Stumble ThisWhat was once considered science fiction is now starting to be accepted as science fact: Parallel universes do exist. Watch and learn. This means that somewhere there's a version of me who's normal and well-adjusted. Hey, I ain't making this shit up.
parallel,universes,infinite,quantum,mechanics,physics,science channel,discovery Parallel Universes DO Exist. I kid you not.
tags:
Comments 
playlists with this video
Nature, science, geek, and how to by kronosposeidon
• Quantum! by punk225
• Lectures and or Learning by guessandcheck
• unsorted box by my15minutes
• Science by rottenseed
• HOST: History of Science and Technology by notarobot
who voted for this video
kronosposeidon
- notarobot
- Gratefulmom
- my15minutes
- siftbot
x109 - dystopianfuturetoday
who has this post bookmarked
swampgirl
Parallel Universes DO Exist. I Kid You Not. Related Videos
 Obama Video Game - Angry Barry (I kid you not) |  Whitest Kids You Know Scare The Babies! |  Whitest kids you know-i want to join the army |
Watch this Video Next
Friends O' the Sift
Top New Videos by Vote
Subscribe
Top 15 Sifters of All Time
Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week
At least until I find a good fart video.
EDIT: Originally I questioned whether there was evidence that the quantum rules that apply to light also apply to matter, but then I found info that shows the same principle holds for both. See http://science.howstuffworks.com/teleportation1.htm, in particular the experiment done at the Niels Bohr Institute for more details.
So here's the short version. This video is misleading; in at least one spot it is misleading to the point of spouting hogwash. It mixes together separate phenomena from cosmology, quantum mechanics, and plain probability without clearly labeling them or distinguishing between them. Their "parallel universe theory" is not a theory, but an interpretation, of which there are multiple, of quantum mechanics; it's not even the most widely accepted interpretation. If you're interested in the phenomena they fumble over in this video then google, or just wikipeida, these terms: Copenhagen interpretation, many-worlds intepretation, quantum entanglement, wave-particle duality.
Well actually it does. From a theoretical viewpoint on the nature of infinity, anyway.
I can't believe rembar is even allowing this crap to remain in the science channel.
I can't believe you pretend to know even half of what these guys do. This may not be the most accurate depiction of the theories involving parallel universes, but there are a number of scientists in this video who all seem to be on the same page. Maybe that's not rigorous enough for you though. This is a VIDEO, after all, not the Journal of Quantum Information. Maybe this video is misleading, as sineral suggests, but it's still intriguing, and it DOES involve scientific research and theories from some of the top minds in the field. However if rembar gives it the boot I'll live with that. Maybe you should petition him to do so, so you can save the ignorant masses from ourselves. If it helps you sleep better at night then by all means do so.
Can I come out and visit your quantum physics lab so I can see what your research in this area reveals?
Can I come out and visit your quantum physics lab so I can see what your research in this area reveals?
Defensive much? The reason I don't think it belongs in the science channel isn't because I think the scientists in it are BS, but that the presentation of the subject matter is close to quackery. Describing quantum entanglement as a mechanism for FTL communication? I'm pretty sure that's BS. And much of the rest of this unscientific presentation isn't any better. It reminds me of pop psychology in its treatment of the material.
I have to agree that the pop-isnhess of this presentation, and the way it interprets stuff, seem rather misleading.
He says, as an example: particles can be in two places at the same time. That is correct. He says he is made of particles, so he should be able to do the same... That is not correct. Well, tha laws of the quantum world DO NOT apply in the larger scale, and that is precisely why scientist have a hard time combining quantum physics (very small) with relativity (rather large).
Like that BS movie, "what the **** do we know". They have scientists saying somre pretty interesting and correct stuff there. But they also made up emotional water, and there is a blond woman who is chanelling an alien starfleet spirit.
^"Defensive much?" No, not at all. But when you call a video "crap" that so far 66 other people have upvoted,
50 million people voted for Bush - twice. It doesn't mean he's a good president.
it comes across as smug and superior. I don't give a fuck about your downvote, it's the condescension that I find ugly.
I didn't intend it so. Just commenting on the fact that rembar is typically pretty restrictive about what he allows in his channel, and that this really didn't seem to measure up.
The first experiments done to measure the curvature of spacetime were performed in Africa in the 1940s. During a solar eclipse stars which were occluded by (behind) the sun were actually visible, as the light was bent around the sun by its gravity. There have been many verfications of this first experiment and nowadays astronomers use this bending of light as a tool.
It is a prediction by General Relativity that if space time is curved then light should be bent by gravity. This is what the equations predict should happen and is in fact what happens in reality.
The reason for this is that light has no mass (mass of a photon=0) - so you wouldn't expect gravity to affect light at all. It bends because the spacetime it is travelling through is curved by the presence of a massive object, in this case the sun.
