Do parallel universes exist?

Why is everything based on what a human thinks is important? Are you implying that humans are the only life forms that are aware that there is a universe, and if humans can't in some way touch, see, or understand something then it is therefor irrelevant?

I did not mean to imply that we are the only life in the universe, or even the only self-aware/introspective life on this planet. I can't see gravity, but I can observe it's effect, even more so, I can't see or feel radio waves. A better example, quarks; we can't see or touch quarks (ignoring for a moment that you can touch anything that is matter made up of large collections of them, but you can't grab an individual quark). I consent that there is a thing that fits the description that we have collectively named 'quarks', and they are therefore relivant. However, if something can never interact with anything in this universe, irreguardless of whether it is understood, then I ask you; how is it relevant? Because unless it is possible to produce some expirential data it will never anything more than a hypothetical.
It took over 2000 years between the conceptualization of the atom (which translates to undevidable, and appearently is not) until we were able to produce an image of a molecule using an electron microscope (which turned out to support Bohr's model).
Atom was a name given to a thing that theoretically should exist based avalible data. I.e. I see and can touch a thing, I can divide that thing into smaller things, there seems like there should be a piece so small that it can't be devided, we will call that thing un-dividable; or in greek 'atom'.
I am within a thing, I will call this thing the universe and define it as everything. That raises the question is there anything outside of everything? My question is (and I know I'm not the first one to ask), if a thing is not part of 'everything', doesn't that make it irrelevant? It cannot be proven or dissproven if it is not within the bounds of so called 'everything'.

Thank you for your reply I understand what you are saying. I must admit that I see some of this different because I am not educated in science. I have read science on my own.

I also look at the universe from a spirit point of view. Since I am only 60 years old, that is I have been in this body of mine 60 Earth years. I don't even if I can't really prove it, can't accept the thought that in all the billions of years that the universe has existed that this is the only existence that I have ever known.

I have experienced out of body travel, and that It is an easy thing to experience. Many people have also experience it. Writers who have experienced it have reported it to be a parallel universe experience. There are scientific studies of it. During the Cold War the USSR and the USA looked into for the purpose of espionage.

There are many planes of existence, but we as humans on the so called earth plane only believe human related things that can be proved by science that is published by scientists. I think that this is a very narrow view point.

The big pieces of the puzzle like 95% of matter missing should of been headline news.

Heres another one do you know on Saturn south or north pole there is a PERFECT hexagon ? Forget size but very large only heard and seen pix of it on history ch once ...it looks like a 1000 sq mile- L'n wrench would fit perfectly to unscrew planets' top ...

I used to tell this to people all the time, but every time I'm sick with a really bad cold it sure feels like a physical universe for real.

Nature is not a person, and things do not exist because someone finds them necessary.

"Parallel Universes" and "Multiple Universes" are two different phrases for the same thing.

The concept that there are some that are almost identical to our own is simply based on probability- like that an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters given an infinite amount of time will eventually recreate the complete works of Shakespeare.

Say 100,000 people all think that something is necessary, and they all agree to focus on that one idea. Do you think that their idea can't come into being?

That would depend on the idea, and if those 100,000 people do something more than simply think about it.

If the idea is outlandish, like breaking the laws of physics, then no, it cannot come into being.

And if the idea is possible then If they don't get off their bums and do something to make their idea a reality, it will not come into being- unless coincidentally, some other group does the work for them!

But, that has nothing to do with what I wrote anyway.

What I was saying is that things do not SIMPLY exist because someone finds them necessary, meaning many things exist even though we do not consider them necessary.

For example, buildings exist because someone found them necessary, and then they built them.

Roaches exist, even though no human being finds them necessary.

The human appendix exists, even though it is not necessary.

Glenn Beck exists, even though he is not necessary.

Nature is a mechanism that works towards perfection and is constantly changing and evolving. If something exists in Nature that serves no real purpose to that ends, it is done away with entirely, hence the statement I made. Parallel Universes, however described or debated, are not necessary. And if they were a reality, Nature would only use them as a means of finding the right 'combinations' for perfection. Which would suck, since once that perfection is found in one 'verse', all the other 'verses' would be discarded.

