Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact

[zibbsey]

On Friday, November 7, 2014 11:26:41 PM UTC, JohnM wrote:
>
> Bruno wwrote: 
> 'science is agnostic,, that's why we need to put back theology in science, 
> so that we can develop agnostic theories or narratives, precise enough to 
> show them wrong, and progress...
> Did I misunderstand it? we developp FAITH (theology) in agnostically 
> developed theories and progress by showing them wrong?  so we may 'believe' 
> what is proven wrong - only? 
>
> Then again 
>
> John Mikes :
>> To: everything-list 
>> Sent: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 3:09 pm
>> Subject: Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact
>> Spudy: did anyone ever realize a "contact" with those "other" universes, 
>> so you can decry a 'possibility' of such?
>> Same for 'immortality': did anyone ever meet an 'immortal'?
>> JM
>>
>  
>   Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 3:18 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> JM:
>> to both cases no! But I have never piloted an SR-71, nor, circled the 
>> star Antares. I was going for the optimistic side of scientific 
>> speculation, rather than the everyday. Having said that, you, from my point 
>> of view-made your point. If we're speaking of our species and its 
>> descendents, why not go for the highest hanging fruit?
>>
>> So we should join the crowd of "physical Universe" figment believers who 
> just churn round and round the wise explanations of misunderstood phenomena 
> since the old Greeks (maybe longer ago)? What you say is all to believe the 
> figments (their "nth consequences" upon the mth explanations)  what "Saint 
> Science" teaches? 
> True: human technology is miraculous, but so is the swimming skills of 
> fish and hunting habits of the tiger. Or and ant hill in action.
> By establishing what we don't believe (agnostically) we never get further 
> ahead. 
>
>
 

> BTW I am studying the differences between the meaning how diverse 
> languages use 'anticipate', 'presume', 'expect', 'assume', and some more in 
> (a creative?) progressing - into new domains. How do we learn "new"? 
>
>  
It's a good of words between one another. 

Funnily enough I've been down this road or one like it. Same concept sets, 
boundaries in play, big questions about newness. 
By the looks of what you just saidbuckle up, you've got  a long journey 
to go. It's a years one that. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact

[John Mikes]

Bruno wwrote:
'science is agnostic,, that's why we need to put back theology in science,
so that we can develop agnostic theories or narratives, precise enough to
show them wrong, and progress...
Did I misunderstand it? we developp FAITH (theology) in agnostically
developed theories and progress by showing them wrong?  so we may 'believe'
what is proven wrong - only?

Then again

John Mikes :
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 3:09 pm
> Subject: Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact
> Spudy: did anyone ever realize a "contact" with those "other" universes,
> so you can decry a 'possibility' of such?
> Same for 'immortality': did anyone ever meet an 'immortal'?
> JM
>

  Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 3:18 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

JM:
> to both cases no! But I have never piloted an SR-71, nor, circled the star
> Antares. I was going for the optimistic side of scientific speculation,
> rather than the everyday. Having said that, you, from my point of view-made
> your point. If we're speaking of our species and its descendents, why not
> go for the highest hanging fruit?
>
> So we should join the crowd of "physical Universe" figment believers who
just churn round and round the wise explanations of misunderstood phenomena
since the old Greeks (maybe longer ago)? What you say is all to believe the
figments (their "nth consequences" upon the mth explanations)  what "Saint
Science" teaches?
True: human technology is miraculous, but so is the swimming skills of fish
and hunting habits of the tiger. Or and ant hill in action.
By establishing what we don't believe (agnostically) we never get further
ahead.
BTW I am studying the differences between the meaning how diverse languages
use 'anticipate', 'presume', 'expect', 'assume', and some more in (a
creative?) progressing - into new domains. How do we learn "new"?



On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 12:31 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 03 Nov 2014, at 23:31, John Mikes wrote:
>
> What I tried to hint at is the 'reality'(??) of the BASIS of our
> "optimistic side of scientific speculation, not the nth consequence of the
> mth imaginary idea.
> The 'God' concept as Creator ( or: the Big Cave-Bear?) is fantasy-born and
> exploited as a policy-support (in Bill Maher's lately words: a psychotic
> mass murderer - ha ha).
> Out of such start-up came 'Scriptures' and misguided explanations,
>  hecatombes and massive beheadings, torture, burning at the stake, rotting
> in cave-like jail, etc. etc. all in the name of 'love', 'justice',
>  forgiveness'  and 'afterlife rewards', whichever comes first.
> Humanity built it's science on imagination, explaining under/misunderstood
> observations - and - mathematics. A huge system.
>
> Humans, predators of their own kind as well, apply the mental prowess to
> vile. The social organiztions turned into exploitation, self defence into
> imperialistic warring.
> Now the demise of our planet is also touched: human activity helps the
> global deterioration (climate warming, sea-level rise, ferocious storms and
> less rainfall etc.)
> Something like that...
>
>
> Science is agnostic. That is why we need to put back theology in science,
> so that we can develop agnostic theories, or narratives, precise enough to
> show them wrong, and progress.
>
> The problems rarely come from the ideas or theories, but only from he fact
> that some people dare to impose ideas to others by violence (verbal or with
> bullets).
>
> I like your agnosticism, and the computationalist theory explains why for
> all machines, agnosticism optimizes the ability to change your mind and
> recognize that a theory is wrong in this or that aspect. It is the
> pre-condition of progressing toward a possible truth we can hope for.
>
> But even if we find it, we can't communicate as such. It will just happen
> that some ideas will never be refuted, despite their many consequences.
>
> For this to happen, we need to take our theories seriously, and work them
> out.Taking something seriously does not mean taking them as dogma or truth.
>
> In the fundamental realm, nothing should be taken for granted, but simple
> assumption are needed, as we cannot explain anything without some
> assumption, in the public setting.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr..

Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact

[zibbsey]

On Friday, November 7, 2014 5:31:54 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 03 Nov 2014, at 23:31, John Mikes wrote:
>
> What I tried to hint at is the 'reality'(??) of the BASIS of our 
> "optimistic side of scientific speculation, not the nth consequence of the 
> mth imaginary idea. 
>
>
Art is agnostic. That's about it for that. philosophers are political 
and it hasn't been the scientists putting it about sciene is agnostic but 
non-scientific philosophers. But science has never been agnostic. It is a 
Faith. In a naturalistic world view, and that it is discoverable but only 
with our best of best of best, and not with our creativity 
guessing constructions in reason. That's pre-science and the problem it had 
was everything needed to be defined up front. And what that meant was, 
ultimately the consequences simply confirmed whatever set them off. 

Science emerged as the solution to that. By reversing everything out 
basically. So now the defining part was the concluding part at the end. And 
it was easy to do, it was hard. And a fundamental problem of traversing a 
backward running reasoning emerged. And the solution to that was 
prediction.   


And the prediction of that is that, theories that don't predict go back to 
defining up front and back out of science. And scientific theories predict 
and define at conclusion. 

;And well structured theories like yours have the possibility if there is 
total commitment to truth, of up-levelling to science. But in your case it 
may not happen because currently you ascend yourself to 'science' simply  
by revising science back to philosophy.

It is a pretty obvious logical fact lthat if you have an easy to vary 
factor, in any equation, then whatever you wantequtation to say is a matter 
of adjusting easy to vary part. So your equation for what science is going 
to tell you exactly what you want to hear, if you have the authority to 
slide the standards up and down. It's what Deutsch does.. 

For me that's about people not honouring the pact to when it comes round we 
all put truth above our own theory. Because Truth has only ever been 
advanced by high standards non-trivial predictions Hard Science.

> The 'God' concept as Creator ( or: the Big Cave-Bear?) is fantasy-born and 
> exploited as a policy-support (in Bill Maher's lately words: a psychotic 
> mass murderer - ha ha).
> Out of such start-up came 'Scriptures' and misguided explanations, 
>  hecatombes and massive beheadings, torture, burning at the stake, rotting 
> in cave-like jail, etc. etc. all in the name of 'love', 'justice', 
>  forgiveness'  and 'afterlife rewards', whichever comes first. 
> Humanity built it's science on imagination, explaining under/misunderstood 
> observations - and - mathematics. A huge system. 
>
> Humans, predators of their own kind as well, apply the mental prowess to 
> vile. The social organiztions turned into exploitation, self defence into 
> imperialistic warring.
> Now the demise of our planet is also touched: human activity helps the 
> global deterioration (climate warming, sea-level rise, ferocious storms and 
> less rainfall etc.) 
> Something like that...
>
>
> Science is agnostic. That is why we need to put back theology in science, 
> so that we can develop agnostic theories, or narratives, precise enough to 
> show them wrong, and progress.
>
> The problems rarely come from the ideas or theories, but only from he fact 
> that some people dare to impose ideas to others by violence (verbal or with 
> bullets).
>
> I like your agnosticism, and the computationalist theory explains why for 
> all machines, agnosticism optimizes the ability to change your mind and 
> recognize that a theory is wrong in this or that aspect. It is the 
> pre-condition of progressing toward a possible truth we can hope for.
>
> But even if we find it, we can't communicate as such. It will just happen 
> that some ideas will never be refuted, despite their many consequences.
>
> For this to happen, we need to take our theories seriously, and work them 
> out.Taking something seriously does not mean taking them as dogma or truth.
>
> In the fundamental realm, nothing should be taken for granted, but simple 
> assumption are needed, as we cannot explain anything without some 
> assumption, in the public setting.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> JM
>
> On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 3:18 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> JM 
>> to both cases no! But I have never piloted an SR-71, nor, circled the 
>> star Antares. I was going for the optimistic side of scientific 
>> speculation, rather than the everyday. Having sa

Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact

[zibbsey]

On Saturday, November 1, 2014 8:20:01 AM UTC, yanniru wrote:
>
> I think that string theory explains the weirdness of quantum theory.
>

Maybe, but the crisis right now is there are all these different camps 
increasingly hostile. Each camp claims there's no crisis in science. They 
then explain that's because what they are doing is proper science, And the 
others are not, or they are bad phiosophers. 

Which is actually a consensus. Because they all have exactly the same view. 
They all science to their approach. 

Yet one more invariant we can also add to the consensus is what none of 
them do is tell us something new we go look. They don't predict. 

And yet another invariant is they all dismiss the importance of that.

But ...if there was one that made non-trivial breakthrough predictions, the 
fact is, this situation would vanish, science would restart, proper 
frameworks that guided research by early primordial predictions would 
exponentially suck in new talent. all the other theories would experience 
brain drain, and sccientifi consenus would re-emerge. 

So there it is. You don't  have choose between them. They all say the same 
thing. There is no way anyway. Just go for the better looking onesmight 
as well be with the lookers. 

There is no separating them. So treat them all like one argument for what 
science is. And choose that. Or choose the other one. That predictions are 
fundamental because anyway a break through theory abut the world, 
presumably has something new to tell us. But it's more than just that. The 
popper rot talks about falsification as if that is what it's about. No. 
Theories never falsified by the time the big prediction shows  up They 
would get there in the first place. Falsification is important that we all 
make a pact that when our day comes we will honour truth over our theory. 

