EVE Search - Oxford scientists says parallel universes are real

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Oxford scientists says parallel universes are real

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2007.09.27 08:26:00 - [1] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 27/09/2007 08:30:33 I found these videos when looking around for more information about the parallel universes that Oxford scientists have proved to exist. I know a lot of you people reading this want "credible" sources from major universities, so hopefully this source will satisfy you and not get me flamed. Then, if you want to know more about how this knowledge was lost before, you can watch these videos. They are NOT scientific so feel free to ignore if you dont like that sort of thing. Part 1 of Lost Secrets of the Sacred Arc Part 2 of Lost Secrets of the Sacred Arc --- The Disclosure Project \| My UFO Thread (read it!)
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2007.09.27 08:43:00 - [2] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 27/09/2007 08:47:10 This may or may not be related to the above, but have a look at this short animated video showing how electrons actually change behavior when being observed. I think its very cool. :) Video: Double split experiment Check the wikipedia page about it here. --- The Disclosure Project \| My UFO Thread (read it!)
Ray McCormack hirr	Posted - 2007.09.27 09:07:00 - [3] While there may be some theory regarding its existence on a sub-atomic level (which is of course pure speculation and subject to numerous other theories), there is nothing to suggest it continues in any form we would recognise as being real. Ask me about Secured ISK Loans from the BMBE.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2007.09.27 09:18:00 - [4] /me scratches head... Well, those things are related, but the first link article probably draws a much too hasty conclusion. What they say is that they now FINALLY have a mathematical model that MIGHT explain "it" IF the multi-world theory correct. There's a lot of if and iff statements in there still needing a boolean value assigned to them, and the jury's still out on the truth. Also, there's no "unrefutable" evidence of quantum effects proving/implying/correlating with the multi-world theory being correct (talking about the double-slit experiment). On the other hand, ever felt like you're incredibly lucky all the time ? I know I certainly do, quite often too. Still, the "you" reading this might see it as me saying "incredibly unlucky" (and the last quotation reading "incredibly lucky") instead, and you disagreeing with me, because your version is the lucky one in your "multiverse" version and vice-versa... and the "me" me being unable to communicate this to you in any other way but a completely entangled and uncertain way which leaves no room for you to know wether we're both in the same or different universes, either talking stupid or having an enlightening transplanar chatter. /me feels head spinning. Too much coffeeeee's bad for you ! _ [CNVTF] is recruiting \| Char creation guide \| Stack-nerfing explained
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2007.09.27 09:31:00 - [5] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 27/09/2007 09:32:41 Originally by: Akita T On the other hand, ever felt like you're incredibly lucky all the time ? I know I certainly do, quite often too. Still, the "you" reading this might see it as me saying "incredibly unlucky" (and the last quotation reading "incredibly lucky") instead, and you disagreeing with me, because your version is the lucky one in your "multiverse" version and vice-versa... and the "me" me being unable to communicate this to you in any other way but a completely entangled and uncertain way which leaves no room for you to know wether we're both in the same or different universes, either talking stupid or having an enlightening transplanar chatter. /me feels head spinning. Too much coffeeeee's bad for you ! No, I rarely feel lucky... I usually feel that Im constantly fighting to get where I want. But then again, I think im on the wrong track. Im a computer programmer, but I would really like to work as something else. Unfortunately, in this society, its difficult to change career with a long education specific for a certain career. I have this passion for wanting to know more about the universe and UFO's and how it all comes together, but its kind of difficult to work and get paid doing something like that. --- The Disclosure Project \| My UFO Thread (read it!)
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2007.09.27 09:40:00 - [6] See, that's EXACTLY what a "unhappy you in my happy me universe" would have said Now assume all "logic" is inverted for you, and replace all instances of "happy/hucky" with "unhappy/unlucky" and see what I mean _ [CNVTF] is recruiting \| Char creation guide \| Stack-nerfing explained
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2007.09.27 09:42:00 - [7] Originally by: Akita T See, that's EXACTLY what a "unhappy you in my happy me universe" would have said Now assume all "logic" is inverted for you, and replace all instances of "happy/hucky" with "unhappy/unlucky" and see what I mean Yeah, it makes my head spin. --- The Disclosure Project \| My UFO Thread (read it!)
