Multiverse Theory Debunked. No Multiple Worlds Can Exist At The Same Time.

[zaangalewa]

Your source: Shan Yu and Danko Nikolic, Annalen der Physik, Volume 523 Issue 11, Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness, October,13th, 2011. Both authors are Neurophysiologists.

What you say here about physics makes not a big sense. Schrödinger's cat exists in the superposition to be dead and alive - as long as no one measures (=as long as no one takes a look). Who measures - with or without consciousness - is not the problem. But somewhere must be written down the result of the measurement and scientists (=conscious people) have to speak about. The problem: After measurement in 50% of all cases the cat lives - in the other 50% of the cases the cat is dead. And while no one measures the cat is 50% alive and 50% dead. Schrödinger made clear we all have intuitive problems with the concept "superposition" in our understanding of physics. Or with other words: We have two physics - standard modell of quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity - but we have only one common reality, one physique or physis.

And what this has to do with the idea "multiverses" I don't know.

You're missing the many worlds theory of Hugh Everett III. He was the one who was mocked and derided when he came up with it. Ervin Shrodinger gave it some credence in 1935 with his famous thought experiment. What you claim exists is only in the mind. The superposition you claim exists in the brain. It's like unicorns. They exist only in our imagination.

In nature, we know there can't exist the potential of a dead or alive cat. When we put a mechanism in place, then we either see it a dead (photon went thru the left slit) or alive (photon went thru the right slit). In nature, the wave collapses and this is what is observed. There is no consciousness required.

Multiverses came up again from both of the above and theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking was investigating stating that if it exists then we should find it the past studying the remnants of big bang. This was what his last paper was about. However, there was no multiverse evidence. It can't exist in nature. Now, if one doesn't understand the truth of this experiment's findings, then they should be hauled off to the funny farm. They are practicing the odd theories of Hugh Everett III.

What I won't deny is the existence of at least one dimension. We have not discovered the 4th dimension of space and time even though many scientists think it exists. LHC is trying to find it now. This experiment may help show that it does as we do not know how the wave works nor FTL communications with quantum entanglement. The atheist scientists have already gone to multidimensions up to ten with their string theory. No one has shown strings exist in nature. Many theoretical physicists believe in it due to mathematics.

Actually in nature all cats are dead or alive. Lol if you put a dead cat in a box could it come back to life.

You speak so, because your intuitions are embedded in this what we call "mesocosm" - the cosmos of the middle dimensions. But your intuitions will leave you in the macro- and microcosm. But as well micro-, meso- and macrocosm are the same cosmos. More abstract now: An electron is for example to be able to be at two positions the same time. It shows us one of the two positions, when we measure where it is - but no one is able to know which one, if we will measure it. [

If a tree falls in the forest is the fall influenced by gravity if no one sees the tree fall

That's "only" a philosophical problem in context of the philosophy "empirism". What you say here is it, that we have to use a "dogma" - an "axiom" - if we like to say the moon is not on the sky as long as no one looks at the moon - or if we like to say the opposite - what you are doing here. In this case it is importnat to know what kind of "dogma" what kind of "axiom" the other one is using. Both should use the same axiomatic system, if they like to discuss, because otherwise it will become an empty discussion.

But bin case of such problems we are perhaps able to say now the Earth "measures" the moon and the moon "measures" the Earth - if "measurement" is able to be without conscious ... but I guess very soon the people will start to discuss in this case whether the moon is conscious and/or the Earth is conscious.

And what happens in a forest as long as no conscious entity watches what happens ... who knows? A unicorne?

Cool. However you would be far better off if you spent some time contemplating the federal reserve's next interest rate move

Money is an illusion. In best case a motivator and a game in worst case an addictive drug which leads to crimes and wars. But I guess it's easy to find out what the federal resverve bank will do: Ask the people, who make the decisions there.

In other news, lay off the acid, or at least share

Something in my words seems to produce in you and irreal frustration and hate. And this frustration wakes in you the will to destroy what you don't understand. I fear that's in general a problem of the US-American mass psyche[ology]. Something seems to be wrong with your education system.

Do you sell LSD or are you just a consumer

Are you an US-American? Where did you go in school?