But it's not bout that. It's about the predictions that are confirmed. 
Because what they now are, is the way we find new energy and new other 
things. The equation V = IR translates to super preise predictications that 
are so reliable to be confirmed that we an build circuits millions, and 
never once worry the energy won't show. 

That's the fundamental importance.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact

[Bruno Marchal]

On 03 Nov 2014, at 23:31, John Mikes wrote:

What I tried to hint at is the 'reality'(??) of the BASIS of our  
"optimistic side of scientific speculation, not the nth consequence  
of the mth imaginary idea.
The 'God' concept as Creator ( or: the Big Cave-Bear?) is fantasy- 
born and exploited as a policy-support (in Bill Maher's lately  
words: a psychotic mass murderer - ha ha).
Out of such start-up came 'Scriptures' and misguided explanations,   
hecatombes and massive beheadings, torture, burning at the stake,  
rotting in cave-like jail, etc. etc. all in the name of 'love',  
'justice',  forgiveness'  and 'afterlife rewards', whichever comes  
first.
Humanity built it's science on imagination, explaining under/ 
misunderstood observations - and - mathematics. A huge system.


Humans, predators of their own kind as well, apply the mental  
prowess to vile. The social organiztions turned into exploitation,  
self defence into imperialistic warring.
Now the demise of our planet is also touched: human activity helps  
the global deterioration (climate warming, sea-level rise, ferocious  
storms and less rainfall etc.)

Something like that...


Science is agnostic. That is why we need to put back theology in  
science, so that we can develop agnostic theories, or narratives,  
precise enough to show them wrong, and progress.


The problems rarely come from the ideas or theories, but only from he  
fact that some people dare to impose ideas to others by violence  
(verbal or with bullets).


I like your agnosticism, and the computationalist theory explains why  
for all machines, agnosticism optimizes the ability to change your  
mind and recognize that a theory is wrong in this or that aspect. It  
is the pre-condition of progressing toward a possible truth we can  
hope for.


But even if we find it, we can't communicate as such. It will just  
happen that some ideas will never be refuted, despite their many  
consequences.


For this to happen, we need to take our theories seriously, and work  
them out.Taking something seriously does not mean taking them as dogma  
or truth.


In the fundamental realm, nothing should be taken for granted, but  
simple assumption are needed, as we cannot explain anything without  
some assumption, in the public setting.


Bruno





JM

On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 3:18 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List > wrote:

JM
to both cases no! But I have never piloted an SR-71, nor, circled  
the star Antares. I was going for the optimistic side of scientific  
speculation, rather than the everyday. Having said that, you, from  
my point of view-made your point. If we're speaking of our species  
and its descendents, why not go for the highest hanging fruit?



-Original Message-
From: John Mikes 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 3:09 pm
Subject: Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact

Spudy: did anyone ever realize a "contact" with those "other"  
universes, so you can decry a 'possibility' of such?


Same for 'immortality': did anyone ever meet an 'immortal'?

JM

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 9:23 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List > wrote:



Sent from AOL Mobile Mail

Perhaps this is too much being raised on the twilight zone, but I  
wonder if this provides any means to interact or make  contact with  
these world/universes? This is of course too much to hope for but  
the study kind of seems to direct the mind towards that possibility.




-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List >

To: everything-list 
Sent: Fri, Oct 31, 2014 04:05 PM
Subject: RE: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact


Sounds a lot like MWI, but asserts that the parallel universe's  
subtle interactions explain the weirdness of quantum mecahnics




Read more at: 
http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html#jCp

Griffith University academics are challenging the foundations of  
quantum science with a radical new theory based on the existence of,  
and interactions between, parallel universes.


In a paper published in the prestigious journal  Physical Review X,  
Professor Howard Wiseman and Dr Michael Hall from Griffith's Centre  
for Quantum Dynamics, and Dr Dirk-Andre Deckert from the University  
of California, take interacting parallel worlds out of the realm of  
science fiction and into that of hard science.
The team proposes that parallel universes really exist, and that  
they interact. That is, rather than evolving independently, nearby  
worlds influence one another by a subtle force of repulsion. They  
show that such an interaction could explain everything that is  
bizarre about quantum mechanics
Quantum theory is needed to explain how the universe works at the  
microscopic scale, and is believed to apply to all 

Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact

[John Mikes]

What I tried to hint at is the 'reality'(??) of the BASIS of our
"optimistic side of scientific speculation, not the nth consequence of the
mth imaginary idea.
The 'God' concept as Creator ( or: the Big Cave-Bear?) is fantasy-born and
exploited as a policy-support (in Bill Maher's lately words: a psychotic
mass murderer - ha ha).
Out of such start-up came 'Scriptures' and misguided explanations,
 hecatombes and massive beheadings, torture, burning at the stake, rotting
in cave-like jail, etc. etc. all in the name of 'love', 'justice',
 forgiveness'  and 'afterlife rewards', whichever comes first.
Humanity built it's science on imagination, explaining under/misunderstood
observations - and - mathematics. A huge system.

Humans, predators of their own kind as well, apply the mental prowess to
vile. The social organiztions turned into exploitation, self defence into
imperialistic warring.
Now the demise of our planet is also touched: human activity helps the
global deterioration (climate warming, sea-level rise, ferocious storms and
less rainfall etc.)
Something like that...

