately pointed out before). Of course, it might be possible for more dimensions to exist. In that case, these dimensions would be part of our physical universe; we are just unable to detect them. For example: you draw a puppet on paper. Now, this puppet, if he were alive, could only detect two dimensions, because he only exists in two (I'm neglecting the thickness of the ink on the paper here for obvious reasons). For the same reason we would not be able to detect beings living in, say, five dimensions in our physical universe.

Parallel universes are another thing altogether. Parallel universes or, to put it differently, the multiverse states that are countless universes. That means that there is a universe in which I didn't posted this topic, as there is one where I did. There is a universe where I didn't just take a sip of my beer (as I just did) and there's one where I did. There's a universe where Hitler won WWII and one where he didn't. Etcetera, etcetera... So this makes for literally an infinite number of universes...

Edited August 8, 2003 by Scathane

[ricepr2001]

I didnt know you could have a light particle, since light is not an obgect, it is a frequence a vibration a wavelegnth. by that wouldnt it be possable

What isn't possible? Light is made up out of particles called photons. This is a plain fact. It is pointless to call it impossible...

 

But even without taking the parallel dimensions into account, that

couldn't explain the outcome of the experiment. Because if that second

photon would be just an alternative way, where it could have gone, the

two alternative dimensions couldn't exist in the same place, as far as

I "understand" this theory.

Why couldn't this be the explantion of the argument? On what do you base this? You state that two alternative dimensions couldn't exist in the same place. This may be true (Ihonestly do not know) but as I said before, I'm not talking about alternative or parallel dimensions, I'm talking about alternative universes.

 

For those of you unclear about the difference between dimension and universes... We have three dimensions (four if you take time into account, as Mask so accurately pointed out before). Of course, it might be possible for more dimensions to exist. In that case, these dimensions would be part of our physical universe, we are just unable to detect them. For example: you draw a puppet on paper. Now, this puppet, if he were alive, could only detect two dimensions, because he only exists in two (I'm neglecting the thickness of the ink on the paper here for obvious reasons). For the same reason we would not be able to detect beings living in, say, five dimensions in our physical universe.

Parallel universes are another thing altogether. Parallel universes or, to put it differently, the mutiverse states that are countless universes. That means that there is a universe in which I didn't posted this topic, as there is one where I did. There is a universe hwere I didn't just take a sip of my beer (as I just did) and there's one where I did. There's a universe where Hitler won WWII and one where he didn't. Etcetera, etcetera... So this makes for literally an infinite number of universes...

First I didnt say anything was impossable.

 

Second, How could there be two universes where in one hitler won the war and one he didnt. if they had different outcomes chances are there wouldnt even be a hitler so it wouldnt be parellel.

 

Finally,your experiment that you claimed proved a parellel universe, all it claims is that there is a particle of energy that wasnt there before, there could be a lot of explinations, if i knew anything about how light works and how energy works, i could argue with you. but i dont so im not, at least not if you quote me wrong and say something else.

 

If you read what i said, "wouldnt it be possable" where i didnt so clearly say what was possable but i meant that you could get a second particle without there being a parallel universe.

Edited August 8, 2003 by ricepr2001

[ricepr2001]

I dont know why is quoted your entire post since i deleted most of it, huh

 

 

Never Mind, edit fixed it.

Edited August 8, 2003 by ricepr2001

[masterjojobinks]

Scathane

Please realize I am not trying to diss what is being said. I was simply adding an explanation on why it is so hard for us guys to accept what is being said. This is entirely theoretical. Gravity and other laws of physics are established and can be proven to be. Parallel universe can not be proven to be... as of yet. That is why it is hard for me to accept as reality. If they prove it great, reality changes as we know it.

[masterjojobinks]

Would love to continue but am gone till Monday. Have a nice weekend.

[Guest Scathane]

First I didnt say anything was impossable.

I misunderstood you there...

 

Second, How could there be two universes where in one hitler won the war and one he didnt. if they had different outcomes chances are there wouldnt even be a hitler so it wouldnt be parellel.

You're failing to see the point; there would be an infinite number of universes... One where Hitler won the war and dominated the world, one where he won the war but dominated only Europe, one where he didn't win but didn't commit suicide and even one where he wasn't even born. I am literally talking about an infinite number of universes.

 

Finally,your experiment that you claimed proved a parellel universe, all it claims is that there is a particle of energy that wasnt there before, there could be a lot of explinations, if i knew anything about how light works and how energy works, i could argue with you. but i dont so im not, at least not if you quote me wrong and say something else.

Talking about quoting people wrongly: where did I say that there being parallel universes was true? I merely said that scientists have come up with that conclusion. There could be many explanations indeed..., one of them being the one I suggested.

 

 

Scathane

Please realize I am not trying to diss what is being said. I was simply adding an explanation on why it is so hard for us guys to accept what is being said.

Fair enough...

 

This is entirely theoretical.

True...

 

Gravity and other laws of physics are established and can be proven to be. Parallel universe can not be proven to be... as of yet.

Still, we don't know why there is such a thing as gravity... Moreover, those same laws of physics apply to quantum mechanics...

 

That is why it is hard for me to accept as reality.

Just as it was hard for people living in Galileo's time to accept his theory that the Earth revolved around the Sun instead of the other way around?

 

If they prove it great, reality changes as we know it.

I doubt that reality will change... I think that if it will be proven, our perception of reality wil change... Edited August 9, 2003 by Scathane