parallel universes

[core1065]

When your guest on theMay 17, 2009 talking about how they think that the beings pop in and out and are in a different frequency and not interdimensional. Well this does fit into String and M theory. This is a type 3 parallel universe, this means that there are infinite overlaping dimensions in our universe, with every possible overcome existing around us. These other universes are all around us and we cant see it and cant directly interact with them. Check out these videos they explain everything.

History Channel: parallel universes (Tells you everything you need to know about String and M Theory, skip to part.3 to hear about a type 3 universe.)
http://www.history.com/video.do?name=The_Universe&bcpid=1398218663&bclid=3857620001&bctid=3899585001

Great interview, with host Dr. Michio Kaku.
</EMBED>

Dr. Michio Kaku website and radio show.
http://mkaku.org/

A great vid showing the history of the concept of parallel universes
</EMBED>

 

[itsthenoise]

I'd love to hear gene and david do a show with a guest on the [ theoretical? ] science of the interdimensions and string theory, etc. not sure how practical this is though, might be difficult to get a scientist to come onto a UFO show and talk about this stuff?

be fascinating if you could pull it off though.

 

[threed]

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of the multiverse. But didn't Stephen Hawking reaccess his theory on Black Holes recently and conclude that WYSIWYG? I believe I recall him saying something to the effect that what goes in a black hole does indeed come back out (albeit hopelessly scrambled).

The bottomline (impact) of this was that there is no legitimate basis for believing in the existence of multiple dimensions of spacetime. It's all just bad math.

What you see is what you get. If this were true (and I'm not saying it is or isn't) this would have quite an effect on UFO research. No longer could you contemplate folding space, hyperspace and dimensional travellers. No time travel. No way of getting around the speed of light.

Then what are UFOs? How do they get here?

 

[UBERDOINK]

Then what are UFOs? How do they get here?

mostly they are government experiments or secret aircraft, some are natural aerial phenomena and the remaining are endlessly talked about, worried over and theorized on, but with no conclusions even in sight.

FYI they are tall Nordic humanoids from Venus! (oops we keep forgetting our UFO history don't we)

 

[core1065]

Most of science is theoretical, none of us have ever seen a black hole with our own eyes but we all accept its existence. The same can be said for time or Einstein's equation (Energy=(Mass)(universalConstant²)), we see there effects but not their source. So why is it so hard to believe in string or M-theory.

In Dave’s remarks about aliens still being from our universe but still inter-dimensional, I would have to agree. We put the universe into different categories but in reality they are all interconnected, one thing.

<O</OA great example would be air, we can separate the elements of air (78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide) but we can only breath it as a whole, you can not breath some of it but ignore the rest. The 11 dimensional space is much the same, if a group has mastered one area they would be able to effect and manipulate other dimensional elements since they are all connected.

 

[core1065]

I think your not understanding the concept of a multi-verse. String theory states that there are more of then 5 dimensions; it is believed that there are up to 11 maybe more. They came to this conclusion because of gravity, it is too powerful, its one of the major forces but its so weak. That’s because its being deluded not by a few dimensions it would be too strong, but by many, that’s where the string theory comes in, it is an extremely small element of the universe and it dissipates gravity allowing us to walk around and not be nailed to the ground and it blends the 4 nuclear forces and works very well with Einstein theory of relativity and it fulfills Einstein’s theory of everything.

M-theory is the modern form of String theory.

<O</O
M-theory states that the 11th (and some others) dimension is a membrane around and inside our universe which exists in Hyperspace or the Bulk with other super sized strings and within the M-theory theres theoretically 4 types of 11<SUP>th</SUP> dimension universes. Check the videos out.

the whole playlist
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=5E10896E619BF48F

Part 07: String Theory To M-Theory (click on it, to see the rest)

Part 01: String theory (click on it, to see the rest)

Part 08: M-Theory

BBC Parallel Universes 1/5 (click on it, to see the rest)

 

[core1065]

“No longer could you contemplate folding space, hyperspace and dimensional travelers. No time travel. No way of getting around the speed of light.”

I think you confusing the concept of inter-dimensional travel; many people confuse the 4 types of dimensions (type 1-4 universes of M-theory) to the 11 perceivable dimensions (3 axis’s of space, time/space etc). Folding space, time travel, are means of inter-dimensional travel within our dimension.