Actually that is irrelevant

No. Your thoughtless stupidity and intrigance made me curious. I like to know what are the roots for your wrong proudness to think defamation is the right way to live.

because there is no school that can teach what is or is not beyond this universe

You are an uneducated person - that's why I asked.

because this universe itself is still an enigma

Is it? What about it is not an enigma but a very clear and simple thing and we all are only stupid?

Yawn, Bill Gates is, was and always be a dropout

¿Bill Gates? .... What's that now? ... I guess slowly I understand why you asked for LSD. Do you have a probem with alcohol or drugs on your own and that's the reason why you broke one of the ten commandements by calling me a drug dealer?

 

[james bond]

I assume by multiple worlds you are referring to parallel universe theories - this is speculation not supported by evidence.

It must be important for the atheists and their atheist scientists because the person I learned about quantum mechanics and singularity, Stephen Hawking, was writing a paper on how to find evidence of it by studying the past light of the universe before he died. He said he didn't give much credence to it, but he was trying to find evidence through pockets of what was observed in the past universe.

I think Erwin Schrodinger got it right in that he created a thought experiment about a quantum cat being dead and alive at the same time inside a box. That cat exists in our imagination like the wave that we see; It's potential energy. However, when we put a device to measure which slit the photon went through, then the wave always collapses into a particle that went through one slit. This is what exists in nature. Yet, the wave or quantum cat exists in our imagination. It's just potential energy so it doesn't exist in reality.

The wacko and drunkard Hugh Everett III thought there would be a physical multiverse which we couldn't see that was created. It led to infinite many worlds. After he got mocked and ridiculed when he presented it for his thesis, he ended up quitting physics. Schrodinger who came before him had it right. It only exists as potential. I think that's what his Schrodinger equations represented.

Today, we have the same thing happening with atheist theoretical physicists who believe in strings (quantum lines?) and it causes multiple dimensions. I would think it's the same thing all over again as we are talking about potential energy as this would lead to energy not having to be created.

Instead, I think God got it right in creating space and time and the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS), i.e. light, providing all the energy the universe will ever need. IOW, he created the fourth dimension on the first day as well as Earth and all the energy it will ever need.

 

[esalla]

Your source: Shan Yu and Danko Nikolic, Annalen der Physik, Volume 523 Issue 11, Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness, October,13th, 2011. Both authors are Neurophysiologists.

What you say here about physics makes not a big sense. Schrödinger's cat exists in the superposition to be dead and alive - as long as no one measures (=as long as no one takes a look). Who measures - with or without consciousness - is not the problem. But somewhere must be written down the result of the measurement and scientists (=conscious people) have to speak about. The problem: After measurement in 50% of all cases the cat lives - in the other 50% of the cases the cat is dead. And while no one measures the cat is 50% alive and 50% dead. Schrödinger made clear we all have intuitive problems with the concept "superposition" in our understanding of physics. Or with other words: We have two physics - standard modell of quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity - but we have only one common reality, one physique or physis.

And what this has to do with the idea "multiverses" I don't know.

You're missing the many worlds theory of Hugh Everett III. He was the one who was mocked and derided when he came up with it. Ervin Shrodinger gave it some credence in 1935 with his famous thought experiment. What you claim exists is only in the mind. The superposition you claim exists in the brain. It's like unicorns. They exist only in our imagination.

In nature, we know there can't exist the potential of a dead or alive cat. When we put a mechanism in place, then we either see it a dead (photon went thru the left slit) or alive (photon went thru the right slit). In nature, the wave collapses and this is what is observed. There is no consciousness required.

Multiverses came up again from both of the above and theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking was investigating stating that if it exists then we should find it the past studying the remnants of big bang. This was what his last paper was about. However, there was no multiverse evidence. It can't exist in nature. Now, if one doesn't understand the truth of this experiment's findings, then they should be hauled off to the funny farm. They are practicing the odd theories of Hugh Everett III.

What I won't deny is the existence of at least one dimension. We have not discovered the 4th dimension of space and time even though many scientists think it exists. LHC is trying to find it now. This experiment may help show that it does as we do not know how the wave works nor FTL communications with quantum entanglement. The atheist scientists have already gone to multidimensions up to ten with their string theory. No one has shown strings exist in nature. Many theoretical physicists believe in it due to mathematics.

