Parallel Universes

From IFL Science, and nice piece which says maybe yes, maybe no...
Title seems a bit misleading (its not that new of a theory...):

New Theory Suggests Parallel Universes Interact With And Affect Our Own Universe

I find it somewhat amusing that one theoretical physicist would call another's paper a huge waste of time...

“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. In between it predicts something new that is neither Newton’s theory nor quantum theory,” Wiseman continued. “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.”

If you're Science-savvy, and have access, the full article in Physics review might be of more interest.

Unfortunately I've still to cover a lot before understanding this, but perhaps there somebody here who does. For that person I have two questions:

Is this hypothesis falsifiable, i.e. are there any predictions it does not make in hindsight only?

How can you measure time in units of momentum rather than in units of time?

Gisteron wrote: Unfortunately I've still to cover a lot before understanding this, but perhaps there somebody here who does. For that person I have two questions:

Is this hypothesis falsifiable, i.e. are there any predictions it does not make in hindsight only?

How can you measure time in units of momentum rather than in units of time?

Several scientists and institutions have proposed methods for testing these things, but as of yet there is no solid evidence either for or against any parallel reality hypotheses.

Unfortunately, we do not yet have enough understanding of time to measure it any way other than naked perception. In fact, we can't even be certain that time moves forward, or that it even moves at all.

Good questions both, not I who can help you with that... I suspect you're closer to succeeding than I

The first is foundational for any hypothesis, it must make accurate predictions, false and positive. In the article, the proponent acknowledges that testing the predictions is the next and greatest challenge for them. I didn't read far enough to see if they discussed your specific question.

As to the second, the actual how... "Go Fish"...!

Time as a unit is itself conceptual, based on an agreed definition, I think currently on radioactive particle decay (correct me if wrong)... As such, could not the units be re-calibrated by agreement? Once again, that doesn't provide a how...

Jay-Ro wrote: Several scientists and institutions have proposed methods for testing these things, but as of yet there is no solid evidence either for or against any parallel reality hypotheses.

Irrelevant. The hypothesis is not about parallel realities (whatever that means), and not even parallel universes (which seem to be implied by a good number of models that seem to do other predictions right). Rather, it was about the interaction between the universes. Now, how would one possibly distinguish a universe that is interacting with others to produce the unintuitive effects we keep finding from one that is working with weird and complicated quantum dynamics of its own? What would a non-interacting, isolated universe look like? Well, they tell us: classical, Newtonian. Now, again, I know way too little about physics to comment, but I do know enough about logic to smell what is commonly known as ' Begging The Question '.

"The universe is not purely Newtonian because it interacts with others for it would be purely Newtonian if it didn't."

Unfortunately, we do not yet have enough understanding of time to measure it any way other than naked perception.

Which is wrong, of course. Not only can we measure classical time and express it in multiples of a predefined time interval, we became so used to it that we gave that task over to machines that keep doing it in our stead. And as if that was not enough, we also happen to know not only that time is relative but also by how much. We tend to define a constant unit of time and velocity in order to derive units of other dimensions from them. However, since we know the relativistic relationships between the dimensions, we could define, say, mass or distance as constant and derive time from that. We know not only that time is warped by gravity, we even know by how much it is so with an incredible precision.

In fact, we can't even be certain that time moves forward, or that it even moves at all.

No, that is not at all a fact, because a fact is a statement that is either not in dispute because of the sheer amount of evidence in its favor or indisputable in that it is an analytic proposition that follows necessarily from its premises. A fact is either true or evidently true. What you said is neither, and here is why: Motion is defined as difference of location over time difference. We know that time does not move forward (as if 'forward' was a direction absent a defined spatial axis) because it does not move in the first place. 'Moving time' is a combination of two words that, to a physicist, is as meaningless as it is incoherent.

Moving on.


Time is not a unit. It is a dimension. There are different units of time used for different purposes. The standard unit of time within the international system of units is the second and it is (nowadays) defined as somewhat above the nine-billion-fold (you can look up the exact number, if you wish) of the period of the radiation corresponding to the ground state hyperfine level transitions of 133Cs. So, yes, it is a radiation thing, and yes, that is a mere definition that was agreed upon because it seems one with the least inaccuracy as of yet. One could use a different one, if one so wished but it would be a multiple of a second just like the foot is a multiple of a meter and the pound is a multiple of the kilogram. A day, to give an example, is not (anymore) defined as the period of earths rotation but rather as 86400 seconds.

Anyway, the point of my question about the unit of time was this: In some of the diagrams they showed to illustrate their simulations, the time unit used was the reduced planck constant over 2 meters, which amounts to about 5.27E-35 J*s/m = 5.27E-35 s*kg*m^2/(s^2*m) = 5.27E-35 m*kg/s which is a product of speed and mass and is therefore a unit of the absolute value of momentum. A unit of time is not a multiple of a meter and kilogram divided by a second.

How antagonistic.

I see now that I misunderstood the nature of your question, and I apologize for answering irrelevantly. We seem to be coming at these things from entirely different angles, Gisteron - your's purely scientific and mine employing a philosophical approach. I regret that I have nothing more to offer on the subject.

I wish you luck in finding the answers that you seek.

Jay-Ro

Jay-Ro, don't be overly concerned by blunt assessments of statements you've made. The rebuttal was to the statement, not to you. Ego should have no place in scientific discussions (unless the inquiry is about your ego)...

I learn far more from mistakes than acing-it the first time around...

Science and Philosophy are not a duality. Science is a Philosophy. It refers to a philosophical set of ideals and approaches for inquiry into the world around us.

I appreciate you giving Gisteron some fodder as it is a chance to gain some further insight into the question.

always be prepared to throw yourself under the bus in the name of science!

I can't access it but I doubt I'd understand it if I could! Where I'm up to on thinking about it is asking myself what makes universes 'parallel'.

So my thinking is that it cannot be a spatial assessment I don't think, else they'd be the same universe wouldn't they? So perhaps a multi-universe is a universe of universes operating at different rates of change (time), each therefore with a subsequent spatial domain/dimension of their own.

Then my first thought was what might make parallel universes parallel is the same rate of change (time), but by my own cobblestone theory would then suggest two parallel universes would be the same universe - which leads to me to assume the difference must be some type of boundary between them. That is the best I could come up (guess) with so far.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIFALPsI6AM