If you move from one end of the room to another side that would be considered dimensional travel since your moving though multiple dimensional spaces.

If you take an atomic clock and put it on a plane and compared it to an atomic clock on land the time that was on the plane would move slower, this is because of the Special Theory of Relativity. Time and Space are interconnected as stated in General Relativity. So you’re effecting time by moving though space in a sense making it inter-dimensional time travel.

So if these beings could warp space around there ship and merge points in space generate massive amounts of energy and effect gravity (create or bend) and move at incredible speeds; time inside their craft would move much slower (to me that explains why 6 hours can pass inside their craft and only 1 hour passes outside.) Since time isn’t static it bends to mass, changing depending on the space around it. Traveling between planets would be considered space/time travel since each planet wouldnt have similar space/time so any destination reached would be considered inter-dimensional travel.

Hyperspace or the Bulk pertains to M theory. It is the space between membranes (I believe type 2 universe). In Sci-fi shows, Hyperspace means a ship can faze in and out of our reality and into another where space/time is contracted and the rules of physics don’t apply (I.E. you can go the speed of light or faster).

The math in String theory to my understanding is quite sound. The problem is that you cannot observe the infinitely small, at least not yet. So it’s more of a hypothesis then a theory, its hard to test it yet, but the same applied to Einstein’s theories until the technology caught up to it.

 

[conor]

I don't know what to think of all parallel universe theory. It's like Gene and David say sometimes - these terms are bandied about without much of an understanding of the science behind them. Also, even scientist are entering a realm of wild speculation when they begin talking about parallel universes. Educated speculation it may be, but it is speculation. When the experts are still speculating then we should be extra weary when someone starts talking about other universes and such.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

The bottomline (impact) of this was that there is no legitimate basis for believing in the existence of multiple dimensions of spacetime. It's all just bad math.

But.. the good math is also bad math.

Normal physics can't reconcile gravity. All the math works, until you try and fit gravity into the equations. Gravity breaks everything.

Thats why they are hoping to find the Higgs Boson or a graviton with the LHC.

The problem is you can't have direct observation evidence of things at the atomic level.

Then there is stuff we just don't understand. Like gravity. And lets take photons. They have no mass, which is why they can travel at light speeds, but they also carry energy. And photons are the "messengers" for things like magnetism and electrical fields. Electrons actually move very slowly in wires.. they just wiggle. But "virtual" photons send the charge from one end to the other at the close to the speed of light.

And there is scientific basis for multiple dimensions. But not from the materialistic scientists, because there are some things in quantum mechanics that you can't test for because the test changes the outcome.

But they have actually photographed particles in two places at once, and in an transitional state... when you have two probabilities, say a yes or no, matter is in an indeterminate state until you observe it, and then you forced an outcome by your measurement, or observation (Heisenberg uncertainty principle ). It's the old Schrödinger's cat paradox. The outcome is a superposition (being in all possible states at once) until an observation is made.

Dark matter is a good example of how standard physics isn't giving the correct answers. They need to add matter that you can't see to make the numbers come out right.

But the dark matter might be in an unobservable dimension.

The thing to remember about dimensions is that our brain is hardware to only deal with what we need in day to day existence. We see a very small section of the electromagnetic spectrum. We can only see the visible light portion. We can't see or sense radio waves, etc. But they are there. We can detect them with equipment, but you have to think about how we discovered this stuff.. all by accident. radio, X-rays, etc. You can't test for something that you know nothing about.

So there is likely a lot of things we can't observe in any means.

I'm a very scientific person, but science is often filled with dogma. If someone has a new theory, you have to be able to test for it, but that's not always possible.

Another sobering fact.. we can only see a small part of the universe. And we will never see any more.. because the light will never get here due to the expansion of the universe. And as the universe expends, we will see less and less, until one day the only stars in the sky will be the Milky Way galaxy, and Andromeda, which will fill the sky, since it will eventually collide with the Milky Way.

So observational science only gets us so far. We need these forward thinking theories, even if they seem far fetched.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

If you move from one end of the room to another side that would be considered dimensional travel since your moving though multiple dimensional spaces.

Right.. and you are also traveling in time. If you take a telescope and look at a distant building, you are looking back in time.. but it's a small amount.