Indra Sebuchiore Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2007.09.27 10:03:00 - [8] This article doesn't give any new information from what was originally proposed as part of the 'many worlds' theory decades ago. I'm not saying the new mathematical proof doesn't shed any new light on the hypothesis, but if it was as important as the popular press claimed there would be a much greater buzz in the academic world over this. As far as I can tell without looking into the maths fully it's merely a confirmation that this theory does successfully give a mathematical explanation for certain quantum mechanical problems, however that's not to say it's the only solution to the given problems, or the entirely correct. As always with physics, new solutions, usually more elegant will be found and old ideas surpassed. And of course, we should not forget to liberally apply Occam's Razor in a situation like this: the many worlds theory is the direct antitheses of simplicity that the physics community strives for, the very nature of it's complexity sets off warning bells to anyone who looks at the problem logically. That's not to say it isn't extremely interesting, and I for one would find the existence of alternate universes highly fascinating, but let's not spring to claiming something is proven when it isn't and there's clearly a lot more theoretical and empirical research to be done on this. sometimes Jim I get the impression that you're so desperately eager for outlandish things to be true that you immediately jump on the first misleading popular press article as vindication of your beliefs. You should remember that if you really want to be objective, like all good scientists strive for, you should try and disregard any preconceived beliefs you may have when evaluating a given piece of information. It'll lead you into a lot fewer pitfalls when searching for the truth. __________________________________________ "In girum imus nocte, et consumimur igni."
Mary Makepeace Caldari Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.09.27 10:12:00 - [9] also a mathematical model that quantum probabilities can be explained by a multiple universe arrangement is a very far cry from saying that other universes are accessible from this one. most likely the model depends on them actually being inaccessible.
Kirjava Lothian Quay Industries Zzz	Posted - 2007.09.27 10:19:00 - [10] Originally by: Mary Makepeace also a mathematical model that quantum probabilities can be explained by a multiple universe arrangement is a very far cry from saying that other universes are accessible from this one. most likely the model depends on them actually being inaccessible. True. If this were so, it could be hypothosised that numerous hypothetical techknowlogies could be asertained by concentrating on way's of hacking into a parrelel internet where fusion power, nanotechnology ect existed. There may even be a universe in which Ringo Star was a good drummer. Originally by: CCP Morpheus Post with your alt.
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2007.09.27 10:23:00 - [11] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 27/09/2007 10:27:29 Edited by: Jim McGregor on 27/09/2007 10:23:57 Originally by: Indra Sebuchiore sometimes Jim I get the impression that you're so desperately eager for outlandish things to be true that you immediately jump on the first misleading popular press article as vindication of your beliefs. You should remember that if you really want to be objective, like all good scientists strive for, you should try and disregard any preconceived beliefs you may have when evaluating a given piece of information. It'll lead you into a lot fewer pitfalls when searching for the truth. Well, to me these things are not outlandish at all. :) Its probably the same feeling you have about Occam's Razor or Drakes Equation. You believe in those, right? --- The Disclosure Project \| My UFO Thread (read it!)
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova KIA Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.27 11:17:00 - [12] Originally by: Kirjava Originally by: Mary Makepeace also a mathematical model that quantum probabilities can be explained by a multiple universe arrangement is a very far cry from saying that other universes are accessible from this one. most likely the model depends on them actually being inaccessible. True. If this were so, it could be hypothosised that numerous hypothetical techknowlogies could be asertained by concentrating on way's of hacking into a parrelel internet where fusion power, nanotechnology ect existed. There may even be a universe in which Ringo Star was a good drummer. or John Lennon was a warmonger. --- planetary interaction idea!
Craig Ankers Coalition of Inter-Galactic Addicted Rodents	Posted - 2007.09.27 12:34:00 - [13] Excerlent op Jim, v interesting indeed.
