TED Conversations

Get Real
  • Get Real
  • Schenectady, NY
  • United States

This conversation has closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Have all "modern scientists" forgot that all these bogus "parallel universe" theories are still just unproven theories?

It seems like any new related "explanation" is basing itself on unproven preposterous theories such as the "Ive got no damn clue about that so lets invent the answer" parallel universe theory.

It seems not to be IN unless you support that "the king is not naked" conspiracy to get public tax payers funds for "research".

I say: "NEXT!".
What do you say!?

Related Talks:
+1
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb

    Gabo Moreno 50+

    • +2
    Feb 3 2012: "Parallel universes" are not "unproven theories," but attempts at modelling/understanding what happens at the quantum level. A model is proposed, the math developed, and you get results that are very hard to interpret purely based on our intuition. Still, the math works. In other words, the models and derivations from the models answer questions about what would happen at the quantum level in this and that situation, thus helping predict, for instance, the kinds of mistakes that should happen in circuits given a size, diameter, whatever. I can see how something like "parallel universes" might make you turn in disgust. I get that feeling too. But whether parallel universes is the right way to interpret/build the models corresponds strictly with reality, is as important as whether Newton's equations for gravitational effects will perfectly describe our planets orbits. In other words, there is some gap between a model and reality. Another gap between a model and our understanding of both the model and the reality the model tries to represent. That does not mean that the models are a waste of time. If making a model based/interpreted as "parallel universe" helps me build a quantum computer, I don't give a damn if parallel universes are proven by the model or just help the model work for some unknown reasons. Physics today is working with models that give us amazingly precise mathematical descriptions of phenomena and predictions of realities, while denying our human understanding a grasp of what's really going on. That does not mean that the models are useless, or that the money has been wasted. It just means, some aspects of reality will escape our intuitions. Thus, the question should not be whether scientists have "forgotten" that something is an "unproven theory," but whether scientists are making sure that their models, however counterintuitive, work for solving the problems they should solve.

  • Get Real

    • 0
    Jan 22 2012: Well, in fact, I can not agree that it does nothing to the reputation of nowadays science. In a few years, thie era will be referred to as "the stupidity era" :-(
  • thumb

    Peter Law 10+

    • 0
    Jan 21 2012: Hi Get.

    It is sacrilegious to say so, but you are right, 'The King has no clothes'. So often Joe Public has to swallow scientists opinions as established fact, & it does nothing for the reputation of science.

    :-)

  • Get Real

    • 0
    Jan 16 2012: Not true! Super conductors and other fundamentals for PC are not based upon quantum physics!
    It does utilize some molecular physics with is a fraction of nano-technology, chemistry and some electro physics.

    In higher resolution, one may claim that EVERYTHING relies on quantum physics (matter).
    But then... How does the parallel univers theory assisting with making electronic chips?!

  • Rob Fatland

    • 0
    Jan 16 2012: Of course the computer you used to write your comment was designed and built using these unproven and preposterous theories but please note that they have nothing to do in a foundational sense with speculation over parallel universes. If you are interested in exploring this further I recommend the book _QED_.

  • Get Real

    • +1
    Jan 16 2012: Well, I have to admit, should the concept of parallel universe was true, it was solving many problems we encounter while trying to explain certain phenomenas concerning the properties of matter.
    But then, an explanation that while the energy particles (in much deeper scale into the atom) are spinning around each other, at some situations it "looks like" matter and in some it does not, or - there is something we do not understand here, should be better than "Ok! It comes from a parallel universe! - solved!"

    Which is, to my opinion, quite stupid.
    I am very sad to say so. I work in that same area, and I see how "science becomes a joke".
    This era in science, as called "modern science" is going to be remembered as a humiliating era to science.
    Let's talk in 1000 years :-)

  • David Chester

    • 0
    Jan 15 2012: As I understand it, the concept of parallel universes is the only possible way of coming to terms with a certain part of quantum theory. So assuming this concept is true my question is: how does one identify each parallel universe? Suppose at a particular time I was to make a decision, which I am free not to make as I choose. Then without having made this choice I am in one universe but having made it this past universe will continue to run without my being able to identify it, except as the one that my last decision left. Since there are an almost infinate number of these universes, how can anyone be sure that their present world makes sense, since anybody can instantly change it?

    • Rob Fatland

      • 0
      Jan 16 2012: The concept of parallel universes is speculative. Your expression "the only possible way" is in fact not correct; that is not a necessary construct to understand quantum mechanics. Hence you are departing into an area of inquiry -- which is great -- but you are departing from a fallacy so you may want to revisit your point of origin.

      To the point of difficulty over quantum mechanics: The rules are different on those scales than on the scale of our ordinary experience. That's all we get. In particular we don't get the right to insist on different rules. To understand quantum mechanics you simply learn the rules and then go explore with them. But it is more productive to stick with explorative ideas that are testable.

      • David Chester

        • 0
        Jan 17 2012: Rob, What you are writing is not the true situation. Please look at what scientist David Deustch has written about this subject of "manty worlds" in his book "The Fabric of Reality", and also in other places. What my previous comment tried to show was that by means of logic the "many worlds (universies)" theory is absurd, but I have to recognize that some very respected scientists see it as a necessary result of their analyses.

  • Xavier Belvemont

    • 0
    Jan 15 2012: That isn't actually true though.
    The idea of (for example) the parallel universe was created as an explanation to issues within Qurantum Mechanics, much the same as the Higgs Boson on applied Physics. Its theoretical, but its explanation serves a purpose in explaining an anomaly and its an explanation that may infact have cosmological merit, something which is being studied now which can potentially validate the model.

    You're essentially complaining that scientists form hypothesis.
    • thumb

      Gisela McKay 30+

      • +2
      Jan 16 2012: Hmm.

      Is "Qurantum Mechanics" the Muslim equivalent of Intelligent Design?

      ;-)

      • Comment deleted

        • thumb

          Gisela McKay 30+

          • 0
          Jan 16 2012: I was commenting on the typo.

          Which is, let's face it, pure awesome. And I say that as the reigning Freudian Typo Queen.
Showing all 12 comments