JM

On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 3:18 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> JM
> to both cases no! But I have never piloted an SR-71, nor, circled the star
> Antares. I was going for the optimistic side of scientific speculation,
> rather than the everyday. Having said that, you, from my point of view-made
> your point. If we're speaking of our species and its descendents, why not
> go for the highest hanging fruit?
>
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: John Mikes 
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 3:09 pm
> Subject: Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact
>
>  Spudy: did anyone ever realize a "contact" with those "other" universes,
> so you can decry a 'possibility' of such?
>
>  Same for 'immortality': did anyone ever meet an 'immortal'?
>
> JM
>
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 9:23 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
>>
>>  Perhaps this is too much being raised on the twilight zone, but I
>> wonder if this provides any means to interact or make  contact with these
>> world/universes? This is of course too much to hope for but the study kind
>> of seems to direct the mind towards that possibility.
>>
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com>
>> To: everything-list 
>> Sent: Fri, Oct 31, 2014 04:05 PM
>> Subject: RE: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact
>>
>>
>> Sounds a lot like MWI, but asserts that the parallel universe's
>> subtle interactions explain the weirdness of quantum mecahnics
>>
>>
>>
>> Read more at:
>> http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html#jCp
>>
>>  Griffith University academics are challenging the foundations of
>> quantum science with a radical new theory based on the existence of, and
>> interactions between, parallel universes.
>>
>>  In a paper published in the prestigious journal  *Physical Review X*,
>> Professor Howard Wiseman and Dr Michael Hall from Griffith's Centre for
>> Quantum Dynamics, and Dr Dirk-Andre Deckert from the University of
>> California, take interacting parallel worlds out of the realm of science
>> fiction and into that of hard science.
>>  The team proposes that parallel universes really exist, and that they
>> interact. That is, rather than evolving independently, nearby worlds
>> influence one another by a subtle force of repulsion. They show that such
>> an interaction could explain everything that is bizarre about quantum
>> mechanics <http://phys.org/tags/quantum+mechanics/>
>>  Quantum theory is needed to explain how the universe works at the
>> microscopic scale, and is believed to apply to all matter. But it is
>> notoriously difficult to fathom, exhibiting weird phenomena which seem to
>> violate the laws of cause and effect.
>>  As the eminent American theoretical physicist Richard Feynman once
>> noted: "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum
>> mechanics."
>>  However, the "Many-Interacting Worlds" approach developed at Griffith
>> University provides a new and daring perspective on this baffling field.
>>  "The idea of  parallel universes
>> <http://phys.org/tags/parallel+universes/> in quantum 

RE: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 12:25 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 09:04:57PM +, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything 
List wrote:
> Sounds a lot like MWI, but asserts that the parallel universe's subtle 
> interactions explain the weirdness of quantum mecahnics
> 
> 
> Read more at: 
> http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-inte
> raction.html#jCp
> 
> Griffith University academics are challenging the foundations of quantum 
> science with a radical new theory based on the existence of, and interactions 
> between, parallel universes.
> 
> In a paper published in the prestigious journal Physical Review X, 
> Professor Howard Wiseman and Dr Michael Hall from Griffith's Centre 
> for Quantum Dynamics, and Dr Dirk-Andre Deckert from the University of 
> California, take interacting parallel worlds out of the realm of 
> science fiction and into that of hard science.


Michael was a fellow PhD student of me. He was two doors down during my PhD. In 
fact we shared the same supervisor at the time. I haven't seen him for about 10 
years, at which time he was essentially supported by his wife to play around 
with fundamentals of QM. I didn't know he'd moved to Queensland (Griffith uni), 
as he was in Canberra then.

>>Good to know he's still thinking about stuff. He had a very interesting take 
>>on the relationship between the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the 
>>Cramer-Rao inequality.

Nice case of: it is a small world
Chris

Cheers 

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

JM
to both cases no! But I have never piloted an SR-71, nor, circled the star 
Antares. I was going for the optimistic side of scientific speculation, rather 
than the everyday. Having said that, you, from my point of view-made your 
point. If we're speaking of our species and its descendents, why not go for the 
highest hanging fruit?



-Original Message-
From: John Mikes 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Sat, Nov 1, 2014 3:09 pm
Subject: Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact


Spudy: did anyone ever realize a "contact" with those "other" universes, so you 
can decry a 'possibility' of such?


Same for 'immortality': did anyone ever meet an 'immortal'?


JM



On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 9:23 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
 wrote:



Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


Perhaps this is too much being raised on the twilight zone, but I wonder if 
this provides any means to interact or make  contact with these 
world/universes? This is of course too much to hope for but the study kind of 
seems to direct the mind towards that possibility. 



-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Fri, Oct 31, 2014 04:05 PM
Subject: RE: Do  parallel universes really exist, and interact



 
  
   

 
  Sounds a lot like MWI, but asserts that the parallel universe's subtle 
interactions explain the weirdness of quantum mecahnics 
 
  
 
 
  

Read more at: 
http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html#jCp
 
 
  
 
 
  Griffith University academics are challenging the foundations of quantum 
science with a radical new theory based on the existence of, and interactions 
between, parallel universes.  
 
 
  
 
 
In a paper published in the prestigious journal   Physical Review X, 
Professor Howard Wiseman and Dr Michael Hall from Griffith's Centre for Quantum 
Dynamics, and Dr Dirk-Andre Deckert from the University of California, take 
interacting parallel worlds out of the realm of science fiction and into that 
of hard science. 
 
  The team proposes that parallel universes really exist, and that they 
interact. That is, rather than evolving independently, nearby worlds influence 
one another by a subtle force of repulsion. They show that such an interaction 
could explain everything that is bizarre about quantum mechanics 
 
Quantum theory is needed to explain how the universe works at the microscopic 
scale, and is believed to apply to all matter. But it is notoriously difficult 
to fathom, exhibiting weird phenomena which seem to violate the laws of cause 
and effect. 
 