Thanos Draicon	Posted - 2007.09.27 14:26:00 - [14] Well if there are infinite parallel universes, that opens up an entire list of truly bizarre occurances. For example, in one parallel universe, my existence could be that of a potted plant with eyeballs and a brain. Fascinating stuff, eh?
Indra Sebuchiore Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2007.09.27 14:50:00 - [15] Originally by: Jim McGregor Well, to me these things are not outlandish at all. :) Its probably the same feeling you have about Drakes Equation. You believe in that, right? Its interesting that you say "you should try and disregard any preconceived beliefs you may have when evaluating a given piece of information" when stuff like Drakes equation are in fact completely dependent on earlier theories in order to be correct. The Drakes equation is intended to provide an estimate only, also it involves factors we don't actually know yet, or at least to nowhere near an acceptable errorlevel. There's nothing wrong with planning out a framework for when we do know these values, though There's nothing to 'believe' in, it's simply a handy model devised to give an estimate. Originally by: Jim McGregor We are now in a time where "known" scientific truths are going to be challenged by new theories which do a better job at describing reality in my opinion. Yes, and we have been in this time ever since the Scientific method was espoused in the Renaissance. That's exactly the point of scientific progress: we devise new theories and models which surpass the old ones in describing the universe. For example, Newton's laws of gravity are only correct for a given value of "correct", they have since been surpassed by Einstein's work, and this in turn has been refined since. There is no "end result" in science (except for maybe the Theory of Everything in theoretical physics, but that's a long way off even if it does exist), only a series of evolutionary, and often revolutionary, steps to lead us into an ever more accurate description of the universe and ever more accurate models of it on which to advance our knowledge - and technology - to the next step. __________________________________________ "In girum imus nocte, et consumimur igni."
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2007.09.27 14:53:00 - [16] Edited by: Jim McGregor on 27/09/2007 14:54:43 Originally by: Indra Sebuchiore Yes, and we have been in this time ever since the Scientific method was espoused in the Renaissance. That's exactly the point of scientific progress: we devise new theories and models which surpass the old ones in describing the universe. For example, Newton's laws of gravity are only correct for a given value of "correct", they have since been surpassed by Einstein's work, and this in turn has been refined since. There is no "end result" in science (except for maybe the Theory of Everything in theoretical physics, but that's a long way off even if it does exist), only a series of evolutionary, and often revolutionary, steps to lead us into an ever more accurate description of the universe and ever more accurate models of it on which to advance our knowledge - and technology - to the next step. Well, in a way we have, but I think the theory of parallel universes pretty much puts a lot of the current science on its head, doesnt it? If there is such a thing, who is to say its impossible to move from one universe to another? Or between dimensions. According to string theory, there are 10 dimensions + 1 for time. Its all very interesting stuff, isnt it? :) --- The Disclosure Project \| My UFO Thread (read it!)
Sharupak Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.09.27 14:58:00 - [17] Originally by: Jim McGregor Edited by: Jim McGregor on 27/09/2007 14:54:43 Originally by: Indra Sebuchiore Yes, and we have been in this time ever since the Scientific method was espoused in the Renaissance. That's exactly the point of scientific progress: we devise new theories and models which surpass the old ones in describing the universe. For example, Newton's laws of gravity are only correct for a given value of "correct", they have since been surpassed by Einstein's work, and this in turn has been refined since. There is no "end result" in science (except for maybe the Theory of Everything in theoretical physics, but that's a long way off even if it does exist), only a series of evolutionary, and often revolutionary, steps to lead us into an ever more accurate description of the universe and ever more accurate models of it on which to advance our knowledge - and technology - to the next step. Well, in a way we have, but I think the theory of parallel universes pretty much puts a lot of the current science on its head, doesnt it? If there is such a thing, who is to say its impossible to move from one universe to another? Or between dimensions. According to string theory, there are 10 dimensions + 1 for time. Its all very interesting stuff, isnt it? :) You cant say that about science JIM! That blasph...oops, almost got two things confused there! This stuff is being met with some resistance but really more indifference and nonresponse. _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude.