Actually in nature all cats are dead or alive. Lol if you put a dead cat in a box could it come back to life.

You speak so, because your intuitions are embedded in this what we call "mesocosm" - the cosmos of the middle dimensions. But your intuitions will leave you in the macro- and microcosm. But as well micro-, meso- and macrocosm are the same cosmos. More abstract now: An electron is for example to be able to be at two positions the same time. It shows us one of the two positions, when we measure where it is - but no one is able to know which one, if we will measure it. [

If a tree falls in the forest is the fall influenced by gravity if no one sees the tree fall

That's "only" a philosophical problem in context of the philosophy "empirism". What you say here is it, that we have to use a "dogma" - an "axiom" - if we like to say the moon is not on the sky as long as no one looks at the moon - or if we like to say the opposite - what you are doing here. In this case it is importnat to know what kind of "dogma" what kind of "axiom" the other one is using. Both should use the same axiomatic system, if they like to discuss, because otherwise it will become an empty discussion.

But bin case of such problems we are perhaps able to say now the Earth "measures" the moon and the moon "measures" the Earth - if "measurement" is able to be without conscious ... but I guess very soon the people will start to discuss in this case whether the moon is conscious and/or the Earth is conscious.

And what happens in a forest as long as no conscious entity watches what happens ... who knows? A unicorne?

Cool. However you would be far better off if you spent some time contemplating the federal reserve's next interest rate move

Money is an illusion. In best case a motivator and a game in worst case an addictive drug which leads to crimes and wars. But I guess it's easy to find out what the federal resverve bank will do: Ask the people, who make the decisions there.

In other news, lay off the acid, or at least share

Something in my words seems to produce in you and irreal frustration and hate. And this frustration wakes in you the will to destroy what you don't understand. I fear that's in general a problem of the US-American mass psyche[ology]. Something seems to be wrong with your education system.

Do you sell LSD or are you just a consumer

Are you an US-American? Where did you go in school?

Actually that is irrelevant

No. Your thoughtless stupidity and intrigance made me curious. I like to know what are the roots for your wrong proudness to think defamation is the right way to live.

because there is no school that can teach what is or is not beyond this universe

You are an uneducated person - that's why I asked.

because this universe itself is still an enigma

Is it? What about it is not an enigma but a very clear and simple thing and we all are only stupid?

Yawn, Bill Gates is, was and always be a dropout

¿Bill Gates? .... What's that now? ... I guess slowly I understand why you asked for LSD. Do you have a probem with alcohol or drugs on your own and that's the reason why you broke one of the ten commandements by calling me a drug dealer?

I would not know as I am never wrong when offering a voluntary opinion.

Actually my life would be simpler if I could be wrong.

No matter as u are motivated to demonstrate how captivated you are

CIAO

 

[zaangalewa]

Your source: Shan Yu and Danko Nikolic, Annalen der Physik, Volume 523 Issue 11, Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness, October,13th, 2011. Both authors are Neurophysiologists.

What you say here about physics makes not a big sense. Schrödinger's cat exists in the superposition to be dead and alive - as long as no one measures (=as long as no one takes a look). Who measures - with or without consciousness - is not the problem. But somewhere must be written down the result of the measurement and scientists (=conscious people) have to speak about. The problem: After measurement in 50% of all cases the cat lives - in the other 50% of the cases the cat is dead. And while no one measures the cat is 50% alive and 50% dead. Schrödinger made clear we all have intuitive problems with the concept "superposition" in our understanding of physics. Or with other words: We have two physics - standard modell of quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity - but we have only one common reality, one physique or physis.

And what this has to do with the idea "multiverses" I don't know.

You're missing the many worlds theory of Hugh Everett III. He was the one who was mocked and derided when he came up with it. Ervin Shrodinger gave it some credence in 1935 with his famous thought experiment. What you claim exists is only in the mind. The superposition you claim exists in the brain. It's like unicorns. They exist only in our imagination.