And no, 'Parallel Universes' and 'Multiple Universes' are not the same thing. 'Multiple Universes' are many universes of galaxies with solar systems, planets and life within the same cosmos, but in different points in space and time.

A 'Parallel Universe' runs 'parallel' to our own and differs as much as the ability of Nature to differ within the realm of probability. Also these universes occupy the same point in space and time. You may be thinking of the similarities of 'Parallel Universes' and 'Multi-dimensional Theory'.

And yes, I suppose given enough time and 'chances', a gang of monkeys could bang-out a Shakespearian play, which is not far from having a couple 'animals' typing on computers made by other 'animals'.

I was refering to Nature, not to 'someone'.

And buildings (dwellings) are necessary for our survival as a species, so yes, necessary. Roaches have a role, just like everything else on Earth. Also, people are being born now without their appendix, so you're right there...they aren't necessary.

You got me on the Glenn Beck part though. I fear his only purpose is to piss me off.

Unfortunately no.

When it comes to Nature, we decide nothing. We're merely along for the ride.

Are the laws of physics exactly the same in all of everything?

We do a lot more than just ride along with nature, we are in the process of removing all of natures lifeforms from their existence.

Not sure what you mean.

We kill other species, yes. Just like other species kill other species. We will eventually (hopefully) get past our destructive urges. It would be very unlikely that we would survive as a species long enough to venture into space, meet other species and want to kill them. Making the commitment to explore space would require an open mind, both on Earth and in distant solar systems.

When I stated, 'riding along', it simply means that we exist only as long as Nature allows. Our species is not prepared to thwart an E.L.E., nor can we adapt fast enough to survive after one has already occured.

Nature does not work towards perfection- Evolution is not goal driven. It is simply adaptation based on current circumstances, and that adaptation is done in whatever kludgy way happens to result in survival.

Nature does not experiment with combinations toward perfection, because Nature is not a person, and nature does not have goals and plans.

Again, it is not about purpose at all, it is about survival. No greater plan, it is simply individual self intrest.

Roaches survive, so they exist. They have a knack at surviving. They don't provide benefit for "nature", they just exist.

Viruses and bacteria survive, and by doing so kill plants, animals and humans. They can even wipe out millions, even whole species go extinct because of diseases.

No plan, no necessity, no perfection, just two different forms of life fighting for survival, and one wins.

As for the terms "Parallel Universe" and "Multiple Universe", read the article. Look up the terms. They both mean the same thing, and both terms are used interchangeably for assorted different multiverse models.

It's irrelevant to the fact that people cannot visualize something into being.

The laws of physics are exactly the same everywhere in our universe, thus anywhere 100,000 people can get together to agree on visualizing something.

In other universes there can be different laws of physics, but if 100,000 creatures of that universe get together and visualize, they still can't make something come into being that breaks their laws of physics, whatever they happen to be.

And, like I said, no visualization results in change without action, and action is always based on a cause and effect relationship, based on the laws of physics.

I'll have to leave the 'terms' as a matter of opinion. I've had discussions with many 'thinkers' and those are the terms/definitions we use when discussing the matter.

Though you cannot see a 'goal' of Nature, I can. For example, the humanistic goal for our technology is eventually to create A.I.. In short, machines that are aware of themselves. Nature is a machine as well, chugging along eon after eon, assembling and disassembling. Were you see only probability, I see purpose. Because here we sit, products of Nature, talking about Nature. Nature is aware of itself because we are discussing it right now. That is purpose, not an accident. Life on this planet went through stage upon stage to get us to this point of awareness. Imagine what we'll be like in another thousand years. Or two thousand.

Nature is a machine of trial and error, however Nature does not 'keep' things in error, they are discarded. Humans (in general) fit a specific purpose in the Naturalistic design, or we would be discarded as well. But we are not perfect. Nature will continue to mold us into smarter and (hopefully) more rational beings.

