A New Theory On Parallel Worlds

[stromboli]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141030101654.htm

Scientists propose existence and interaction of parallel worlds: Many Interacting Worlds theory challenges foundations of quantum science
Date:
October 30, 2014

Academics are challenging the foundations of quantum science with a radical new theory on parallel universes. Scientists now propose that parallel universes really exist, and that they interact. They show that such an interaction could explain everything that is bizarre about quantum mechanics.

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 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 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."

As science fiction often does, books and shows have anticipated this idea. Terry Pratchett and Stephen Baxter's "Long Earth" series, now into 3 books, is based closely on this concept. The idea that by building a specific type of device you can sidestep into a world very much like our earth, with different conditions and in different stages of development or altered development. I think this is interesting because it opens a new dialogue, although I'm sure people on here with more knowledge than I will see problems with it, it is nonetheless interesting.

[josephpalazzo]

This is an example of what is disgusting in science - theories that are unobversable, undetectable and unfalsifiable. This is exactly why religion fails. A too many number of scientists are following that path. It's unfortunate.

[stromboli]

I expected this would draw criticism for exactly the reasons you mentioned. The interest to me, as stated, that it closely parallels an idea presented in sci fi by Terry Pratchett, et al. I'm interested in seeing the discussion that follows from the science community, though from your response, JP, it looks to be highly negative. Nonetheless I found it interesting from a lay point of view.

[Hydra009]

If our universe is interacting with at least one other universe, couldn't you run some sort of experiment to figure it out?

[Solitary]

It bothers me even more than Deepak Chopra does! First of all it is not a theory, and second of all it is no different than what Christianity says with no evidence to support it, because then we never die and just appear in another universe to be born again and again and again ad infin. Also, this idea that quantum mechanics is unpredictable is wrong, if it were insurance companies and gambling casinos would go broke. Cause and effect is not just this causes that, but trillions of events cause that. This kind of stuff is ad hoc ideas to explain what we don't know or understand.

[josephpalazzo]

I expected this would draw criticism for exactly the reasons you mentioned. The interest to me, as stated, that it closely parallels an idea presented in sci fi by Terry Pratchett, et al. I'm interested in seeing the discussion that follows from the science community, though from your response, JP, it looks to be highly negative. Nonetheless I found it interesting from a lay point of view.

The down side is that theists of all stripes, and others like Deepak Chopra, used this stuff seriously, and the naive and the gullible that pepper the landscape gobble that nonsense hook, line, and sinker.

If our universe is interacting with at least one other universe, couldn't you run some sort of experiment to figure it out?

Not that I know of. I don't know of any scientists who has proposed a scientific test that could falsify/unfalsify many of these multiverses, parallel universes, or many-worlds models. I surmise that many scientists publish this kind of stuff to shore up their academic credentials on the go that more papers you publish, more credible you are, when in reality, it puts them on a par with sensationalists like Deepak Chopra and Michio Kaku.

[Solitary]

Michio Kaku.  I couldn't agree more! Thanks!

[SGOS]

This is an example of what is disgusting in science - theories that are unobversable, undetectable and unfalsifiable. This is exactly why religion fails. A too many number of scientists are following that path. It's unfortunate.

Thanks.  I've often felt the same way about lots of so called theories that sound like junk science to me.  It's good to hear at least one scientist point this out.

[SGOS]

I expected this would draw criticism for exactly the reasons you mentioned. The interest to me, as stated, that it closely parallels an idea presented in sci fi by Terry Pratchett, et al. I'm interested in seeing the discussion that follows from the science community, though from your response, JP, it looks to be highly negative. Nonetheless I found it interesting from a lay point of view.

I started noticing this a lot in Stargate SG1.  At the time of it's release, they would refer to theory that I would not have been aware of at the time.  Now most of the scientific references in the series are mainstream and widely accepted.  It's like they had consultants comb through the science and generate episodes around them.  Sometimes they made references only in passing.

It's one of things I've always liked about science fiction.  The good stuff is usually a blend of actual science and fantasy.  Sometimes the only difference between the fiction and reality is that we haven't yet developed the technology.

[SGOS]

I don't know if it's just limited observations about specific people I know, but has anyone else noticed that many theists do not tolerate sci fi?  I've noticed that some reject it out of hand, often accompanied with a snobbish comment to the effect that they think sci fi is just silly.  Why would that be?  It's not like someone is asking them to believe in science fiction.  After all, it's called "fiction."  No one is trying to pass it off as real.  But I often pick up a disapproval, and they seem to take pride in their disapproval.

I've thought about bringing this up a while back.  Maybe I should have started a separate thread, but I'm not sure my sampling is large enough to be an accurate representation of theists in general.

[josephpalazzo]

I haven't met many myself, but just to take a wild guess, perhaps theists are often anti-science, and scifi relies heavily on science. Most scifi pay lip service to religion - it is often portayed as an artifact from the past, as unreliable, and so forth.

[Solitary]

Einstein hated science fiction, what's that tell you?

[PickelledEggs]

http://youtu.be/UGGS0YozIgk?t=4m29s

Did you say....... parallel world????????
(skip to 4:29.... for some reason, the time bookmarking thing didn't work....)

[stromboli]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sliders

Sliders

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

[SGOS]

Einstein hated science fiction, what's that tell you?

Well then, I'm going to hate it too.