Skip to comments.
Physicists Calculate Number of Parallel Universes
PhysOrg ^
 | 10/16/09
 | Lisa Zyga
Posted on 10/18/2009 4:06:14 AM PDT by LibWhacker
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
 first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-74 next  last
    
To: LibWhacker
    I totally agree with President Palin’s decision today to ship off the last of the liberals to the detention colonies in Iran and Iraq. What? Oh, I’m sorry, guess I got shoved into the wrong Universe for a while.
 
2
posted on 
10/18/2009 4:16:06 AM PDT
by 
AUH2O Repub
(  SPalin/Hunter 2012)
 
To: LibWhacker
    Since Prez Zero took over, I feel I’ve slipped through the space time continuum into one of these many parallel universes.
 
3
posted on 
10/18/2009 4:23:26 AM PDT
by 
Lawgvr1955
(You can never have too much cowbell !!)
 
To: AUH2O Repub
    I totally agree with President Palins decision today to ship off the last of the liberals to the detention colonies in Iran and Iraq. What? Oh, Im sorry, guess I got shoved into the wrong Universe for a while.
 
 That's ok, I had a few extra minutes before heading off to Washington to attend the inauguration of President Duncan Hunter and Vice President Sarah Palin, and I was especially looking forward to Defense Secretary Peter Pace (General, retired, USMC) expanding upon U.S. plans for 'Operation Communist Eviction' starting with Vietnam, proceeding to North Korea, and on into Red China, utilizing both 'bunker-buster' warheads for underground enemy installations, and nuclear 'ChiCom Disintegrator' warheads for the prime leadership targets in Beijing and outlying areas.
 
 And did you catch last night's 'Dancing with the Czars'? That Putin does a mean fox(bat)trot, ya know? LOL
4
posted on 
10/18/2009 4:28:38 AM PDT
by 
mkjessup
(If Satan is the father of liars, that pipsqueak 0bama must surely be his sockpuppet.)
 
To: LibWhacker
    This is what happens when you do science by calculation instead of science by observation.
 
5
posted on 
10/18/2009 4:42:05 AM PDT
by 
Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
(There are only two REAL conservatives in America - myself, and my chosen Presidential candidate)
 
To: LibWhacker
    What kind of experiments do they use to test this theory?
 
6
posted on 
10/18/2009 4:50:10 AM PDT
by 
stevem
 
    In what universe do they come up with the right answer?
 
7
posted on 
10/18/2009 4:52:17 AM PDT
by 
vollmond
(I'm an issues voter.  If you're a Democrat, I've got issues.)
 
To: LibWhacker
    Forgive me for asking, but if the “universe” consists of all matter, energy, and space that exist, how can there be a “parallel universe”? Wouldn’t it be more accurate to say they believe there are parts of the universe that have not yet been discovered?
 
8
posted on 
10/18/2009 4:53:48 AM PDT
by 
deaconjim
(Because He lives...)
 
To: LibWhacker
    These so called scientiests are from a different universe where the human mind determines reality, instead of coping with reality.
 
9
posted on 
10/18/2009 4:56:53 AM PDT
by 
DannyTN
 
To: LibWhacker
    Schrödinger's cat Ping
To: LibWhacker
    Sometimes when crossing a completely deserted street, I think I might get creamed by a car barreling down it in a parallel universe.
 
11
posted on 
10/18/2009 4:58:10 AM PDT
by 
Oratam
 
To: Oratam
    How do you know you weren’t? Parallel speaking that is.
 
12
posted on 
10/18/2009 5:06:19 AM PDT
by 
AUH2O Repub
(  SPalin/Hunter 2012)
 
To: vollmond
    The Clown Universe; the same one that has a natural born sneak, cheat and lair for President.
 
13
posted on 
10/18/2009 5:07:19 AM PDT
by 
ntmxx
(I am not so sure about this misdirection!)
 
To: Oratam
    By an uninsured illegal alein, you know a Mexican without insurance. Not a creature from another planet.
 
14
posted on 
10/18/2009 5:09:44 AM PDT
by 
STD
(FReep away both night and day until the truth has had its say!)
 
To: LibWhacker
    In a new study, Stanford physicists Andrei Linde and Vitaly Vanchurin have calculated the number of all possible universes, coming up with an answer of 10^10^16. If that number sounds large, the scientists explain that it would have been even more humongous, except that we observers are limited in our ability to distinguish more universes; otherwise, there could be as many as 10^10^10^7 universes.
 
 There were forty rabbits in the room or no rabbits in the room depending on whether the observer could see or was blind.
15
posted on 
10/18/2009 5:11:24 AM PDT
by 
aruanan
 
To: deaconjim
    Its nothing more than pure speculation that they think can be proven according to our mathematics. Of course, scientists 50 years from now will laugh at such a notion. Man has a nasty habit of always thinking he knows absolutely everything and no future generations could ever possibly know more than they do right now.
 
To: deaconjim
    Forgive me for asking, but if the universe consists of all matter, energy, and space that exist, how can there be a parallel universe? Wouldnt it be more accurate to say they believe there are parts of the universe that have not yet been discovered
 
 Think of reality as a whole as a colon with diverticulitis. The parallel universes are the diverticula.
17
posted on 
10/18/2009 5:18:06 AM PDT
by 
aruanan
 
To: LibWhacker
    Interesting in light of Hugh Everett’s original “Many World’s” hypothesis of the ‘50s, that the universe splits off after each quantum possibility is actually realized rather than canceled out in their circumstances.
Interesting too how today’s M-Theory, in its various interpretations, seems to agree overall.
Yet what bearing could this have on God, which many of these “scientists” seem desperate to nullify even as supposedly not admitting their “belief” in Him?
 
18
posted on 
10/18/2009 5:31:10 AM PDT
by 
onedoug
 
To: LibWhacker
    And so when do we see the calculation of the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin?
 
19
posted on 
10/18/2009 5:31:57 AM PDT
by 
motor_racer
(What is the color of the boathouse at Hereford?)
 
To: LibWhacker
    10^10^10^7 is a scientific result. Not a very useful one, nor one which can even be described as a bound of any form, but still a nominally scientific result.
10^10^16 is a pseudoscientific result. I’m familiar with the argument behind it, but outside of the fruitcakes in the “quantum consciousness” realm, it is viewed as comedic. The formalism behind it gives rise to numerous internal contradictions within at least three different formulations of quantum mechanics. Their calculation is predicated upon a misapplication of standard quantum theory - evidence of the researchers being educated beyond their intelligence.
Though the fallacy is distinct from these, it reminds me of the argument that nothing exists that is smaller than the maximum resolution the human eye is capable of, or the argument that any process occuring over a timescale too short for human discernment is a process that occurs instantaneously.
 
20
posted on 
10/18/2009 5:33:32 AM PDT
by 
M203M4
(Sorry - I lost them *ALL* during a camping trip last week.)
 
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
 first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-74 next  last
    Disclaimer:
    Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
    posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
    management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
    exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson