So can anyone verify that “Many Worlds” means “many universes” or does it instead have to do with some sort of sub-atomic potentiality that is completely different.
Second, I added a poll (I like 'em) to see how we feel about the theory. I suggest waiting on the poll to consider arguments for and against.
From what i gather it is wholly based based on pure mathematics. Evidence is not forth coming for physicist’s, until they build a huger’er particle accelerator or something else [cough] is found in huge salt caves. Or some other avenues are found and joined together piece-by-piece, such a quantum computers calculating every atom in the whole multiverse - which seems paradoxical - and a new isotope or something.
Great video, thanks. I’m now convinced it’s quackery. I’ll vote “no” now.
Physists are obviously speculating beyond their ability to measure. It’s like earlier scientists saying “atoms are made up of strings” when actually there are more complicated things going on.
Really? Gosh, I can’t imagine the sub atomic being simple. I mean, planetary motion seems simple. Big, slow, dumb objects travelling in very simple paths.
It seems like the smaller things get, the more complicated their paths.
The planets, etc, are a more complex matter than the atomic level. It’s speed is slower but that’s what allows for the complexity. We move slowly because of our complexity. Our slow speed makes the Universe infinite to us. The faster the speed, the smaller the Universe.
Every path is simple at all levels. It’s just how many paths there are and the speeds of them that makes each unique.
I couldn’t imagine the smaller atomic level being simpler.
They had to create a completely new science to study it because it initially baffled scientists. They still don’t have it figured out. We’ve had planetary motion figured out for ages.
Atomic seems more complex. But I wouldn’t know, I’d have to be a scientists in both to make a true decision.
Classical physicists don’t have it figured out but that doesn’t mean others are stumped. The world of physics is larger than most know about.
The quantum level is simple. The double slit and SPAD are simple. The Universe is simple.
It amazes me how man misunderstands simplicity.
Sorry membrain, I was one of them, and I jumped the gun.
I guess just casually thinking about it, without factual, material data, it just doesn’t make sense that there is a limit to how small, or large, things can get. Of course, with my limited knowledge of the universe, this doesn’t surprise me.
But supposing we are able to finally detect strings, I would have to assume that something makes up those strings. If that is energy, then something has to make up that energy. Similar to traveling to the end of the universe. What happens when you go past the end? It doesn’t seem there would be a limit to how small or large we could go.
Simplicity implies the mystery has been solved in some way, and from what I understand, there still isn’t a theory that can link the effects of gravity with the electromagnetic forces with the strong / weak nuclear forces.
If the universe was so simple it seems the unified theory would have been found ages ago. Then again, simple seems subjective.
I mean, it sounds like you know of no “irrefutable evidence” so I would guess that you would at least want to downgrade it to “Yes, it seems possible”?
Yes?
Or you think that the theory is just too fanciful which puts you more in the “No” category. The lack of evidence is what makes it seem fanciful to me. That’s why I’m waiting to see if anyone can provide any.
There is no theory in the CP world because they went down the wrong path 50+ years ago. They are trying to define the absurd. This is why they have gotten nowhere. There is more money in searching for answers that they cannot find. It’s all about self-employment.
The Universe is defined. The reason the masses don’t know it yet is because it eliminates something very important to most people…think about it.
But I was curious about what was “absurd”? I assume that there are many more levels of objects/waves/etc withing cub-atomic particles; we just probably won’t every be able to perceive them. I am all for trying however.
The ‘absurd’ is the path they took after Einstein’s death. The path, which cannot solve SPAD, the Double Slit, and nearly everything else is the path called the ‘Expanding Universe’.
You may think this sounds crazy but until they can figure out what matter is, what cycles it ‘exists’ in, the dimensions, time, gravity and everything else, the expanding universe is absurd.
All of this has been solved. The Universe has been solved, just not experienced.
Hoyle’s Steady State Universe was incorrect, also.
