so its the same fight over n over lol
Parallel Universes Proven?
- Thread starter Holliday
- Start date
so its the same fight over n over lol
It's just the bendy pencil trick/optical illusion, but with a tiny bit of metal instead.
Instead of them blabbering on about multiple universes and other nonsensicle bull-excrement maybe they should be more objective about what they are really observing.
Its simply the result of a very high frequency oscillation, normally, when you wave a stick back and forth, you can see the stick clearest at the extreme edges of each direction. Creating an illusion of 2 sticks, with a blurey bit in the middle. You can test this by waving your hand as fast as you can in a repetative motion infront of your own eyes. the 2 moments where your hand seems "whole" to your eye are the moments where your hand is occupying that region of space for the longest time compared to the whole oscillation.
All that has happened here is that the particular moment of longest pause, has been central, creating a nice illusion of "stationary" and "motion" occuring at the same time.
Fox news thought it would sound cool though, and get a bunch of nut-jobs to link to their site.
Guess it worked
Instead of them blabbering on about multiple universes and other nonsensicle bull-excrement maybe they should be more objective about what they are really observing.
Its simply the result of a very high frequency oscillation, normally, when you wave a stick back and forth, you can see the stick clearest at the extreme edges of each direction. Creating an illusion of 2 sticks, with a blurey bit in the middle. You can test this by waving your hand as fast as you can in a repetative motion infront of your own eyes. the 2 moments where your hand seems "whole" to your eye are the moments where your hand is occupying that region of space for the longest time compared to the whole oscillation.
All that has happened here is that the particular moment of longest pause, has been central, creating a nice illusion of "stationary" and "motion" occuring at the same time.
Fox news thought it would sound cool though, and get a bunch of nut-jobs to link to their site.
Guess it worked
No, not at all. Its just the word Proven is very very rarely used.
Oh, I know all about the theory and the rest of it, perhaps I should have phrased the statment a little better!
I was having a dig at Fox (News that is
).
No, not at all. Its just the word Proven is very very rarely used.
Oh, I know all about the theory and the rest of it, perhaps I should have phrased the statment a little better!
I was having a dig at Fox (News that is
Ah sorry, fair enough.
Read Chariots of the Gods. It explores the possibility that all the stories of "gods" from religious (and other) texts throughout history were in fact referring to encounters with a highly advanced alien species with incredible technology.
It could be their influence which guided us towards civilisation ~10,000 years ago. Then again it could all be rubbish, but it's a great read.
No, it is rubbish. Barely a single bit of it is actually as described by Von Daniken. Hardly surprising given that his entire scientific training was (I assume he is dead) as a hotel manager and he picked all his "facts" out of all the other crackpot books around at the time. Later on he graduated to making stuff up though.
M
"Fox news in misguided and attention grabbing headline shocker!"
The article is interesting, but the experiment it reports is just another small step forward. A rough summary of what's going on for those without any knowledge of quantum mechanics:
The Universe is not deterministic. When a tiny particle (like an atom, electron, or a small molecule) is observed, it collapses into one of many possible states. The probability of each possible state being realised can be assessed, but it is fundamentally impossible to predict precisely what state the particle will collapse into.
Anyway, there are lots of things which exhibit this kind of "quantum weirdness" in the smallest length and time scales. How this applies to the larger scales we experience in everyday life is not yet fully understood. In short, there are two competing theories: The Copenhagen interpretation assumes that unrealised states are removed from consideration within a quantum-mechanical system. A consequence of this is that a lot of the "quantum weirdness" is removed from macroscopic ('large') systems, such as those we can see with the naked eye.
On the other hand, the Many Worlds interpretation (due to the late Hugh Everett) assumes that every possible quantum state is realised somewhere, and that what we observe is just a particular configuration of quantum states. This treats the entire macroscopic system as an object experiencing only a particular set of quantum states. A natural consequence of the many-worlds interpretation is that an infinite number of parallel universes must exist.
Anyway, it's currently impossible for us to say for sure which interpretation is correct, although observing 'contradictory' quantum phenomena in ever-larger objects gives weight to the many worlds theory. From reading the article, it seems like this is the first time that such phenomena have been observed in an object which is visible to the naked eye. Not that "being visible to the naked eye" really has any scientific significance...
The article is interesting, but the experiment it reports is just another small step forward. A rough summary of what's going on for those without any knowledge of quantum mechanics:
The Universe is not deterministic. When a tiny particle (like an atom, electron, or a small molecule) is observed, it collapses into one of many possible states. The probability of each possible state being realised can be assessed, but it is fundamentally impossible to predict precisely what state the particle will collapse into.
Anyway, there are lots of things which exhibit this kind of "quantum weirdness" in the smallest length and time scales. How this applies to the larger scales we experience in everyday life is not yet fully understood. In short, there are two competing theories: The Copenhagen interpretation assumes that unrealised states are removed from consideration within a quantum-mechanical system. A consequence of this is that a lot of the "quantum weirdness" is removed from macroscopic ('large') systems, such as those we can see with the naked eye.
On the other hand, the Many Worlds interpretation (due to the late Hugh Everett) assumes that every possible quantum state is realised somewhere, and that what we observe is just a particular configuration of quantum states. This treats the entire macroscopic system as an object experiencing only a particular set of quantum states. A natural consequence of the many-worlds interpretation is that an infinite number of parallel universes must exist.
Anyway, it's currently impossible for us to say for sure which interpretation is correct, although observing 'contradictory' quantum phenomena in ever-larger objects gives weight to the many worlds theory. From reading the article, it seems like this is the first time that such phenomena have been observed in an object which is visible to the naked eye. Not that "being visible to the naked eye" really has any scientific significance...
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 11,788
- Location
- Somewhere
Actually, the significance of the experiment was that they managed to lower a macroscopic mechanical system into its quantum ground state. There are some details here.
Of course, Fox News mangled this result beyond recognition in its article.
Last edited:
This always happens with scientific articles. Sometimes it's just painful to read. Big news agencies should hire more people with a solid scientific background.
That's what i like about science there's never a solid answer there's "here's what we think happens and predicts good results".
If you can come up with a theory that produces even more accurate results it changes
The change has to be earned and proved valuable though not just change for the sake of change which makes it all all the more well rounded and developed than a lot of things.