As the eminent American theoretical physicist Richard Feynman once noted: "I 
think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics." 
 
However, the "Many-Interacting Worlds" approach developed at Griffith 
University provides a new and daring perspective on this baffling field. 
 
"The idea of   parallel universes in quantum mechanics has been around 
since 1957," says Professor Wiseman. 
 
"In the well-known "Many-Worlds Interpretation", each universe branches into a 
bunch of new universes every time a quantum measurement is made. All 
possibilities are therefore realised – in some universes the dinosaur-killing 
asteroid missed Earth. In others, Australia was colonised by the Portuguese.
 
 
"But critics question the reality of these other universes, since they do not 
influence our universe at all. On this score, our "Many Interacting Worlds" 
approach is completely different, as its name implies." 
 
Professor Wiseman and his colleagues propose that: 
 
  
The universe we experience is just one of a gigantic number of worlds. Some are 
almost identical to ours while most are very different;
  
All of these worlds are equally real, exist continuously through time, and 
possess precisely defined properties;
  
All quantum phenomena arise from a universal force of repulsion between 
'nearby' (i.e. similar) worlds which tends to make them more dissimilar.
 
 
Dr Hall says the "Many-Interacting Worlds" theory may even create the 
extraordinary possibility of testing for the existence of other worlds. 
 
"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," he says. 
 
"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   qua

Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact

[John Mikes]

Spudy: did anyone ever realize a "contact" with those "other" universes, so
you can decry a 'possibility' of such?

Same for 'immortality': did anyone ever meet an 'immortal'?

JM

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 9:23 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> Sent from AOL Mobile Mail
>
> Perhaps this is too much being raised on the twilight zone, but I wonder
> if this provides any means to interact or make  contact with these
> world/universes? This is of course too much to hope for but the study kind
> of seems to direct the mind towards that possibility.
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com>
> To: everything-list 
> Sent: Fri, Oct 31, 2014 04:05 PM
> Subject: RE: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact
>
>
> Sounds a lot like MWI, but asserts that the parallel universe's
> subtle interactions explain the weirdness of quantum mecahnics
>
>
>
> Read more at:
> http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html#jCp
>
>  Griffith University academics are challenging the foundations of quantum
> science with a radical new theory based on the existence of, and
> interactions between, parallel universes.
>
>  In a paper published in the prestigious journal  *Physical Review X*,
> Professor Howard Wiseman and Dr Michael Hall from Griffith's Centre for
> Quantum Dynamics, and Dr Dirk-Andre Deckert from the University of
> California, take interacting parallel worlds out of the realm of science
> fiction and into that of hard science.
>  The team proposes that parallel universes really exist, and that they
> interact. That is, rather than evolving independently, nearby worlds
> influence one another by a subtle force of repulsion. They show that such
> an interaction could explain everything that is bizarre about quantum
> mechanics <http://phys.org/tags/quantum+mechanics/>
>  Quantum theory is needed to explain how the universe works at the
> microscopic scale, and is believed to apply to all matter. But it is
> notoriously difficult to fathom, exhibiting weird phenomena which seem to
> violate the laws of cause and effect.
>  As the eminent American theoretical physicist Richard Feynman once noted:
> "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."
>  However, the "Many-Interacting Worlds" approach developed at Griffith
> University provides a new and daring perspective on this baffling field.
>  "The idea of  parallel universes
> <http://phys.org/tags/parallel+universes/> in quantum mechanics has been
> around since 1957," says Professor Wiseman.
>  "In the well-known "Many-Worlds Interpretation", each universe branches
> into a bunch of new universes every time a quantum measurement is made. All
> possibilities are therefore realised – in some universes the
> dinosaur-killing asteroid missed Earth. In others, Australia was colonised
> by the Portuguese.
>  "But critics question the reality of these other universes, since they do
> not influence our universe at all. On this score, our "Many Interacting
> Worlds" approach is completely different, as its name implies."
>  Professor Wiseman and his colleagues propose that:
>
>- The universe we experience is just one of a gigantic number of
>worlds. Some are almost identical to ours while most are very different;
>- All of these worlds are equally real, exist continuously through
>time, and possess precisely defined properties;
>- All quantum phenomena arise from a universal force of repulsion
>between 'nearby' (i.e. similar) worlds which tends to make them more
>dissimilar.
>
>  Dr Hall says the "Many-Interacting Worlds" theory may even create the
> extraordinary possibility of testing for the existence of other worlds.
>  "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," he says.
>  "In between it predicts something new that is neither Newton's theory
> nor  quantum theory <http://phys.org/tags/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 <http://phys.org/tags/quantum+phenomena/>."
>  The ability to approximate quantum evolution using a finite number of
> worlds could have significant ramifications in molecular dyn

Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact

[Richard Ruquist]

I think that string theory explains the weirdness of quantum theory.

A basic feature of string theory is that a number of dimensions
curl up into ultra-fine particles of space called Calabi-Yau Manifolds CYMs.
Being an array rigid particles in space,
we hypothesize that they form a Bose-Einstein Condensate BEC.

Since astronomical observations of the structure constant alpha
indicates a slight variation of it across the universe,
we hypothesize that the landscape of 10^500 to 10^1000 CYM designs
allows for each CYM of 10^90/cc to be distinct throughout the universe
and therefore capable of computing the wave functions of quantum theory.

If so the wave functions themselves are likely to be BECs
that can be entangled when strings like electrons and photons interact.