In nature, we know there can't exist the potential of a dead or alive cat. When we put a mechanism in place, then we either see it a dead (photon went thru the left slit) or alive (photon went thru the right slit). In nature, the wave collapses and this is what is observed. There is no consciousness required.

Multiverses came up again from both of the above and theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking was investigating stating that if it exists then we should find it the past studying the remnants of big bang. This was what his last paper was about. However, there was no multiverse evidence. It can't exist in nature. Now, if one doesn't understand the truth of this experiment's findings, then they should be hauled off to the funny farm. They are practicing the odd theories of Hugh Everett III.

What I won't deny is the existence of at least one dimension. We have not discovered the 4th dimension of space and time even though many scientists think it exists. LHC is trying to find it now. This experiment may help show that it does as we do not know how the wave works nor FTL communications with quantum entanglement. The atheist scientists have already gone to multidimensions up to ten with their string theory. No one has shown strings exist in nature. Many theoretical physicists believe in it due to mathematics.

Actually in nature all cats are dead or alive. Lol if you put a dead cat in a box could it come back to life.

You speak so, because your intuitions are embedded in this what we call "mesocosm" - the cosmos of the middle dimensions. But your intuitions will leave you in the macro- and microcosm. But as well micro-, meso- and macrocosm are the same cosmos. More abstract now: An electron is for example to be able to be at two positions the same time. It shows us one of the two positions, when we measure where it is - but no one is able to know which one, if we will measure it. [

If a tree falls in the forest is the fall influenced by gravity if no one sees the tree fall

That's "only" a philosophical problem in context of the philosophy "empirism". What you say here is it, that we have to use a "dogma" - an "axiom" - if we like to say the moon is not on the sky as long as no one looks at the moon - or if we like to say the opposite - what you are doing here. In this case it is importnat to know what kind of "dogma" what kind of "axiom" the other one is using. Both should use the same axiomatic system, if they like to discuss, because otherwise it will become an empty discussion.

But bin case of such problems we are perhaps able to say now the Earth "measures" the moon and the moon "measures" the Earth - if "measurement" is able to be without conscious ... but I guess very soon the people will start to discuss in this case whether the moon is conscious and/or the Earth is conscious.

And what happens in a forest as long as no conscious entity watches what happens ... who knows? A unicorne?

Cool. However you would be far better off if you spent some time contemplating the federal reserve's next interest rate move

Money is an illusion. In best case a motivator and a game in worst case an addictive drug which leads to crimes and wars. But I guess it's easy to find out what the federal resverve bank will do: Ask the people, who make the decisions there.

In other news, lay off the acid, or at least share

Something in my words seems to produce in you and irreal frustration and hate. And this frustration wakes in you the will to destroy what you don't understand. I fear that's in general a problem of the US-American mass psyche[ology]. Something seems to be wrong with your education system.

Do you sell LSD or are you just a consumer

Are you an US-American? Where did you go in school?

Actually that is irrelevant

No. Your thoughtless stupidity and intrigance made me curious. I like to know what are the roots for your wrong proudness to think defamation is the right way to live.

because there is no school that can teach what is or is not beyond this universe

You are an uneducated person - that's why I asked.

because this universe itself is still an enigma

Is it? What about it is not an enigma but a very clear and simple thing and we all are only stupid?

Yawn, Bill Gates is, was and always be a dropout

¿Bill Gates? .... What's that now? ... I guess slowly I understand why you asked for LSD. Do you have a probem with alcohol or drugs on your own and that's the reason why you broke one of the ten commandements by calling me a drug dealer?

I would not know as I am never wrong when offering a voluntary opinion.

Actually my life would be simpler if I could be wrong.

No matter as u are motivated to demonstrate how captivated you are

CIAO

No comment, anti-Italian - better to say: one comment! You said nothing with many loud arrogant words - so you are not able to be right or wrong.

 

[zaangalewa]

I assume by multiple worlds you are referring to parallel universe theories - this is speculation not supported by evidence.

It must be important for the atheists and their atheist scientists because the person I learned about quantum mechanics and singularity, Stephen Hawking,

Stephen Hawking was an atheist.

was writing a paper on how to find evidence of it by studying the past light of the universe before he died.

