Proof of multiverse?

[CraigD]

Discussion like these of “how it [quantum physics] really works” always remind me of a famous exchanged that legend hold occurred between Richard Feynman and an interviewer ca.1960:

 

Interviewer: How many people in the world, do you think, understand the theory of Relativity?

Feynman: (After a long thoughtful pause in which he appears to be counting) Only a few hundred, I’d say.

Interviewer: How many people understand quantum mechanics?

Feynman: (laughing) Oh, that’s easy! I think I can safely say that no one understands quantum physics.

 

Though the above dialog is contrived, Feynman and many others have on many occasions said and written “no one understands quantum physics”.

[infamous]

 

Though the above dialog is contrived, Feynman and many others have on many occasions said and written “no one understands quantum physics”.

That statement; "no one understands quantum physics" is still true to this very day. And after thinking about the implications contained within the truth of that statement, a serious question crossed my analzing mind. If and when we are able to say; "we now understand quantum physics", will that new information then support the position taken by those who ascribe to determinism?

 

......................................Infy

[phoenixbyrd]

I'm still trying to find this website that explains some aspects of QM that have been used to push a spiritual agenda and why those "interpretations" were wrong for another thread in the theology forum. If/when I do find it I'll gladly post the link in this thread as well!

 

I'm pretty sure it applies to the MWI interpretation of QM since it's basically the same thing. Can't explain something then bring in invisible explanations that you'll never ever ever have a chance of proving or seeing. Be it some magical neked guy or some super duper alternate reality. We tend to have a gift for bringing in invisible things to explain away thing's. That I'm sure everyone can agree on here.

[kailas_knight]

i'm a strong supporter of parallel universes , but what you say about

the expieriences you had , is just not scientific.....

 

One of my friends named Durgatosh Pandey , who is a member of this forum had written an article about the origin of the universe from nothing and i had written a modification to his article " the article is called split of 0".

 

The equation Karl Schwarzschild derived from Einstein's relativity theory , clearly specifies the mathematical possibility of another universe ,a

-ve universe , and a white hole , both of which runs backward in time....

 

 

The equation Karl Schwarzschild derived from relativity theory clearly agrees with Durgatosh's "Split of 0" article and the modifications i made to his theory..........

 

But even if event horizon is a gateway to another universe,

no way anyone's going there alive...because entering the event horizon means , death at the singularity.....

 

 

I can't agree with you on your Near Death Expieriences , as long as i dont have one.....

[firecracker]

:eek_big:

It certainly looks like most of the responses I am reading are referring to Max Tagmark's article inSCIENTIFIC AMERICANon multiple universes. It is one of my favorite articles, though it bears no proof of the multiverse.

 

In IDEAS AND OPINIONS , Albert Einstein, Crown Publishers, 1954, (out of context) "What is it that brings about such an intimate connection between language and thinking? Is there no thinking without the use of language, namely in concepts and concept-combinations for which words need not necessarily come to mind? Has not every one of us struggled for words although the connection between "things" was already clear?"

 

I feel that most of the posting authors have it very clear in their minds what they want to say. How do we understand someone who has a clear picture of his subject and no language to describe it?

 

I, for one, would like to give benefit of doubt to the postor until I have read his post over several times hoping to obtain a clear image of his thoughts and then perhaps have a short conversation with him before I display my criticism.

 

Personally, I feel that if this particular universe could have happened once, it could happen again, ad infinitum. If conditions could ever have set themselves up for this one, there will always exist similar conditions with sufficient time. (This is why I believe that The Big Bang, if there was one, should be classified as an event in time, not time as an event; an event where time and space at once began."

[freeztar]

I like the idea of the big bang and expansion/collapse as it reminds me of a very, very slow (in our perspective) heartbeat.

I also like the idea of infinite universes. I know someone posted earlier that this is impossible because of some finite particle count, but it seems a bit daft to call it impossible. Impossible with our current understanding, I can agree with, but it wasn't too long ago that it was impossible that the earth orbited the sun.

 

I like the idea of infinite white and black holes making the fabric of the universe. Much, much smaller (infintesimally?) than quirks and weaker than nuetrinos, but sustaining the universe in its infinite pulsing of time and space.

 

"You may say I'm a dreamer...But I'm not the only one"

 

Time to eat! :eek_big:

[metakinetic]

Though awe-inspiring and sometimes life-altering, I’ve concluded that these experiences are similar to what I do when I imagine, daydream, or dream, not to what I do when I watch, listen to, feel, smell, or taste something existing outside of me. Although this makes these experiences no less wonderful and profound, it leads me to not pursue physics theories to explain them as features of reality independent of my physical existence, like the Earth, Moon, Sun, and distant stars, but to pursue theories of neuroanatomy and neurophysiology to explain them as features of the function of my brain.

 

i'd have to agree with this one.