All of the above explains how electrons and photons
can pass through a double-slit one at a time and be detected one at a time,
because if the wave functions are entangled BECs,
information is transmitted instantaneously between them.
Richard

On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 3:24 AM, Russell Standish 
wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 09:04:57PM +, 'Chris de Morsella' via
> Everything List wrote:
> > Sounds a lot like MWI, but asserts that the parallel universe's subtle
> interactions explain the weirdness of quantum mecahnics
> >
> >
> > Read more at:
> http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html#jCp
> >
> > Griffith University academics are challenging the foundations of quantum
> science with a radical new theory based on the existence of, and
> interactions between, parallel universes.
> >
> > In a paper published in the prestigious journal Physical Review X,
> > Professor Howard Wiseman and Dr Michael Hall from Griffith's Centre
> > for Quantum Dynamics, and Dr Dirk-Andre Deckert from the University of
> > California, take interacting parallel worlds out of the realm of
> > science fiction and into that of hard science.
>
>
> Michael was a fellow PhD student of me. He was two doors down during
> my PhD. In fact we shared the same supervisor at the time. I haven't
> seen him for about 10 years, at which time he was essentially supported by
> his wife to play around with fundamentals of QM. I didn't know he'd
> moved to Queensland (Griffith uni), as he was in Canberra then.
>
> Good to know he's still thinking about stuff. He had a very
> interesting take on the relationship between the Heisenberg
> uncertainty principle and the Cramer-Rao inequality.
>
> Cheers
>
> --
>
>
> 
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au
>
>  Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret
>  (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)
>
> 
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact

[Russell Standish]

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 09:04:57PM +, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything 
List wrote:
> Sounds a lot like MWI, but asserts that the parallel universe's subtle 
> interactions explain the weirdness of quantum mecahnics
> 
> 
> Read more at: 
> http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html#jCp
> 
> Griffith University academics are challenging the foundations of quantum 
> science with a radical new theory based on the existence of, and interactions 
> between, parallel universes.
> 
> In a paper published in the prestigious journal Physical Review X,
> Professor Howard Wiseman and Dr Michael Hall from Griffith's Centre
> for Quantum Dynamics, and Dr Dirk-Andre Deckert from the University of
> California, take interacting parallel worlds out of the realm of
> science fiction and into that of hard science.


Michael was a fellow PhD student of me. He was two doors down during
my PhD. In fact we shared the same supervisor at the time. I haven't
seen him for about 10 years, at which time he was essentially supported by
his wife to play around with fundamentals of QM. I didn't know he'd
moved to Queensland (Griffith uni), as he was in Canberra then.

Good to know he's still thinking about stuff. He had a very
interesting take on the relationship between the Heisenberg
uncertainty principle and the Cramer-Rao inequality.

Cheers 

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au

 Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
 (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html)


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail

 I do know that philosopher, Eric Steinhardt, has worked on the concept of 
parallel universes, and the notion of some kind of immortality, but I think at 
last post, Steinhardt believes that each universe is it's own world line and 
thus no information flows betwixt and between each parallel world. This is a 
bit different than the science paper just presented.


-Original Message-
From: John Mikes 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Fri, Oct 31, 2014 05:36 PM
Subject: Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact





 
Chris, let me reflect to '2' words. (I never studied QM, have some glimpse as a 
polymer chemist, so I do NOT argue against the theory)
  
   

   
1. 
Parallel 
   
   



   
   

In what sense are 'universes' compared to be deemed parallel?
   
   

I presume in my agnostic views that there may be many more visions in which 2 
systems may be deemed parallel (or: antiparallel?) 
   
   

They may diverge in time, spacial extension, forcefields, lifespan, etc. etc.
   
   

In my narrative (I never called it a 'theory') the perfectly symmetrical and 
equilibrated "Plenitude" (imaginary vision of Everything in balance) there are 
inevitably items getting grouped together in a way that violates the perfect 
symmetrical distribution (complexities?) and I called those 'universes'. They 
re-dissipate into the perfect symmetry right as they formed (in our case: 
viewed from the INSIDE as a long long time in our Space-Time views). 
   
   

Such 'universes' have different compositions according to the items forming 
them, at least I did not project/propose any rules to their composition. 
   
   

We know nothing about the Plenitude (word taken from Plato). 
   
   



   
   

2.a quote from the URL:
 'microscopic'
   
   



   
   

(Quantum
 theory is needed to explain how the universe works at the microscopic 
scale, and is believed to apply to all matter.) 
   
   



   
   

'Microscopic
 to what? to our human sizes? to the sub-Planck, or the galaxy-size extensions? 

   
   

Again
 my agnostic views: who knows what "worlds" do exist in quite different orders 
of magnitude from our habituel rulers? 
   
   



   
   

Just
 tasting words
   
   



   
   

John
 Mikes
   
   



   
   



   
   



   
   
   Read
 more at: 
   http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html#jCp";>http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html#jCp
  
 
 
  

  
On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 5:04 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
   <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com";>everything-list@googlegroups.com>
 wrote:
   

   


 
  
   

 
  Sounds a lot like 
MWI, but asserts that the parallel universe's subtle interactions explain the 
weirdness of quantum mecahnics
 
 

  

 
 

  

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html#jCp";>http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html#jCp

 
 

  

 
 

  Griffith 
University academics are challenging the foundations of quantum science with a 
radical new theory based on the existence of, and interactions between, 
parallel universes.
  

 
 

  

 
 
In a paper published in the prestigious journal 
  Physical Review X, Professor 
Howard Wiseman and Dr Michael Hall from Griffith's Centre for Quantum Dynamics, 
and Dr Dirk-Andre Deckert from the University of California, take interacting 
parallel worlds out of the realm of science fiction and into that of hard 
science.
 