He said he didn't give much credence to it, but he was trying to find evidence through pockets of what was observed in the past universe.

I think Erwin Schrodinger got it right in that he created a thought experiment about a quantum cat being dead and alive at the same time inside a box. That cat exists in our imagination

No! That's not imagination. Erwin Schrödinger spoke about a concrete real existing problem of physical science - a real cat which is really dead and really alive the same time.

like the wave that we see; It's potential energy. However, when we put a device to measure which slit the photon went through, then the wave always collapses into a particle that went through one slit.

If you like to measure a particle you aer able to measure a particle. If you like to measure a wave, you are able to measure a wave. But you are not able to measure both together. And behind both measurements exists the same reality.

This is what exists in nature. Yet, the wave or quantum cat exists in our imagination. It's just potential energy so it doesn't exist in reality.

Potential energy is real energy. Example: A roof tile has some potential energy. If someone transforms this potential energy into motion energy and the roof tile lands in front of your feet, then you are able to see what this potential energy is able to do.

The wacko and drunkard Hugh Everett III

Your personal hate against this human being is strange. I'm quite sure you never met this man personally, or did you? I'm quite sure he never did do to you anything bad, or did he do so? So what kind of nonsense is this? Why do you hate this man?

thought there would be a physical multiverse which we couldn't see that was created.

Hugh Everetts idea is very plausible. The mathematics behind this theory gives a coherent concept. The only problem: No one is able to prove this theory - and as far as we know never anyone will be able to prove this theory. Ignoramus, ignorabimus. From a Christian point of view I would say this idea is very fascinating, because it contains as well predestination and freedom.

It led to infinite many worlds.

Nearly pregnant is not pregnant. Nearly infinite not infinite. But not always knows someone whether he is pregnant or not.

After he got mocked and ridiculed when he presented it for his thesis, he ended up quitting physics. Schrodinger who came before him had it right. It only exists as potential. I think that's what his Schrodinger equations represented.

Today, we have the same thing happening with atheist theoretical physicists who believe in strings (quantum lines?) and it causes multiple dimensions.

String theory is not atheism.

I would think it's the same thing all over again as we are talking about potential energy as this would lead to energy not having to be created.

Instead, I think God got it right

You think you are right.

in creating space and time and the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS),

Nowhere says the bible god had created space and time and an electromagnetic spectrum.

i.e. light, providing all the energy the universe will ever need. IOW, he created the fourth dimension

Fourth dimension?

on the first day as well as Earth and all the energy it will ever need.

What for heaverns sake has your lack of knowledge in natural science to do with the Christains religion? Nothing - except that god loves his children, whether they are perfect in natural science - or not.

 

[james bond]

No! That's not imagination. Erwin Schrödinger spoke about a concrete real existing problem of physical science - a real cat which is really dead and really alive the same time.

You have no evidence; it was a thought experiment. It only exists in your thoughts . Anyway, the wave that shows up when not being observed is still a mystery. If not real and is potential energy, then where is it? It's another one of those things we can't explain right now like quantum entanglement's spooky action at a distance.

Hugh Everetts idea is very plausible.

ROFL . You need to learn about Mr. Hugh Everett III. No need to read further.

 

[zaangalewa]

No! That's not imagination. Erwin Schrödinger spoke about a concrete real existing problem of physical science - a real cat which is really dead and really alive the same time.

You have no evidence;

For what do I (=all mankind?) have no evidence?

it was a thought experiment.

Which is very easy realizable. You can take a real cat and do so and the result will not be any other result. But in this case some cats will have to die - without any reason to have to do so.

It only exists in your thoughts .

No. It exists in all thougts of all people, who like to think about the problems in context around "Schrödingers's cat".

Anyway,

No. Not any way. This is for example a way Erwin Schrödinger showed:

In general: The way is physical research. The ideas of Schröderinger are taken serios, because he is an excellent scientist.

the wave that shows up when not being observed is still a mystery.

Is it? Why?

If not real and is potential energy, then where is it?

You don't read what someone says to you, isn't it? Otherwise you would know now that potential energy is a real energy.

It's another one of those things we can't explain right now like quantum entanglement's spooky action at a distance.

It is "spooky" because something is wrong with our perception of space and time.