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2007.09.27 14:59:00 - [18] Originally by: Sharupak You cant say that about science JIM! That blasph...oops, almost got two things confused there! This stuff is being met with some resistance but really more indifference and nonresponse. Im not against science when it makes sense. :) --- The Disclosure Project \| My UFO Thread (read it!)
Thanos Draicon	Posted - 2007.09.27 15:01:00 - [19] Originally by: Jim McGregor Well, in a way we have, but I think the theory of parallel universes pretty much puts a lot of the current science on its head, doesnt it? If there is such a thing, who is to say its impossible to move from one universe to another? Or between dimensions. According to string theory, there are 10 dimensions + 1 for time. I don't think it'll freak people out too much yet - after all, it's only a theory that suggests parallel universes exist. Now, if someone can create a theory that suggests we're actually capable of visiting them, you will see lots of freaking out by scientists and the community in general. Quote: Its all very interesting stuff, isnt it? :) It seems that all this new science is very difference to what we know today, and opens up for a completely different understanding. True...we've gone from looking at the sky and wondering where the rain comes from to trying to understand the event that brought everything we know to exist into existance. Crazy stuff.
Sharupak Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.09.27 15:04:00 - [20] Originally by: Jim McGregor Originally by: Sharupak You cant say that about science JIM! That blasph...oops, almost got two things confused there! This stuff is being met with some resistance but really more indifference and nonresponse. Im not against science when it makes sense. :) Couldnt have said it better myself! _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude.
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova KIA Alliance	Posted - 2007.09.27 15:19:00 - [21] Originally by: Jim McGregor Originally by: Sharupak You cant say that about science JIM! That blasph...oops, almost got two things confused there! This stuff is being met with some resistance but really more indifference and nonresponse. Im not against science when it makes sense. :) problem is, sometimes it doesn't makes sense! ...but that's usually the beholder's problem. remembers when he came up on contact with the Shr÷dinger's cat and several other quantum physics stuff shiver --- planetary interaction idea!
Craig Ankers Coalition of Inter-Galactic Addicted Rodents	Posted - 2007.09.27 15:35:00 - [22] Supriseingly enough u can but that stuff, thats crazy.
Craig Ankers Coalition of Inter-Galactic Addicted Rodents	Posted - 2007.09.27 19:08:00 - [23] Look the white gold powder up its like any suppliment promiceing the earth and beyond, we are that without false internet claims.
Mary Makepeace Caldari Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.09.27 19:10:00 - [24] Originally by: Jim McGregor Well, in a way we have, but I think the theory of parallel universes pretty much puts a lot of the current science on its head, doesnt it? nope, it was proposed almost 60 years ago. very far from modern. Originally by: Jim McGregor If there is such a thing, who is to say its impossible to move from one universe to another? if you look at the model, its definition will be based on the observation that there is no exchange between the universes. that the multiple universes are just a theoretical model to fulfil the diverse range of possible outcomes vs the observed outcome. as to the moving between dimentions, how can height become density for example? both are scalar dimesional values. this is what you are really saying with reference to dimentional shifts, it just doesn't occur.
Thanos Draicon	Posted - 2007.09.27 19:24:00 - [25] Originally by: Mary Makepeace Originally by: Jim McGregor Well, in a way we have, but I think the theory of parallel universes pretty much puts a lot of the current science on its head, doesnt it? nope, it was proposed almost 60 years ago. very far from modern. Originally by: Jim McGregor If there is such a thing, who is to say its impossible to move from one universe to another? if you look at the model, its definition will be based on the observation that there is no exchange between the universes. that the multiple universes are just a theoretical model to fulfil the diverse range of possible outcomes vs the observed outcome. But this is just part of the theory too - we now know that it's theoretically possible to travel faster than light, which we considered impossible 50 years ago. Perhaps the next theory would deal with this, whatever that theory may be. Quote: as to the moving between dimentions, how can height become density for example? I'm guessing in a way that is very unpleasant for anyone doing said shifting.
