The "many worlds" theory?
That's what the conjecture says (I wince at the thought of calling it a theory). It IS a lot of baggage to be carrying around isn't it? And for what? There's no evidence to support it and there is a perfectly acceptable alternative explanation that doe not involve the baggage of "many imaginary worlds". It is called the Copenhagen interpretation of QM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_... At the root of it, "many worlds" is only supported by those who fantasise about time travel and the theatricals associated with bad sci-fi. Basically time travel is impossible without it, and it is hard to justify the existence of aliens in this universe so other universes have to be invented for their care and comfort. Cheers!
Is the many worlds theory possibly true?
I believe that it is possibly true. Michio Kaku, one of my favorite theoretical physicists makes a compelling case for it in his book, Parallel Worlds. Before many-worlds, reality had always been viewed as a single unfolding history. Many-worlds, however, views reality as a many-branched tree, wherein every possible quantum outcome is realized. It certainly is a mainstay of science fiction. However, it's certainly true but there are some reasons why it's not accepted as fact. The many-worlds interpretation is very vague about the ways to determine when splitting happens, and nowadays usually the criterion is that the two branches have decohered. However, present day understanding of decoherence does not allow a completely precise, self-contained way to say when the two branches have decohered/"do not interact", and hence many-worlds interpretation remains arbitrary. This objection is saying that it is not clear what is precisely meant by branching, and point to the lack of self-contained criteria specifying branching.--wikipedia
Is This End Of The World Theory true?
I'm an Ameture Scientist, I'm just telling you how rediculous this is. I just wen't to this website. called. the-end.com It's called God's final Witness, About Mans last World war. Its weird, Religious VS Goverment and Science? Quote from the site: "The year 2008 has witnessed many prophecies being fulfilled, especially the Seven Thunders of the Book of Revelation, which the apostle John saw but was restricted from recording. Those thunders, which will continue to increase in strength and frequency, are revealed in this book, as well as detailed accounts of the final three and one-half years of man's self-rule on earth, which are recorded in the account of the Seventh Seal of Revelation. Some of these prophecies concern the demise of the United States over the coming year, which will be followed by man's final world war. This last war will be the result of clashing religions and the governments they sway. Billions will die! This time will far exceed even the very worst times in all human history. As these events unfold, the world will increasingly become aware of the authenticity of the words in this book and realize that Ronald Weinland has been sent by God as His end-time prophet. This book is primarily directed to the people of the three major religions of the world (Islam, Judaism and Christianity), whose roots are in the God of Abraham. Ronald Weinland has been sent to all three." Is this **** true? Or just aload of Bullsh*t. I think its Bull. Do you?
If the many worlds theory is true, why is consciousness restricted to one cohesive timeline?
If Everettian QM is true, all your namesakes are equally real. Most of your namesakes are sceptical of the reality of you and their legion of doppelgängers in other effectively decohered (“split”) branches of the universal wavefunction. Quantum decoherence is one of the fastest, least controllable processes in physics. Nonetheless, we need to be careful about making weakly emergent “branches” of Everett’s multiverse too fine-grained. Barring dualism, your conscious states of mind, not least the quasi-classical world-simulation (“perception”) that you’re experiencing now, are individual physical states of your central nervous system. In a regime of ultra-rapid thermally(etc)-induced decoherence (“splitting”), how can your weakly emergent edge-detecting, motion-detecting, colour-mediating (etc) neurons get to know of each other’s existence, let alone mediate complex perceptual objects, e.g. “Behold: a live black cat!”? Assuming no-collapse QM, your motion-detecting neurons are unaware of their inert counterparts in decohered Everett “branches” that track deceased cats. Yet how do these active motion-detectors commune with other e.g. black-mediating colour neurons in an alive-black-cat experience in a regime of ubiquitous decoherence? (cf. the phenomenal binding / combination problem). Neurotransmission is slow compared to decoherence timescales.The short answer is no one knows. I play around with some weird ideas. What happens when the most crazily powerful selection mechanism ever conceived, Zurek’s “quantum Darwinism”, plays out among the fleetingly coherent neuronal “cat states” (neuronal superpositions) entailed by the unitary dynamics? But here we pass from anything widely accepted in the scientific community, including the large minority of physicists who accept the unitary-only Schrödinger dynamics.