 
  The team proposes that 
parallel universes really exist, and that they interact. That is, rather than 
evolving independently, nearby worlds influence one another by a subtle force 
of repulsion. They show that such an interaction could explain everything that 
is bizarre about http://phys.org/tags/quantum+mechanics/";>quantum mechanics
 
 
Quantum theory is needed to explain how the universe works at the microscopic 
scale, and is believed to apply to all matter. But it is notoriously difficult 
to fathom, exhibiting weird phenomena which seem to violate the laws of cause 
and effect.
 
 
As the eminent American theoretical physicist Richard Feynman once noted: "I 
think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."
 
 
However, the "Many-Interacting Worlds" approach developed at Griffith 
University provides a new and daring perspective on this baffling field.
 
  

Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact

[spudboy100 via Everything List]

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail

Perhaps this is too much being raised on the twilight zone, but I wonder if 
this provides any means to interact or make  contact with these 
world/universes? This is of course too much to hope for but the study kind of 
seems to direct the mind towards that possibility. 


-Original Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
To: everything-list 
Sent: Fri, Oct 31, 2014 04:05 PM
Subject: RE: Do  parallel universes really exist, and interact





 
  
   

 
  Sounds a lot like 
MWI, but asserts that the parallel universe's subtle interactions explain the 
weirdness of quantum mecahnics
 
 
  

 
 
  Read more at: 
http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html#jCp";>http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html#jCp

 
 
  

 
 
  Griffith University 
academics are challenging the foundations of quantum science with a radical new 
theory based on the existence of, and interactions between, parallel 
universes.
  

 
 
  

 
 
In a paper published in the prestigious journal 
  Physical Review 
X, Professor Howard Wiseman and Dr Michael Hall from Griffith's Centre for 
Quantum Dynamics, and Dr Dirk-Andre Deckert from the University of California, 
take interacting parallel worlds out of the realm of science fiction and into 
that of hard science.
 
 
  The team proposes 
that parallel universes really exist, and that they interact. That is, rather 
than evolving independently, nearby worlds influence one another by a subtle 
force of repulsion. They show that such an interaction could explain everything 
that is bizarre about http://phys.org/tags/quantum+mechanics/";>quantum mechanics
 
 
Quantum theory is needed to explain how the universe works at the microscopic 
scale, and is believed to apply to all matter. But it is notoriously difficult 
to fathom, exhibiting weird phenomena which seem to violate the laws of cause 
and effect.
 
 
As the eminent American theoretical physicist Richard Feynman once noted: "I 
think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."
 
 
However, the "Many-Interacting Worlds" approach developed at Griffith 
University provides a new and daring perspective on this baffling field.
 
 
"The idea of 
  http://phys.org/tags/parallel+universes/";>parallel universes in 
quantum mechanics has been around since 1957," says Professor Wiseman.
 
 
"In the well-known "Many-Worlds Interpretation", each universe branches into a 
bunch of new universes every time a quantum measurement is made. All 
possibilities are therefore realised – in some universes the dinosaur-killing 
asteroid missed Earth. In others, Australia was colonised by the Portuguese.
 
 
"But critics question the reality of these other universes, since they do not 
influence our universe at all. On this score, our "Many Interacting Worlds" 
approach is completely different, as its name implies."
 
 
Professor Wiseman and his colleagues propose that:
 
 
  The universe we 
experience is just one of a gigantic number of worlds. Some are almost 
identical to ours while most are very different;
  All of these worlds 
are equally real, exist continuously through time, and possess precisely 
defined properties;
  All quantum phenomena arise from a universal 
force of repulsion between 'nearby' (i.e. similar) worlds which tends to make 
them more dissimilar.
 
 
Dr Hall says the "Many-Interacting Worlds" theory may even create the 
extraordinary possibility of testing for the existence of other worlds.
 
 
"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," he says.
 
 
"In between it predicts something new that is neither Newton's theory nor 
  http://phys.org/tags/quantum+theory/";>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 
  http://phys.org/tags/quantum+phenomena/";>quantum phenomena."
 
 
The ability to approximate quantum evolution using a finite number of worlds 
could have significant ramifications in molecular dynamics, which is important 
for understanding chemical reactions and the action of drugs.
 
 
Professor Bill Poirier, Distinguished Professor of Chemistry at Texas Tech 
University, has observed: "These are great ideas, not only conceptually, but 
also with regard to the new numerical breakthroughs they are almo

Re: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact

[John Mikes]

Chris, let me reflect to '2' words. (I never studied QM, have some glimpse
as a polymer chemist, so I do NOT argue against the theory)

1. *Parallel *

In what sense are 'universes' compared to be deemed parallel?
I presume in my agnostic views that there may be many more visions in which
2 systems may be deemed parallel (or: antiparallel?)
They may diverge in time, spacial extension, forcefields, lifespan, etc.
etc.
In my narrative (I never called it a 'theory') the perfectly symmetrical
and equilibrated "Plenitude" (imaginary vision of Everything in balance)
there are inevitably items getting grouped together in a way that violates
the perfect symmetrical distribution (complexities?) and I called those
'universes'. They re-dissipate into the perfect symmetry right as they
formed (in our case: viewed from the INSIDE as a long long time in our
Space-Time views).
Such 'universes' have different compositions according to the items forming
them, at least I did not project/propose any rules to their composition.
We know nothing about the Plenitude (word taken from Plato).