Just traveling to a distant star is time traveling. Since space=time. To do it in a reasonable amount of time, you need to travel back in time as you travel forward in space. Then you can cover the distance in no amount of time.

If you take an atomic clock and put it on a plane and compared it to an atomic clock on land the time that was on the plane would move slower, this is because of the Special Theory of Relativity. Time and Space are interconnected as stated in General Relativity. So you’re effecting time by moving though space in a sense making it inter-dimensional time travel.

Also, take two planes, one traveling east to west, and one west to east, with atomic clocks on board, and they will have different times.

Just being in the top of a tall building, your time is moving slower than on the ground.

We know very little about how things work. We are still using confined explosions to travel.

Give us a 1000 years.

 

[Drew UK]

I need to interject here,

and oppose some of these wonderful concepts.

Firstly, after listening to N.Talbot and P.Harris etc.etc. - I want to put the brakes or alerts on some of this fancy theory stuff - ejected into the field as some way of solidifying the events witnessed.

I do not like how science is manipulated into explaining some of the phenomenon that is presented in these forums -

The theory on time, is not properly established for starters. Time remains a dimensionless concept - it is, boiled down into its etheral parts - motion.

The question remains - if all motion and activity ceased, intuitively - time ceases (and here I compromise the theory of relatively- at least mathematically).
To develop into arguments that space can (or is more facile to) be folded onto itself to enable quicker routes of passage is more difficult to conceive than direct vector travel that are well established under normal laws of motion.
Another point, that time travel where each locus of time is stored or memorised in a slot in a universal pathway that we can slide back or forwards to - does not equate with the energy dissapation/balance of the universe - again scientific rules that are well established.

Think how much energy is required to move the cosmos, the planets, and all its component parts backwards and forwards to its trajectory in space/time? Is it as easy as start up and go?

The point I am getting at is this, I feel that these ideas (linked with quantum ideas) is becomming inappropriately or even incorrectly applied and that quantum physics is at risk of becomming a new alchemy.

There a three principal reasons for drawing such a conclusion.

1. From its inception quantum physics has always fostered the belief that it can solve most, if not all of the universe(s) problems.
2. Because quantum theory represents a revolutionary scientific breakthrough that has proved its worth time and again in mathematics, little effort has been made to challenge its fundamental tennets.
3. Because the quantum world is so bizarre and counterintuitive, it tends to exert an almost hypnotic influence on us and hold us in its thrall.

All of which means that we are now in serious danger of being dominated by a quasi-alchemical theory that is widely deemed to be untouchable but one that is in fact unable to deal with many of the real issues that are being witnessed.

Remember the mathematical genius hatched out from the morgan mafia of of Credit Default Swaps, CDO<squared>, CDO<cubed>,??

If heads of finance can be wrong - so can heads of physics.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

The theory on time, is not properly established for starters. Time remains a dimensionless concept - it is, boiled down into its etheral parts - motion.

The question remains - if all motion and activity ceased, intuitively - time ceases (and here I compromise the theory of relatively- at least mathematically).

Very good points... Of course with the Big Bang theory, and inflation, everything is always moving, and has been since either the singularity at the beginning. But I agree... stop everything from moving, and what would you get?

And there are other concepts of time, such as quantum time, and things like each discrete moment being like a card in a stack. Richard Feynman came up with the idea of Quantum Electrodynamics in which an electron can bump into a photon, sending it backwards not just in space, but also in time. The Transactional Interpretation states that when particles interact, one sends out a wave forward in time, and another sends one out backwards in time.

Then you have the really odd stuff like the two slits experiment. That makes it look like the pattern was determined before it happened. And spooky-action-at-a-distance, time dilation, the arrow of time...

A really interesting finding is that since the signal from your eye takes a finite amount of time to get to your brain, we perceive things in the future, to make up for the latency! How is that possible?

I agree that the idea of folding to get somewhere faster seems a bit far fetched. And that would still be your relative time. It would be just as "easy" to travel backwards in time as you travel forward in space.

If any of this can ever be done, it's not going to happen any time soon.

It could be likely that there are "realms" that aren't separated in distance, but we just can't perceive them. Vibrating at a different rate, or who knows what! Some of this phenomenon (UFOs, etc) might not be traveling from somewhere else in space (as in distance) but just appearing here from somewhere else we don't perceive.