Second part of their bullshit:
It is WRONG to say that a curved spacetime means that you would end up back where you started if you travelled in a straight line. General Relativity doesn't say that at all, and neither did Einstein or any other scientist. It just means that spacetime is curved and warped by matter.
Seriously guys - anyone calling 'flat universe' should be treated with the same contempt as 'flat earthers'.
These guys aren't scientists of any description whatsoever and I don't know what they're doing on any Science Channel. In fact I think they probably work for the production company that made this show.
What on earth TV programme is this? Who makes it? I feel like emailing them a ridiculously verbose WTF.
It absolutely, categorically, scientifically does NOT contain one single piece of experimental data to back up the claims and it in fact IGNORES and is contrary to some of the most important, groundbreaking, paradigm-shifting experiments of the 20th century.
Is this now the level of the VS Science Channel?
They simplify things down to a point where the illustration is plain wrong, and then add a presentation that claim that some crazy scientists idea is fact, without having any real proof..
The need for a 'shock factor' in todays media is tragic, and for me this is at the same level as Fox News...
Franco Wong - Dr. Franco N.C. Wong is a principal investigator in the Research Laboratory of Electronics (RLE) at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
Max Tegmark - is a Swedish-American cosmologist. Tegmark is an Associate Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology where he belongs to the scientific directorate of the Foundational Questions Institute.
Seth Lloyd - is a Professor of mechanical engineering at MIT, and he has made contributions to the field of quantum computation and proposed a design for a quantum computer.
So unless MIT is some fly-by-night operation handing out jobs to any lunatic off the street, I believe you are mistaken.
2. It absolutely, categorically, scientifically does NOT contain one single piece of experimental data to back up the claims. - Irishman
Did you not see Dr. Wong experimenting with lasers and splitting photons, or do you think that was all for show? I'm sure they just let him shoot lasers all day without presenting any data.
3. Is this now the level of the VS Science Channel? - Irishman
If you're so dismayed by the quality of science sifts here, I don't believe anyone's created a ScienceSift.com web site yet. Don't let me stand in the way of your greatness.
4. [T]hen add a presentation that claim that some crazy scientists idea is fact, without having any real proof. - Bovan
See Points #1 and #2
5. 50 million people voted for Bush - twice. It doesn't mean he's a good president. - jonny
You're right. 74 upvotes don't guarantee quality whatsoever, nor was I trying to imply that. However when you call a video "crap", then you're strongly suggesting that 74 people like crap. Though 50 million people voted for Bush, TWICE, I'm not prepared to call all 50 million of them retards. It's just not my style to insult huge swathes of population like that. Maybe I'm too sensitive.
6. This is bullshit. - Mycrofthomlz
As with jonny's original remark, I downvoted your comment. If you'll check, I didn't downvote Irishman's first comment, because at least he offered some explanation, and I even upvoted sineral's and neuralnoise's comments because they at least attempt to justify their opinions. If I want "This is bullshit" comments I can go directly to YouTube. Maybe these guys are all full of it, as I don't have the background in physics to properly question them. However I don't think they're loons who have no idea what they're talking about either.
So is what they're saying "bullshit", or is this video's presentation of the material "bullshit", or what? I mean YOU'RE the scientist. When you attend a symposium is that how you refute someone's hypothesis or research?
I don't expect a treatise, but more than "This is bullshit" would be nice, especially since we allegedly pride ourselves on thoughtful discourse here. Otherwise I would just prefer that you downvote and then walk away. Where is your downvote, BTW? Please do it. That will not offend me. Insulting comments do.
***I am no saint. I also sometimes write things I shouldn't. Please downvote my comments when I do so.***
Ok we KNOW that there is a mystery about spatial entanglement of quantum photons, but how in gods green earth every freak show walking on earth ends up quoting this as proof of their newest grand theory, I have no idea.
Here are two quote taken right from this video. Look at these leaps of logic:
"but as quantum mechanics tells us that one atom can go into two places at once, which means ultimately that there is going to be two me’s doing the opposite things." -BULLSHIT
"with every decision we make, we spit in two. The idea that our experience is like a tree that branch’s again and branch's again, that's the theory that modern physics teaches us." -BULLSHIT
For heavens sakes Sift people seem pretty enlightened to me .... so lets DOWNVOTE this pseudo science crap.
I do agree that there was some over simplification, however, they have to make things accessible so that some cheezit eating chodle can ingest this, if he/she so happens to veer from watching Nascar for a couple of minutes.
While some things this clip shows may be misleading or oversimplified, the ideas look like feasible concepts to mull over philosophically. I do challenge and welcome absolute refute as to why this is impossible (if there is any). If there is not empirical data that can refute these theories I will toss the whole debate into the same box as I put the "proof of god" arguments: until we know more, we shouldn't treat this idea as something palpable.