2.a quote from the URL:* 'microscopic'*

*(Quantum theory is needed to explain how the universe works at the
microscopic scale, and is believed to apply to all matter.) *

'Microscopic to what? to our human sizes? to the sub-Planck, or the
galaxy-size extensions?
Again my agnostic views: who knows what "worlds" do exist in quite
different orders of magnitude from our habituel rulers?

Just tasting words

John Mikes




Read more at:
http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html#jCp

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 5:04 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Sounds a lot like MWI, but asserts that the parallel universe's subtle
> interactions explain the weirdness of quantum mecahnics
>
>
>
> Read more at:
> http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html#jCp
>
> Griffith University academics are challenging the foundations of quantum
> science with a radical new theory based on the existence of, and
> interactions between, parallel universes.
>
> In a paper published in the prestigious journal *Physical Review X*,
> Professor Howard Wiseman and Dr Michael Hall from Griffith's Centre for
> Quantum Dynamics, and Dr Dirk-Andre Deckert from the University of
> California, take interacting parallel worlds out of the realm of science
> fiction and into that of hard science.
> The team proposes that parallel universes really exist, and that they
> interact. That is, rather than evolving independently, nearby worlds
> influence one another by a subtle force of repulsion. They show that such
> an interaction could explain everything that is bizarre about quantum
> mechanics 
> Quantum theory is needed to explain how the universe works at the
> microscopic scale, and is believed to apply to all matter. But it is
> notoriously difficult to fathom, exhibiting weird phenomena which seem to
> violate the laws of cause and effect.
> As the eminent American theoretical physicist Richard Feynman once noted:
> "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."
> However, the "Many-Interacting Worlds" approach developed at Griffith
> University provides a new and daring perspective on this baffling field.
> "The idea of parallel universes  in
> quantum mechanics has been around since 1957," says Professor Wiseman.
> "In the well-known "Many-Worlds Interpretation", each universe branches
> into a bunch of new universes every time a quantum measurement is made. All
> possibilities are therefore realised – in some universes the
> dinosaur-killing asteroid missed Earth. In others, Australia was colonised
> by the Portuguese.
> "But critics question the reality of these other universes, since they do
> not influence our universe at all. On this score, our "Many Interacting
> Worlds" approach is completely different, as its name implies."
> Professor Wiseman and his colleagues propose that:
>
>- The universe we experience is just one of a gigantic number of
>worlds. Some are almost identical to ours while most are very different;
>- All of these worlds are equally real, exist continuously through
>time, and possess precisely defined properties;
>- All quantum phenomena arise from a universal force of repulsion
>between 'nearby' (i.e. similar) worlds which tends to make them more
>dissimilar.
>
> Dr Hall says the "Many-Interacting Worlds" theory may even create the
> extraordinary possibility of testing for the existence of other worlds.
> "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," he says.
> "In between it predicts something new that is neither Newton's theory nor 
> quantum
> theo

RE: Do parallel universes really exist, and interact

['Chris de Morsella' via Everything List]

Sounds a lot like MWI, but asserts that the parallel universe's subtle 
interactions explain the weirdness of quantum mecahnics


Read more at: 
http://phys.org/news/2014-10-interacting-worlds-theory-scientists-interaction.html#jCp

Griffith University academics are challenging the foundations of quantum 
science with a radical new theory based on the existence of, and interactions 
between, parallel universes.

In a paper published in the prestigious journal Physical Review X, Professor 
Howard Wiseman and Dr Michael Hall from Griffith's Centre for Quantum Dynamics, 
and Dr Dirk-Andre Deckert from the University of California, take interacting 
parallel worlds out of the realm of science fiction and into that of hard 
science.The team proposes that parallel universes really exist, and that they 
interact. That is, rather than evolving independently, nearby worlds influence 
one another by a subtle force of repulsion. They show that such an interaction 
could explain everything that is bizarre about quantum mechanicsQuantum theory 
is needed to explain how the universe works at the microscopic scale, and is 
believed to apply to all matter. But it is notoriously difficult to fathom, 
exhibiting weird phenomena which seem to violate the laws of cause and 
effect.As the eminent American theoretical physicist Richard Feynman once 
noted: "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum 
mechanics."However, the "Many-Interacting Worlds" approach developed at 
Griffith University provides a new and daring perspective on this baffling 
field."The idea of parallel universes in quantum mechanics has been around 
since 1957," says Professor Wiseman."In the well-known "Many-Worlds 
Interpretation", each universe branches into a bunch of new universes every 
time a quantum measurement is made. All possibilities are therefore realised – 
in some universes the dinosaur-killing asteroid missed Earth. In others, 
Australia was colonised by the Portuguese."But critics question the reality of 
these other universes, since they do not influence our universe at all. On this 
score, our "Many Interacting Worlds" approach is completely different, as its 
name implies."Professor Wiseman and his colleagues propose that:   
   - The universe we experience is just one of a gigantic number of worlds. 
Some are almost identical to ours while most are very different;
   - All of these worlds are equally real, exist continuously through time, and 
possess precisely defined properties;
   - All quantum phenomena arise from a universal force of repulsion between 
'nearby' (i.e. similar) worlds which tends to make them more dissimilar.
Dr Hall says the "Many-Interacting Worlds" theory may even create the 
extraordinary possibility of testing for the existence of other worlds."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," he says."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."The ability to 
approximate quantum evolution using a finite number of worlds could have 
significant ramifications in molecular dynamics, which is important for 
understanding chemical reactions and the action of drugs.Professor Bill 
Poirier, Distinguished Professor of Chemistry at Texas Tech University, has 
observed: "These are great ideas, not only conceptually, but also with regard 
to the new numerical breakthroughs they are almost certain to engender."

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.