Could the New World Order conspiracy theory really be true?
This problem, like many others, cannot be resolved by logic or proof (rational or empirical methods). It is like the problem of existence of god. It basically means that your psychological inclinations have a big role in your decision in what you believe. Moreover, conspiracy theories are often publicized by right wing hardliners in order to make some of progressive ideas look evil (not current ideas, it rather goes deeply into the philosophy). Besides, for some reason it so happens in this world that educated people usually have a hard time to subscribe to conspiracy theories. The reason, I believe, is that they are regularly exposed to critical thinking. If you are serious about such problems try to gain some working knowledge in the field of political philosophy; it helps to decypher motivations behind advertised ideas.
Is the theory of the world ending in 2012 true .?
The possibility that we might be hit by an asteroid is not relevant to whether or not Nibiru exists. I do a lot of work on the asteroid impact danger, as you can see on my website . I also can't promise that you will live through December 2012; you might be hit by a truck. But I can say with confidence that Nibiru doesn't exist. Remember what Nibiru is said to be: a planet (or brown dwarf) with a 3600 year period, known to the ancient Sumerians, that will pass between the Earth and the Sun in 2012 and is already easily seen from the South Pole. That is flat-out false. If there were such an object, astronomers would know about it and have been tracking it for years. Thus "Nibiru" is a lie, independent of other things that might happen like a hit by an asteroid (or a truck). David Morrison NAI Senior Scientist
If the many worlds theory of quantum mechanics is true, is there a parallel universe where I am Batman?
No. Only actors are Batman, but if ever you had a modicum of real acting talent, and pursued acting, in any universe, then maybe you’re Batman somewhere, or will be, like Adam West and other actors have played Batman.Actually, any well fit man in his 20s-30s, with a suitable budget, could take on the persona of Batman and fight crime for real. The most likely candidate would be someone who had experience in Special Forces, the money to buy all the needed gadgets and gizmos and get the car. In fact, instead of having to be personally rich, like Bruce Wayne, they would just need a rich person or persons, to fund them…
Do many physicists take the Many Worlds theory as literally true?
I’ve had a few professors say something like “QM is linear. Decoherence explains why, for all practical purposes, the wavefunction collapses. If that means I believe in many worlds, so be it - the other worlds are in a very high dimensional space, so I can accept that consequence.” (These were people working in condensed matter and so forth, too - hardly the usual “speculative high energy theorists” you might think would believe it or anything like that.) That’s the only opinion I’ve been explicitly told by professors I’ve taken classes with (rather than viewpoints by people opinionated enough to express them on the internet).Insofar as I am aware of the general landscape: when you rank interpretations in informal polls, from what I generally recall, Many-Worlds usually does fairly well - perhaps even the best of all the “alternative” theories. It is, as I recall, comparable to Copenhagen among those who are concerned with the subject of interpretations (although I’d imagine in the general landscape both are outweighed by “IDGAF”). Among those who accept MWI, I think most of them take it as literally true, although I’m not entirely sure what the alternative would be in this context...
What is the most believable theory that isn't true?
Believability is in the eye of the believer, so different people believe different things.We all tend toward confirmation bias — accepting evidence that is consistent with our world view, rejecting evidence that challenges it, and inventing elaborate rationalizations for discarding inconvenient evidence and inconvenient lines of inquiry.For a long time the 9/11 Truth Movement was plagued with zealots who claimed that they had discovered the “smoking gun” that constituted ironclad PROOF that 9/11 was an “inside job” —- “incontravertably”. (Most of these guys were poor spellers.) Most of these conspiracy theories were based on the idea that the Jews are responsible for all the evil in the world and/or based on science fictiony weaponry.