And we'll have to agree to disagree on the point of things 'just existing'. My understanding of Nature (through simple observation) is that it 'chooses' what to keep and what to discard. Roaches survive because Nature gave them the tools to survive, but not the tools to contemplate their own existance like humans or the tools to prevent being stepped on, which may come later. :) And roaches fit into a role, just like all other forms of life on this planet. Diseases are merely tools used by Nature to benefit those who survive them.

"As for the terms "Parallel Universe" and "Multiple Universe", read the article. Look up the terms. They both mean the same thing, and both terms are used interchangeably for assorted different multiverse models."

They don't mean the same thing for everyone, they may mean the same thing for you and others. There are many other people who don't agree with the finite of these meanings.

You are basing your views on science, and science is nothing more than research into discovering what is.

Science has proved that certain facts exist, but these facts existed before they were discovered by a human using science to prove that they do in fact exist.

I think that the little man on planet earth does not have all of the answers yet.

The Universe is to vast to assume that views from one grain of sand equal all of the grains of sand in the Universe.

I agree with you about nature having meaning beyond just existing on the basis of survival, and mankind is just as much a part of nature as a rock is, let alone as a plant.

I don't see human kind existing in a thousand years because nature will discard it long before that. As long as humans think that nature was made just for them to do with it as they so please, human kind is doomed. Nature can't adapt as fast as human kind can kill it. Human kind is a rather dumb being to not figure this fact out.

Yes you are right too...

thank you Senjir for posting this comment-quote....i have long been a follower of Dr.Kaku

I love his work and have his books Physics of the impossible and Physics of the future...both great reads.

You are 100% right, but there is no reason to prove any theories related to how big the universes is, because how could there be an end to it, and if there was an end to it. What would be on the other side of this so called end? Could there be nothing on the other side? What would this nothing be made of? Any way I'm sure you fully understand what I'm saying. The flaw in my thinking can only be challenged by a christen.

It has been expirentially determined that the matter in our universe has escape velocity (it is traveling fast enough that there will be no 'big crunch'); moreover, it appears that we are continueing to accelarate. Therefore according to Einstienian mechanics as we approach the finite speed of light the passage of time will decrease and as a result there is a finite distance from galactic central point that can be reached.
In other words, it appears that the size of the universe is limited.
As for what is on the other side of this theoritical boundry, that is irrelivant, becuase we can never react with anything beyond the limits of a singularity. It helps me to visualize this model as the inside of a black hole, from our exterior perspective we cannot reach the inside (and hypothetically if all matter is a manifestation of pressure boundries then a "full' universe would look exactly the same as an "empty" one).

.
.
horray!... the spammer was booted...
.

I don't know if what you have stated is a parallel universe, but I do agree with what you have stated. No matter what views I have about life, when I am out where there are very few lights and I can look up at the sky at night and see all of the those stars. I feel so grand about life, and I can't believe that my existence is only limited to just this life that is taking place right now on planet Earth...

No, that's not a parallel universe.

Plus, the earth, is not from forever or eternal.

The earth is 4.54 billion years old, and can be destroyed by any of a number of disasters.

Plus, it will definitely eventually die, when the sun dies in 5 billion years or so.

We have plenty of time, but it's not eternal.

you have been flagged as a spammer

That is not precisely Greene's position re: 'parallel' or 'alternate' universes. Greene believes that even in 'infinite' universes, the number of 'ways' in which matter can arrange itself is finite. Eventually, a 'universe' is repeated. Such a parallel universe would look very much like the one we live in. Therefore, Greene says: if the universe is infinitely large, it is also home to infinite parallel universes. As a 'string theorist', he believes that apparent conflicts between current cosmology (Relativity theory) and quantum mechanics is resolved with string theory --his 'specialty' for the past 25 years.

