Parallel Worlds Probably Exist. Here's Why

[Uncle Joe]

[in2herbs]

1. I love watching this stuff! I kinda understand it when listening but there's no way I

could explain it to others. My ability to understand breaks it into an obstructed universe and an unobstructed universe, we being in the obstructed universe and with "energy" in the unobstructed universe being "frequencies" rather than energies, because frequencies can be of differing degrees. Believe it or not my dentist and I talk about this kind of stuff, he from the scientific side and me from the spiritual (not religious) side. I love to talk to smart people about science or anything but politics!

Years ago there was a PBS show about parallel universes that I watched on a Sat afternoon. Never saw it again and have been unable to find it. Maybe that show was based on the book or vice versa??

Anyway, thanks for posting.

[CloudWatcher]

2. No, not buying it.

There is no evidence that this is anything but speculation. And to say that parallel worlds "probably exist" is silly.

For reference, here's another Dr Hossenfelder video that describes Why the multiverse is religion, not science.

[Duppers]

4. Sean Carroll would disagree.

And a multiverse proposal has absolutely nothing to do with religion, that is something hypothesized without some reasonable evidence.

In fact, multiverse(s) have been proposed by theoretical physicists for some time now; among them are: Steven Weinberg, Leonard Susskind, Sean Carroll, Lisa Randall, and others.
Making the modern multiverse: Physics Today: Vol 73, No 1
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.4390**

Sean Carroll is a Harvard PhD, Cal Tech Professor, author of several books and textbooks used in graduate courses across the country. Prof. Carroll, an atheist, disagrees Dr. Hossenfelder.

Please listen:

"The Multiverse, Science or Science Fiction? | Sean Carroll"

Apparently, your source doesn't know enough about her claims.



**Btw, I must also include the 2 theoretical physicists I personally know, my husband and my son.

[caraher]

8. There's a demarcation problem emerging

Yes, there are plenty of theoretical physicists pushing different types of "multiverse" theories for a variety of reasons. But existence claims about "other" universes necessarily involve philosophical questions that are not the exclusive province of theoretical physicists to address.

I tend to agree more with Hossenfelder (who has criticized current practice of theoretical physics rather broadly) than the likes of Carroll. Some theoretical physicists produce work that includes claims not amenable to experimental or observational test, and suggest that this means a need to redefine the scope of science. Critics argue that this is nonsense; rather, the work they're doing, in such instances, simply is not scientific. An example of such critiques is a Nature commentary by George Ellis and Joe Silk:

This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue — explicitly — that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific.

...snip...

As we see it, theoretical physics risks becoming a no-man's-land between mathematics, physics and philosophy that does not truly meet the requirements of any.

There's an industry within theoretical physics that seems to serve mostly to generate flashy but dubious claims and direct attention away from the slowdown of experimentally predictions in recent decades in fields like particle physics. They are very smart people who have ideas worth considering, but as Hossenfelder points out in "Lost in Math," they're working within a tradition that exalts mathematical "elegance" and "beauty" within theories - a tradition that served 20th century physics well up to the 1970s, but which has largely failed to deliver since.

So it's actually far from surprising to see a list of big names supporting this direction; to the contrary, the fact that so many brilliant people want to include speculative ideas that are likely beyond in-principle confirmation is evidence of the very problem Hossenfelder and other critics decry!

[abqtommy]

3. This is interesting, but I'm sure it's something that every married couple

understands!

[Duppers]

5. Thanks for posting this, Uncle Joe.

You've been posting a lot of great videos. I'm learning things I honestly didn't know!

[Uncle Joe]

7. Thank you Duppers.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

6. Sure, and a many-worlds interpretation could also...

... lead to a parallel universe that violates thermodynamics with entropy decreasing over time -- i.e., a universe among the infinite others in which the collection of all improbable events actually occur.

Not buying it, and it's pretty pointless to me anyway.

I'm also annoyed by any presentation that implies, even slightly, that "measurement" or "observation" in quantum mechanics demands sentience. The "measurement" happens whenever there's energy transfer, whether it's a wall or a human eye.

[Javaman]

9. in this reality, I'm a desk jockey. in another...

I continued being a cinematographer. hopefully a successful one. LOL

on the flip side, my cinematographer self is probably thinking, "oh if I only had a stable regular paycheck...".

grass is greener and all of that.

[hunter]

10. I'll throw another theory out there:

The present continuously reaches back into the past, sometimes over great distances and time spans, to erase any parallel worlds.

Since human consciousness always exists in the past we have no influence over this process and no natural perception of it. We are never aware of the actual present. Our perception of "time" is an evolutionary quirk, a survival mechanism like the camouflage of a moth. This camouflage doesn't actually make a moth invisible, but it does decrease the odds a predator will notice it. In a similar way our perception of time is not a complete representation of how the universe actually works, it simply increases the odds that we will pass our genes to the next generation.

This theory adequately explains the spookiness of quantum mechanics, Einstein's spukhafte Fernwirkung without invoking parallel universes.

Improbable parallel world theories arise from our extreme discomfort with the concept of a mutable past, that there's always a future present where we never existed.