It goes along with the ideas that our brain is like a filter for our reality.

 

[threed]

Essentially, it is being said that scientific observation is too limited as a means for questioning the existence of something for which you have little (or no) basis for believing in the first place... Something you are largely proposing on the premise of fantasy or wish-fulfilment (or abstract mathematical necessity)... This is true.

Taking for a moment the position that the universe is indeed so structured (in multiple time-space dimensions): Imagine, if you will, the energy requirements necessary to artificially move between these dimensions or planes or [YOUR PREFERRED TERMINOLOGY]. Would you, in effect, need to reconfigure your own fundamental structure to effect such a leap?

What is the mode of information storage that could facilitate movements ahead or backward in time? In other words, you would be proposing that elapsed events continue to exist [SOMEHOW] and remain retrieveable. Or, if multiple realities spin off in infinite directions from every moment, then presumably no information storage is occurring. When you move "back in time," you are in fact entering a distinctly different "dimension" (or universe) with no causal relationship to your own.

Can you move ahead in time? Presumably the information (or energy...) has not yet occurred (been altered). So how could it be stored? Much of this seems to depend upon volition (free will, random choice...). Has this aspect been pre-recorded, so to speak? Are we predestined to use energy in a certain manner? Doesn't our own experience prove the existence of uncertainty?

And again, what is your basis for believing this in the first place?

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

No, essentially it is being said that humans have limited knowledge of reality. We keep learning new things everyday. Can you argue with that?

You keep putting everything into what we currently know, as if we will never discover new things. Do you think our current scientific understanding of the universe is complete? We only know a little about what we can observe, and we can only observe a small portion of reality. We can only detect a small part of the universe, and will never see anymore (due to inflation... the farthest objects are moving away from us faster than the light can get here). We have incomplete ideas about physics, and when it gets to the quantum level we just aren't "allowed" to see things past a certain point.

You keep talking about the "energy requirements" of what is an unknown system. How can you determine how much energy something will use if don't know what that system is? You can't. It's a pointless discussion. We aren't even 100 years out of the steam powered age, and you think we have all the technology we will ever have? Do you think we will forever travel by means of a controlled explosion? We would never get anywhere based on that primitive technology, just as there would never have been steam powered aircraft.

Therefore are you saying that some civilization much older than us will never discover things we haven't even imagined? That's making us a little too important.

I just don't get where you are coming from. It's materialistic thinking to a fault.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. -- Arthur C. Clarke

 

[threed]

Therefore are you saying that some civilization much older than us will never discover things we haven't even imagined?

What civilization is that? You're presupposing that this civilization exists and that it is much older than we are.

When was that proven?

So, on the basis of this assumed civilization we can now have confidence that just about any whacky idea will ultimately be possible. Why? Because they did it.

They, who?

 

[Brian Now]

A really interesting finding is that since the signal from your eye takes a finite amount of time to get to your brain, we perceive things in the future, to make up for the latency! How is that possible?

Where did you get this and can you explain it? I understand the slight lag between light hitting hitting the back of your eye and the signal being interpreted in the brain, but don't get how that would make us perceive the future.

 

[aNorthernSoul]

To develop into arguments that space can (or is more facile to) be folded onto itself to enable quicker routes of passage is more difficult to conceive than direct vector travel that are well established under normal laws of motion.<squared><cubed>

Just for my own clarification... isn't this concept, folding space in on itself, one of the core concepts of torsion physics?
</cubed></squared>

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

What civilization is that? You're presupposing that this civilization exists and that it is much older than we are.

When was that proven?

Has it been proven that there isn't? And why wouldn't there be? Has something been discovered that would prevent advanced lifeforms from existing longer than we have been here?

It hasn't been proven... yet... geeze what's with you? You think we have discovered everything we will ever know? We might as well just stop all science then, because threed says we know everything we will ever know.

But something has been interacting with humans for as long as we have been here. The question is what is it, and where did it come from? It might not be of extra terrestrial origin. But we have no answers on that.

So, on the basis of this assumed civilization we can now have confidence that just about any whacky idea will ultimately be possible. Why? Because they did it.