Greene believes that the entire universe is explained with 'small strings' vibrating in as many as 11 dimensions. Moreover, within our 'single' universe 'time' is relative to where you are and how fast you are going at any given instant. Ergo: time is local even within the 'single' universe we live in. For example, time is slower for anyone who is moving. Einstein imagined a street car leaving the clock tower in Bern. As long as his speed was less than that of light, the clock viewed from the street car would appear to be moving forward, marking the 'forward' progress of time. But --should the street car exceed the speed of light, the hands of the clock would appear to go backward as the street car --at hyper-space velocities --actually catches up with and passes light beams. Because time and space are a continuum, time is different for anyone standing in the square in front of the famous Bern clock tower however minuscule the differences in time may be.

This effect can be simulated in an oscillator and with an old 33 and a third RPM album turntable with a disc of concentric hash marks calibrated to appear stationary under florescent (pulsing) light. If the turntable is too slow, the hash marks will appear to rotate in one direction; if too fast in the opposite direction. At the desired turntable speed, the hashmarks will appear absolutely motionless. By the same token, 'time' STOPS for one traveling at the speed of light. The down side is that many other unfortunate things will happen to you at that speed. So --don't try this at home or without the supervision of experts.

Not to challenge what your saying, but to offer a different point of view. When one is in an out of body state one can be in a parallel world. I once traveled to friends house while out of body. As I traveled I gazed about and every building was a few hundred years old. So it seemed to me that I was back in time traveling across a landscape that resembled the same landscape around my house except that the man made structures were from the distant past. This would seem to be a Parallel Universe because I was in it as well.

that is so bitterly true...what I am doing right now, actually.

No, he's not, there will be many false prophets in the End Times. He is just one of them. Benjamin Creme's Maitreya is another. He has interesting things to say but he is not the return of Christ for many reasons.

ZING! :-0

Great post, Vierotchka. I think Barbour is correct and the interesting thing about it is that he is consistent with Einstein. Einstein posits that time is merely one's 'local' movement relative to the speed of light (the famous analogy re: the Bern Clock Tower). Barbour believes the past, present and future are all existent in what may be called a timeless 'super-verse'. Barbour posits a series of "Nows" like individual frames on a motion picture film strip. 'Nows' exist for actual events but, interestingly, many 'nows' are alternate possibilities, i.e, virtual universes. This view is consistent with Einstein's analogy re: the Bern clock tower. To use Barbour's film strip analogy, NOW is a single frame, the universe --the entire film strip. Parallel universes may be compared to alternate 'film strips', thus Barbour's views are consistent with Greene's idea of 'parallel' universes. If Barbour's 'timeless' universe 'is' a 'film-strip', then Greene's parallel universes is a shelf full of FILM STRIP CANNISTERS --each containing a feature-length film (a universe). I nominate GOD for an OSCAR!

i lol'd

How do you know?

Indeed, I wonder if some of the crop circles are an attempt to communicate "through the membrane", as it were. I know many of them are hoaxes, but some???

Yes, overlapping dimensions would make more sense than physically traveling light years across space. But the latter is a pretty outlandish claim as it is. It's like saying a broken foot is better than a broken leg. It's better, but not by much.

That's what I've been thinkin about ufos. Ghosts too

Very well put. Love the Flatland analogy; it's so perfect.

Reminiscent of the holographic universe idea. Our perception of a three dimensional universe is actually a holographic projection of the cosmic microwave background radiation where everything, including us, exists in two dimensions.

lets see how many we can count (since a dimension is essential something you can measure)
xyz and time, that's 4
velocity of each position and the rate of passage of time (which is a strange concept in itself, becuase what do you use as a base of reference?, but it is a valid measurement if you can figure out how to measure it, that is to say we know it exists. Think of the current time as a position and the rate that time passes as a velocity), that makes 8
rate of spin, which can be expressed as two angle and an amplitude or the amplitudes of three vectors tangential to the surface of a sphere, but either way it takes three quantities so that's 11 in total now
accelaration of each velocity (we have 3 positional velocities, 3 rotational velocities, and since we know that time does not pass at an equal rate for all bodies there is logically a rate of change in the speed with which time passes, think of it as acceleration/decelleration of time), so I think that is 18 dimensions.