Seriously, though, I don't necessarily equate an upvote on a vid with agreement with its content. As far calling bullshit without a long explanation as to why, well I wouldn't expect you to provide reams of data explaining why the earth is round if I posted a vid proclaiming it was flat. Nor would I expect you to think I believe that just because I posted such a vid.
As I wrote earlier, the point of my comment was to express surprise that rembar hadn't kicked this sensational crap out of his channel. He's done it before. As for me petitioning him - why would I? If I personally thought it didn't belong, I would have just nochannelled it. But since it does talk about science (poorly), I don't really see a problem with it there. It's like oxdottir's description of her engineering channel - just because something is a bad example of engineering doesn't mean she wouldn't allow it in her channel.
I'm admittedly not a quantum physicist, but there's something not-quite-right about their explanation of alternate universes. The introduction was confusing because it seemed not to be talking about alternate universes but probabilities within our own, single, universe.
Yar, they talked about the infinite universe = infinite manifestations of every possiblity. But then they did a quick "...but there is a completely different type of parrallel univers...." and started talking about quantum physic theory. It was a pretty poor segway.
Initial impressions: Each interview is very shortened and not always as thorough as should be expected, but nothing is outright incorrect. I'm getting the distinct impression that this video is cutting out hours and hours of interviews to get a few little blips of speech that are being slapped together by layman TV people to get the nice easy piece they want. For example, I'm not particularly sure why Professor Lloyd is brought in, he seems to be speaking to an entirely different set of questions than the video is supposed to be asking.
Eric, the roulette table is in reference to the Schrodinger wave equation and its implication in wave function collapse. In theoretical terms, the video is putting forward an interpretation of such an event, specifically Everett's many worlds hypothesis. If you want an explanation, I can put one together for you, but altogether it's a reasonable (albeit not the most widely-held) hypothesis, insofar as quantum mechanical hypotheses are.
Overall, the video just seems to be very disjointed and sloppy. Each speaker is cohesive individually, but the leaps the video is making are not connected and occasionally simply off-topic.
I'm tempted to leave this video in the Science Channel because it's at least making people ask questions. The question "Are there parallel universes?" is one that is still in the hypothesis stage without substantial data in support of or against an answer either way, so it falls within the softer side of science, the part not yet locked down by solid evidence. In this sense, the video is still in keeping with scientific principles.
I am, however, concerned that this video does seem to be misleading in that it is presenting a number of phenomena and theories that are not quite topical or sufficiently linked as to be topical to the specific question of whether parallel universes exist, and doesn't place them appropriately. Why are they getting into entanglement theory? Why are they talking about quantum computers? ....I don't really know. Hell, they don't even distinguish a change in topics when they move from the "Dang there could be multiple versions of you within the same universe because the universe could be infinitely big" theory to the "Holy crap there could be multiple universes because there could be branching due to quantum decoherence" theory. Bad bad bad. Naughty TV show.
In short, I think I see both sides of the argument here. KP, you're right, I think the scientists are cool and damn smart (and Seth Lloyd is fucking BALLER) and their research and theories are great. Irishman and Jonny, you're right, the overall video is being screwed up by crappy TV program producers/editors and their regrettable fill-in voice-overs. I'm at a loss for what to do. I think I'll come back, see how a few more people weigh in, and then decide whether this video stays or goes.
P.S. If you happen to think a video in the Science Channel is questionable, please let me know via profile comment or email. I happen to be SWAMPED in my own research, and I don't have near enough time to clean out all the swill from the channel as throughly, as often or as quickly as I would like.
Besides, some of these comments practically "win teh Interweb." As long as everyone keeps it civil, I'd like to see where it goes.
2. They conflate the simple idea of extending R^3 to R^n with the idea that an infinite sufficiently random universe would tend to have infinite copies of everything.
3. They say electron entanglement can lead to FTL communication, but it has been proven that electron entanglement cannot be used for FTL communication (google no-communication theorem).
4. They present a fringe-interpretation of quantum mechanics (many worlds) as if it were consensus and fact.
5. The final line of the video is transparently daft.
-You know what, you've completely changed my mind, the post should stay and the debate should ensue.
1. These guys aren't scientists of any description whatsoever and I don't know what they're doing on any Science Channel. - Irishman
So unless MIT is some fly-by-night operation handing out jobs to any lunatic off the street, I believe you are mistaken.
-- MIT like all institutions has hosted more than a few fly-by-night cosmology studies.
2. It absolutely, categorically, scientifically does NOT contain one single piece of experimental data to back up the claims. - Irishman
Did you not see Dr. Wong experimenting with lasers and splitting photons, or do you think that was all for show? I'm sure they just let him shoot lasers all day without presenting any data.
