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.

1. These guys aren't scientists of any description whatsoever and I don't know what they're doing on any Science Channel. - Irishman

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.***