Do you believe in Multiverse theory?

Post Reply New Topic

I know a bigger number:

[/quote] + 1

ruveyn

You get points for the sheer cleverness of that response.

Thank you. But I refuse to blush.

I did giggle, though.

I used to absolutely love quantum mechanics, read Feymann and understood him, I could do all that stuff. Nowadays my brain can't focus enough to properly understand even the ideas, and I cant do the maths as its all moved out my head. It has replaced by happy domesticity, cakes and jam-making.

But I LOVE the idea that there are multiverses where I am the same but different. I think I can even feel them and enjoy them, sometimes I feel them leaking through and it enriches my life (and I think my mental health is fairly robust ).

The multiverse is hypothetical. There is little or no empirical evidence supporting its existence. It has one virtue. Many Worlds settles the problem of collapsing the wave function. In the MWT there is no wave function to collapse.

ruveyn

I am thinking it's hyperthetical...

I was just enjoying a little spiritual whimsy. But this is a science thread, so fair enough. I enjoyed mathematical physics as a student. I can remember wave functions, Hamiltonians, cross sections and Feynmann diagrams.

Now, I'm enjoying the idea that there really are other universes where stuff happened differently, because I want to live a hundred lives, not one.

I believe that the multiverse theory is a possibility. I think it will be a while before we can prove/disprove it though. Scientists still know too little about our own universe to answer big questions like this one yet.

That is much closer to science fiction and fantasy than fact. I find many worlds of alternative time lines and histories fascinating and amusing, but I am not about to take them seriously until I see some real evidence that these things exist.

ruveyn

I think the multiverse theory is compelling after all I have read about quantum physics and what is clear from looking at the night sky.

If particles like electrons are constantly jumping from one place to another without traversing the space between then where are they going in the meantime. Also the vacuum of space is supposed to contain particles that come in and out of existence so fast that we don't have time to detect them. So these could be particles that make up the matter in other universes.

I love the idea of different dimensions and imagine a fourth spacial dimension that contains all the other universes of which we are one.

I also believe infinity. I know its paradoxical, because our brains want to measure things, but inifinity offers an explanation to everything.

I don't believe in the "Big Bang Theory", I don't belive in multi-dimensional theories (string teory), I think theory of relativity only applies to objects in electromagnetic fields (where it is a consquence of the wave speed), and I absolutely do not believe in multiverse theories. To me, it seems like physicists have too little real things to research.

Unreal things like particle and fields. What do you think made your computer possible?

ruveyn

And I think you need to learn more about physics. Special relativity only works in electromagnetic fields heh? Well, I'll believe that when you show me a case where it has been demonstrated that objects can travel faster than light (and no, superluminal neutrinos don't count because all possible causes of experimental error has not been ruled out for that experiment).

Neither of the above things are related to computers being possible. We don't need the "Big Bang", multidimensional string-theory, relativity or multiverse theories in order to build integrated circuits or computers.

I think the burden of proof is with you. You prove that relativity is valid outside of electromagnetic fields instead. Prove that objects accelerated with traditional methods get heavier, change length and affect time, and I'll believe you.

Most certainly, the first verification was the Michelson-Morley experiment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson- ... experiment

Here's some more:

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy–Thorndike_experiment]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy–Thorndike_experiment[/url]

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives–Stilwell_experiment]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives–Stilwell_experiment[/url]

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele–Keating_experiment[/url]

Pay special attention the the last one, the Hafele-Keating experiment because it measures time dilation as measured by an atomic clock on board a moving aircraft (accelerated with traditional methods, just as you asked). Although, the experiments in the other links don't depend on particle accelerators or electromagnetic fields either.