Hugh Everetts idea is very plausible.

ROFL . You need to learn about Mr. Hugh Everett III. No need to read further.

I have to know nothing about the person Mr. Hugh Everett and your totally mad psychological structure in context of your attacks against this person. The idea "multiverse" is a mathematical plausible idea. The problem is it is not provable. So some people call it meta-physics. And physics is not meta-physics. So physicists don't know what to do with this idea now. A similar problem exists in case of the string theory. But for sure both concepts are interesting for physicists.

 

[esalla]

Your source: Shan Yu and Danko Nikolic, Annalen der Physik, Volume 523 Issue 11, Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness, October,13th, 2011. Both authors are Neurophysiologists.

What you say here about physics makes not a big sense. Schrödinger's cat exists in the superposition to be dead and alive - as long as no one measures (=as long as no one takes a look). Who measures - with or without consciousness - is not the problem. But somewhere must be written down the result of the measurement and scientists (=conscious people) have to speak about. The problem: After measurement in 50% of all cases the cat lives - in the other 50% of the cases the cat is dead. And while no one measures the cat is 50% alive and 50% dead. Schrödinger made clear we all have intuitive problems with the concept "superposition" in our understanding of physics. Or with other words: We have two physics - standard modell of quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity - but we have only one common reality, one physique or physis.

And what this has to do with the idea "multiverses" I don't know.

You're missing the many worlds theory of Hugh Everett III. He was the one who was mocked and derided when he came up with it. Ervin Shrodinger gave it some credence in 1935 with his famous thought experiment. What you claim exists is only in the mind. The superposition you claim exists in the brain. It's like unicorns. They exist only in our imagination.

In nature, we know there can't exist the potential of a dead or alive cat. When we put a mechanism in place, then we either see it a dead (photon went thru the left slit) or alive (photon went thru the right slit). In nature, the wave collapses and this is what is observed. There is no consciousness required.

Multiverses came up again from both of the above and theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking was investigating stating that if it exists then we should find it the past studying the remnants of big bang. This was what his last paper was about. However, there was no multiverse evidence. It can't exist in nature. Now, if one doesn't understand the truth of this experiment's findings, then they should be hauled off to the funny farm. They are practicing the odd theories of Hugh Everett III.

What I won't deny is the existence of at least one dimension. We have not discovered the 4th dimension of space and time even though many scientists think it exists. LHC is trying to find it now. This experiment may help show that it does as we do not know how the wave works nor FTL communications with quantum entanglement. The atheist scientists have already gone to multidimensions up to ten with their string theory. No one has shown strings exist in nature. Many theoretical physicists believe in it due to mathematics.

Actually in nature all cats are dead or alive. Lol if you put a dead cat in a box could it come back to life.

You speak so, because your intuitions are embedded in this what we call "mesocosm" - the cosmos of the middle dimensions. But your intuitions will leave you in the macro- and microcosm. But as well micro-, meso- and macrocosm are the same cosmos. More abstract now: An electron is for example to be able to be at two positions the same time. It shows us one of the two positions, when we measure where it is - but no one is able to know which one, if we will measure it. [

If a tree falls in the forest is the fall influenced by gravity if no one sees the tree fall

That's "only" a philosophical problem in context of the philosophy "empirism". What you say here is it, that we have to use a "dogma" - an "axiom" - if we like to say the moon is not on the sky as long as no one looks at the moon - or if we like to say the opposite - what you are doing here. In this case it is importnat to know what kind of "dogma" what kind of "axiom" the other one is using. Both should use the same axiomatic system, if they like to discuss, because otherwise it will become an empty discussion.

But bin case of such problems we are perhaps able to say now the Earth "measures" the moon and the moon "measures" the Earth - if "measurement" is able to be without conscious ... but I guess very soon the people will start to discuss in this case whether the moon is conscious and/or the Earth is conscious.

And what happens in a forest as long as no conscious entity watches what happens ... who knows? A unicorne?

Cool. However you would be far better off if you spent some time contemplating the federal reserve's next interest rate move

Money is an illusion. In best case a motivator and a game in worst case an addictive drug which leads to crimes and wars. But I guess it's easy to find out what the federal resverve bank will do: Ask the people, who make the decisions there.