To assume we are the most advanced civilization in the Universe, you would have to assume we have been around the longest. And that we know everything. Do you really believe that? Has that been proven? No scientist will agree with you.

You know just about every new technology was thought to be "wacky". Did you know that when they made the first steam locomotives that scientists thought if they went over like 35 MPH that all the air would sucked from the train and everyone on board would die? That sounds pretty wacky, no? That was the state of science at that time. We learn new stuff all the time, or discover... often by accident.

Or how about the first atomic bombs igniting all of the hydrogen in the atmosphere? That's pretty wacky too.

They, who?

They, who SETI is looking for. If there was no "they" why does SETI bother?

You know what? There are people in this world you don't know. You never will know them. There are people in your town that you will never know. You have no idea what they are doing right now. So based on that fact, are you going to sit there and say you know that there are no beings in the Universe that might be more advanced than us? You can perceive all of the Universe? You know what they know and what they are doing?

Can you even justify that thinking?

And if you are assuming we are the only life in the universe, where did you get that idea? Has that been proven? It certainly hasn't. And if we haven't discovered any other civilizations —yet— then does that prove we know EVERYTHING? Nope.

There is no reason to believe that Earth is anything special. We can observe here that life is prevalent, and will even exist in very inhospitable conditions. What we can extrapolate from that is that anywhere in the Universe where conditions are right, life is sure to exist. If it's been around long enough, it probably has become self aware and intelligent. Why would we, and not them?

So, can you prove there is no other life in the universe? No scientist would EVER say such a stupid thing. You also went that that old thinking in another post that life would be different from us because of different chemical makeup, etc., however, life would probably be carbon based because carbon is one of the most prevalent building blocks.

Carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the universe by mass after hydrogen, helium, and oxygen! So with all that carbon, hydrogen, helium, and oxygen, you are going to say that life on some other world wouldn't evolve around those common elements? OK buddy. And I have a bridge to sell you.

We can't prove everything because we don't know everything.

 

[themacx]

Where did you get this and can you explain it? I understand the slight lag between light hitting hitting the back of your eye and the signal being interpreted in the brain, but don't get how that would make us perceive the future.

I remember a BBC Horizon episode that had an experiment that shows that we can predict what is gonna happen a fraction of a second ahead. they show a testperson a series of photo's with at random a shocking image, the test showed that the body reacted before the picture was on screen. from what i remember was the explanation that our brain is running under a tiny time delay most likely to help your body make the right hormones when a trauma happens or any other emotional state is going to suddenly change. It also might explain the slowdown effect people get when they have an accident.

 

[DavidRavenMoon]

Where did you get this and can you explain it? I understand the slight lag between light hitting hitting the back of your eye and the signal being interpreted in the brain, but don't get how that would make us perceive the future.

It's known as the The Delay and Antedating Paradox. The idea has been around since 1979 when Benjamin Libet first documented this phenomenon.

There was a recent article in New Scientist, I believe, but I did find a couple of articles mentioning it.

From the link below:
(emphasis added)

Bierman recently repeated these experiments using an fMRI brain scanner and documented emotional responses in brain activity up to 4 seconds before the stimuli. Other laboratories have made similar findings.

Does the brain tap into the future?

And an article from Fred Alan Wolf;

A Quantum Physics Model of the Timing of Conscious Experience

He writes:

The Delay and Antedating Paradox


The "delay-and-antedating" paradox/hypothesis refers to the lag in time of measurable cerebral electrical activity associated with a conscious sensory experience following a peripheral sensation. To account for this paradox, Libet suggested subjective antedating of that experience. In a series of studies (Libet et al. 1979, Libet 1996) several subjects' brains showed that neuronal adequacy (critical neural activity) wasn't achieved until a significant delay time D as high as 500 msecs following a stimulus. Yet the subjects stated that they were aware of the sensation within a few msec (10-50 msec) following the stimulation. Put briefly, how can a subject be aware of a sensation, that is, be conscious of it, if the subject's brain has not registered that "awareness"?

Since many plausible arguments have been offered and refuted by Libet et al. and others (Bergenheim et al. 1996) I will not go into them here.

And one from Benjamin Libet himself:

SUBJECTIVE ANTEDATING OF A SENSORY EXPERIENCE AND MIND-BRAIN THEORIES: REPLY TO HONDERICH