>> ^SDGundamX:
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.

In one of the parallel universes, I don't believe in that crap.

In a parallel universe...he ate that chip.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
^"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.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
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.

genius

In reply to this comment by grahamslam:
I'm googling those terms as we speak...actually another version of me is googling those terms in another universe as this copy of me is too lazy with my rotating spaghetti fork.

>> ^jonny:
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?

At least science doesn't ruin trips to the museum.

http://www.videosift.com/video/How-to-Ruin-a-Trip-to-the-Museum

Unless...you know..it's that God museum..where they have that apocalyptic room with posters of gay people, honestly, that one deserves it though.

>> ^bamdrew:
i didn't know the religious universe was infinite and mysterious... because thats basically what science says.
http://www.videosift.com/video/Parallel-Universes-DO-Exist-I-kid-you-n
ot
only difference then is that science is trying to catalog the infinite and test explanations of the mysterious.

Sigh, I had typed up a half a page worth of comment and realized I needed another half page more so decided to just give up. Now I see SDGundamX's comment and wish I had posted mine.

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.

i didn't know the religious universe was infinite and mysterious... because thats basically what science says.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Parallel-Universes-DO-Exist-I-kid-you-not

only difference then is that science is trying to catalog the infinite and test explanations of the mysterious.

Re Heinlein. I'm re reading my dads collection, so have only recently read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Tunnel in the sky. Just finished Glory Road. His views are interesting, but are not as clear cut, just as Farhad shows, as he tends to explore things in his books. It's possibly they are/have reflections of his true feelings, and their apparent evolution/revolution/subtle changes reflects his views at the times of writing of each book. i've noticed how "sex" is often almost completely ignored as a human trait, when exploring some of the stories with an adolescent male protagonist (anything up to 25 ish) and his female characters have a lot of consistent traits (although to be fair, his male chars are often very samey too). I'll get around to stranger in a strange land again in a bit, but The one i finished last night was Glory Road. It tackles the relationship/cultural aspects of sex obliquely, considering how different parallel universes (interconnected) allow utterly diverse and somewhat isolationist evolution of culture. How very different attitudes and norms can be seen as moral, given an appropriate context. Just as TMIAHM allowed the moon penal colony context to justify exploring stable and appropriate social adoptions/human relationships, Glory Road presents the idea that there are as many possibilities as you can come up with.

He also shows a strong hint of a dislike at the sexual culture of America at the time, and an acknowledgment that "enlightenment" as to their unreasonableness is not the same as being free form it's influence. He condemns earth pretty harshly, by declaring it to be the only place that had invented Prostitution, in any form, with all other places considering Sex to be High Art, worthy of much study and respect. The concept of Prostitution, or of sex being a commodity, had so pervaded the culture that it influenced every aspect of relationships, referencing examples of dowry, and men paying for dates, as cultural transaction. However, the lead female is almost fearful from the start, that her promiscuous nature and past will cause the Hero to see her as a slut. At the end, he makes the following point:

"The typical American female is sure that she has genius as a couturiere, as an interior decorator, as a gourmet cook, and, always, as a courtesan. Usually she is wrong on four counts. But dont try to tell her so.
Unless you can catch one not over twelve and segragate her, especially form her mother -- and even that may be too late.
But don't missunderstnad me, it evens out. The American male is convinced that he is a great warrior, a great statesman, and a great lover. Spot checks prove that he is as deluded as she is. Or worse. Historo-culturaly speaking, there is strong evidence that the American male, rather than female, murdered sex in your country."

"What can I do about it?"

"Slip over to France now and then. French women are almost as ignorant but not nearly as conceited and often are teachable."

But he also mentions: ".. is where they tried to outlaw sex entirely. I had seen enough of that dreary graveyard in ..." which i think was referring to the UK, but cant be certain. Almost certainly somewhere in Europe. So his disgust at our attitudes and behavior regarding sex is world wide, and not just at America of the time. (its dated 1963 for ref)

I think he had strong practical, anarcho, very small government, butt out and leave it alone views about organization, with an acknowledgment that a sizable portion of the populace have opinions too ill educated to be considered as needfully relevant to the organizing body/government, whomever.

I'm reading The Star Beast now. thats fun.

this documentary is only an hour long, and i was only watching 5 minutes, but it seemed like a YEAR. i must be in a parallel universe where boring documentaries and overfascinated narrators are upvoted.

According to the Many Worlds theory- an interpretation of quantum mechanics that is undergoing a kind of renaissance of examination- the quantum level events DO scale to the macro level, we in our universe only perceive one possible quantum outcome but all other possibilities are simultaneously occurring in other parallel universes. Therefore Schrodinger's cat may be dead in our universe, but is wholly alive in another. The waveform function of our Macro universe does not collapse at all- all possibilities exist.

In reply to this comment by Memorare:
maybe siftbot is operating in some parallel universe where time is sped up.

In these physics videos one thing they never offer an explaination for is why the quantum level events don't scale up and occur on our macro level since everything is made up of sub-atomic particles organized as atoms. As with the Schroedinger's Cat paradox it would be kind of disappointing to finally discover a unified theory of everything, only to learn that it really doesn't matter since it doesn't scale up to mundane reality and therefore only "exists" as a theoretical concept. (personally i think the notion that the cat is both dead AND alive simultaneaously and observation determines which, is a lot of mathematical bs, ie it's not Really true except on paper but then i'm not a cosmologist or metaphysicist so what do i know)

Also, a simpler question that has an answer but i just don't know what it is...
with all the anti-matter positrons bombarding the planet via cosmic rays, don't they ever bang into some electrons and create a tiny but big enough to be measured matter/anti-matter explosion? Sure matter is mostly empty (or not so empty apparently) space and possible collisions are few, but cloud chambers indicate tons of these thigns zipping around so Howcome there's not bazillions of these tiny explosions going off all around us constantly?

According to the Many Worlds theory- an interpretation of quantum mechanics that is undergoing a kind of renaissance of examination- the quantum level events DO scale to the macro level, we in our universe only perceive one possible quantum outcome but all other possibilities are simultaneously occurring in other parallel universes. Therefore Schrodinger's cat may be dead in our universe, but is wholly alive in another. The waveform function of our Macro universe does not collapse at all- all possibilities exist.

they don't offer an explanation for why quantum mechanics and general relativity are hard to combine - probably because nothing has been confirmed experimentally to allow for a working hypothesis. though 11-dimensional M-theory may be the real theory of everything.
an explanation for the uncertainty principle using extra dimensions seems plausible to me, if it's either just extra parameters within our universe or other real parallel universes - after all, this whole universe needs to have some kind of framework to exist in.

there's not that much anti-matter about in this part of the universe. it's being produced all the time though when cosmic rays hit our atmosphere (and in a few other natural reactions), but is annihilated almost instantly when it comes in contact with nearby matter.