-- Yes I did see them shooting the lasers, and I wondered how they were going to measure it over a distance of the light years necessary to get anywhere near as accurate a measurement as was performed in the 1940s. The curvature of space time is an absolute principle which affects all of our modern technology.
3. Is this now the level of the VS Science Channel? - Irishman
If you're so dismayed by the quality of science sifts here, I don't believe anyone's created a ScienceSift.com web site yet. Don't let me stand in the way of your greatness.
-- Not dismayed; surprised, and somewhat amused.
The evidence is not compelling and the flaw in the experiment is easily pointed out. Saying that, plenty of theories have survived for quite some time with misinterpreted results from studies.
Guys, this is how science works. People have to look at what is being claimed and if they don't agree with it they have to be able to back up their reasons why. That's exactly what I'm doing and I'm happy to be swayed to a different opinion. I'm not in the slightest bit swayed by anything so far.
Stephen Hawking must be rolling over in his grave...
I doubt it, if for no other reason than he's still alive.
The vid didn't bother me any but I don't have to take every point as proved, it's more the possibilities and questions that I love. Years ago when I first discussed nanotech with people most thought it some combination between sci-fi and a scam, these days most take it for granted that it's not only real but coming up on us fast. I still have my doubts about some of the particulars such as them ever letting us have anything like a desktop manufacturer, but in a broad brush sense it was worth the time even for the parts that were wrong. It made us think about the possibilities and get used to the idea.
I'd agree that the vid seemed disjointed and skipped from topic to topic without much explanation, didn't cover any in the depth needed to understand much, but if for no other reason it deserves a home in the science channel for the debate it sparked. Anyone interested now has the Copenhagen interpretation, many-worlds interpretation, quantum entanglement, wave-particle duality suggested by sineral and other suggestions for research from others. We aren't going to solve the worlds problems from here anyway. But if it makes us think and even ask some questions we're doing more than most are with their spare time.
> I doubt it, if for no other reason than he's still alive.
Oh sure. In *this* universe...
In this one, however, its total crap.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics#Many_worlds
The many-worlds interpretation is just one interpretation of many.
Still, I'm sure this will still get plenty of attention now that it's a highly-ranked vid. Let history be the judge.
So here is the deal: you can't apply atomic physics and principles to macroscopic phenomenon. It doesn't work that way, because by existing we have essentially forced our probabilistic system to make a decision. This is called 'collapsing the wave-function'. Why? Because you are not a system of wave-functions. Your atomic particles interact with each other, that is the essence of existence.
Thus the idea that you, a system of millions and billions of wave-functions, can exist and not interact with anything is unfortunately false.
Ergo. This is bullshit. And I need to cuddle my puppy now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse
Stephen Hawking must be rolling over in his grave...
... his chair.
It is real world *predictions* from the mathematics that cannot be made, due to the uncertainty of knowing initial conditions - which is heisenberg uncertainty. This is the basis of the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment which is a quantum system linked to a physical real world event.
My impression is the following: the consensus in physics is that collapsing the wave-function does indeed have physical meaning and it is not just a mathematical construct. If this is where you take issue then, we will have to just disagree. I think the remainder of your comment merely supports what is called the Coppenhagen Interpretation.
Ask a quantum computing researcher "How come your relaxation times are so short?" And they will say, the thermodynamic noise in our system is collapsing the wave-function of our qubit.
Some of this stuff is up to interpretation, others not so much.
Here is a nice experiment about what I am talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern%E2%80%93Gerlach_experiment
>> ^Irishman:
The 'collapse of the wave function' is a mathematical term relating to a measurement being taken of a quantum system. NOT that they don't interact - this is wrong, the opposite in fact is true.
At heart I am experimentalist though, so hey if you can make a new prediction with the MWH then hell I am game. Otherwise it is like saying <insert something ridiculous>.
It's a shame how few documentaries do science justice. I'd recommend a good book: "Quantum Physics: A Beginner's Guide" by Alastair Rae if you can handle a little math, or "Deep Down Things, The Breathtaking Beauty of Particle Physics" by Bruce Schumm, which I'm reading currently and which is nothing short of brilliant.
Oh, and here is a great tip! If you like watching science videos, check out Professor Muller's "Physics for Future Presidents" web-casts (also known as "A Descriptive Introduction to Physics). These are video taped lectures from caltech. The dude rocks, he explains everything very clearly and he's a lot of fun to boot:
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/course_details.php?seriesid=1906978373
If anything needed to be changed, maybe it would be the title and description.
Fully agree with MarineGunrock, and fully support krono's opinion that "bullshit" comments should come with an explanation on the Sift.