Sharupak Minmatar Knights Of the Black Sun Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.09.27 19:29:00 - [26] Edited by: Sharupak on 27/09/2007 19:34:30 Originally by: Thanos Draicon Originally by: Mary Makepeace Originally by: Jim McGregor Well, in a way we have, but I think the theory of parallel universes pretty much puts a lot of the current science on its head, doesnt it? nope, it was proposed almost 60 years ago. very far from modern. Originally by: Jim McGregor If there is such a thing, who is to say its impossible to move from one universe to another? if you look at the model, its definition will be based on the observation that there is no exchange between the universes. that the multiple universes are just a theoretical model to fulfil the diverse range of possible outcomes vs the observed outcome. But this is just part of the theory too - we now know that it's theoretically possible to travel faster than light, which we considered impossible 50 years ago. Perhaps the next theory would deal with this, whatever that theory may be. Quote: as to the moving between dimentions, how can height become density for example? I'm guessing in a way that is very unpleasant for anyone doing said shifting. Columbus took months to cross the atlantic, now it takes us hours. Why? Not because we have ships that go 200 times faster, but because we have airplanes. Columbus probably thought about flying kinda like we are looking at alternate dimensions. Eventually someone successfully figured out how to emulate a bird. In our case, it will take a long time, but we will do the same thing. The very cool mind trick is that this means that nothing thought of is a lie, impossible, wishful thinking, wrong...or nothing thought of is a lie, impossible, wishful thinking, wrong. Which I will segway to a quote about some woman I know nothing about but makes and absolutely true statement... "Our worst fear is not that we are inadequate, our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure." -Marianne Williamson _______________________________________________ RuntimeError: ChainEvent is blocking by design, but you're block trapped. You have'll have to find some alternative means to do Your Thing, dude.
Mary Makepeace Caldari Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.09.27 19:46:00 - [27] Originally by: Thanos Draicon But this is just part of the theory too - we now know that it's theoretically possible to travel faster than light, which we considered impossible 50 years ago. Perhaps the next theory would deal with this, whatever that theory may be. nope. take a look at that science again. relativity is still the strongest model.
Mary Makepeace Caldari Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.09.27 20:00:00 - [28] Originally by: Columbus took months to cross the atlantic, now it takes us hours. Why? Not because we have ships that go 200 times faster, but because we have airplanes. Columbus probably thought about flying kinda like we are looking at alternate dimensions. Eventually someone successfully figured out how to emulate a bird. In our case, it will take a long time, but we will do the same thing. nope, a dimention is an abstract mathimatical construct, each dimention is orthogonal to the next, so each dimention has zero presence in another. stuff moving faster is just that. a variation in velocity. moving across the sea vs moving in the air is just a variation in the phases of matter you are interacting with. the 'so and so' didn't know what we know now so anything is possible argument is weak. it has nothing to do with science at all. give me five miniuts with columbus and i can show him with evidence that the air and the sea and the surface between them are not dimentions. he woould prably say, well duh, i know that already as he had to have cartographers to get where he did. he would also understand that he does not travel into the map to move locations. which is more what you guys are saying. a hypothesis is based on observations. repeatable observations. maths is a tool for quantifying observations. if you want science to support your claims use scientific testable structures.
Caudex Caldari	Posted - 2007.09.27 20:14:00 - [29] nerds
Winters Chill Amarr Ministry of War	Posted - 2007.09.27 22:46:00 - [30] ^ I agree with him, although there is something very ironic about someone calling someone else a nerd on a forum for a game that involves spaceships and laser beams. Anyway, theoretical science is the biggest con out; a quantum physist gets "paid" to come up with theories on theories that explain things that are so sublime they have no practical use for the common good nor are they even observable. For all we proles know they could be making it all up. "Hmmm our theorys about the amount of matter in the Big Bang are wrong then eh? hmmm well it can't be us we are infallible our PHDs say so, yeah it must be all this "stuff" we missed, yeah thats it, "stuff" but um we can't see, detect or observe it in anyway. Yes I think i'll need another 5 years grant to study this, oh and Kev, you don't mind if I get a lexus do you. No? Great!"

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.