INCREDIBLE!! Creates an experience of parallel universal ebening. Smooth engagement of the emotionalsensory flush blend of experiencer, rushing through and dominating bliss flow.

Who ARE These People???

How so?

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I am parallel universe BF, that is the good BF.

I had the mustache before you, so I think I was the original "good" blankfist.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
I am parallel universe BF, that is the good BF.

I am parallel universe BF, that is the good BF.

In a parallel universe, this video has ended with me as the most beautiful bearded geek.

Thanks Buddy! Well I can't take all the credit, my ladyfriend and I watched the Burke episode and created the page together at the same time...Burke is very romantic. We both work for Mahalo, but this experiment was done off the clock.

I have always liked this model of presenting videos on the Internet. A 10 minute clip followed by links to all related within the clip. Since mahalo is a hand built archive we linked to internal archives, and also came across interesting topics that still need to be researched and built. Very fun building these pages, that page took us about two hours.

Every time I complete a page I wonder if in a parallel universe I would have spent those two hours watching 40 minutes of television programming and 120 minutes of advertising while drooling on the couch. Kids these days eh.

(If you liked the Burke page, check out the page we made for South Park's Randy Marsh)

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

>> ^deathcow:
Why 10 dimensions, why those shapes for the dimensions, why vibrating energy, and why any of it in the first place?


Really enjoyed this, but I have been reading a bit - and from what I understand superstring theory is losing favour as an answer to those questions.

What's replacing it is the "anthropic principle" which says that if those important numbers were different, then intelligent life would not exist to ask the questions about them.

physicists who follow the anthropic principle believe that there may be a multitude of parallel universes with lots of different rules and different numbers - we are here because we live in the one that has the right numbers for life.

I'm not a physicist- and I may be talking out of arse, but I find this a lot more interesting than SuperString theory - which looks like it's trying too hard to sell something shaky with pretty graphics. superstring theory calls for 10 dimensions - a small psychological rounding that makes it equal to the number of fingers we have. Not a coincidence in my mind.

I don't understand your point.

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.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

>> ^coupland:
Stephen Hawking must be rolling over in his grave...


... his chair.

In one of those parallel universes this video might make sense.


In this one, however, its total crap.

>> ^coupland:
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.

In a parallel universe, this cat should have not farted, and this discussion just didn't occur.

I could make no sense out of these people. For someone who has seen a parellel universe, he sure had a disapointing and utterly terrible analogy.....7....dice...apple bitting....reversing spin. Either this vid was edited to shit or these "scientist" are ape shit mad. Also, seems to me if there was testable proof of the existance of parallel universes there would be nerds looting universities trying to be the first to unlock the potential of this new discovery. The fact that the majority of the community are neysayers in this makes me very very skeptical. Especially considering that there is so called actual proof of its existance. Why so many doubters of Franco's results? I say this field is an act of mental masturbation...when their done investing their time in it, they will have nothing to show for it. Just like posting comments....bullshit

That comment was full of awesome at epic proportions. You sir, have won the internet.

In reply to this comment by Sarzy:
My God, I've just come to a horrifying realization: I have a goatee, which -- if Star Trek has taught me anything -- means that I'm the evil version of me.

Ok, folks. Here's my take.

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.