In other news, lay off the acid, or at least share

Something in my words seems to produce in you and irreal frustration and hate. And this frustration wakes in you the will to destroy what you don't understand. I fear that's in general a problem of the US-American mass psyche[ology]. Something seems to be wrong with your education system.

Do you sell LSD or are you just a consumer

Are you an US-American? Where did you go in school?

Actually that is irrelevant

No. Your thoughtless stupidity and intrigance made me curious. I like to know what are the roots for your wrong proudness to think defamation is the right way to live.

because there is no school that can teach what is or is not beyond this universe

You are an uneducated person - that's why I asked.

because this universe itself is still an enigma

Is it? What about it is not an enigma but a very clear and simple thing and we all are only stupid?

Yawn, Bill Gates is, was and always be a dropout

¿Bill Gates? .... What's that now? ... I guess slowly I understand why you asked for LSD. Do you have a probem with alcohol or drugs on your own and that's the reason why you broke one of the ten commandements by calling me a drug dealer?

I would not know as I am never wrong when offering a voluntary opinion.

Actually my life would be simpler if I could be wrong.

No matter as u are motivated to demonstrate how captivated you are

CIAO

No comment, anti-Italian - better to say: one comment! You said nothing with many loud arrogant words - so you are not able to be right or wrong.

Tell us more about the closet that your mother locked you in

 

[zaangalewa]

Your source: Shan Yu and Danko Nikolic, Annalen der Physik, Volume 523 Issue 11, Quantum mechanics needs no consciousness, October,13th, 2011. Both authors are Neurophysiologists.

What you say here about physics makes not a big sense. Schrödinger's cat exists in the superposition to be dead and alive - as long as no one measures (=as long as no one takes a look). Who measures - with or without consciousness - is not the problem. But somewhere must be written down the result of the measurement and scientists (=conscious people) have to speak about. The problem: After measurement in 50% of all cases the cat lives - in the other 50% of the cases the cat is dead. And while no one measures the cat is 50% alive and 50% dead. Schrödinger made clear we all have intuitive problems with the concept "superposition" in our understanding of physics. Or with other words: We have two physics - standard modell of quantum mechanics and the theory of relativity - but we have only one common reality, one physique or physis.

And what this has to do with the idea "multiverses" I don't know.

You're missing the many worlds theory of Hugh Everett III. He was the one who was mocked and derided when he came up with it. Ervin Shrodinger gave it some credence in 1935 with his famous thought experiment. What you claim exists is only in the mind. The superposition you claim exists in the brain. It's like unicorns. They exist only in our imagination.

In nature, we know there can't exist the potential of a dead or alive cat. When we put a mechanism in place, then we either see it a dead (photon went thru the left slit) or alive (photon went thru the right slit). In nature, the wave collapses and this is what is observed. There is no consciousness required.

Multiverses came up again from both of the above and theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking was investigating stating that if it exists then we should find it the past studying the remnants of big bang. This was what his last paper was about. However, there was no multiverse evidence. It can't exist in nature. Now, if one doesn't understand the truth of this experiment's findings, then they should be hauled off to the funny farm. They are practicing the odd theories of Hugh Everett III.

What I won't deny is the existence of at least one dimension. We have not discovered the 4th dimension of space and time even though many scientists think it exists. LHC is trying to find it now. This experiment may help show that it does as we do not know how the wave works nor FTL communications with quantum entanglement. The atheist scientists have already gone to multidimensions up to ten with their string theory. No one has shown strings exist in nature. Many theoretical physicists believe in it due to mathematics.

Actually in nature all cats are dead or alive. Lol if you put a dead cat in a box could it come back to life.

You speak so, because your intuitions are embedded in this what we call "mesocosm" - the cosmos of the middle dimensions. But your intuitions will leave you in the macro- and microcosm. But as well micro-, meso- and macrocosm are the same cosmos. More abstract now: An electron is for example to be able to be at two positions the same time. It shows us one of the two positions, when we measure where it is - but no one is able to know which one, if we will measure it. [

If a tree falls in the forest is the fall influenced by gravity if no one sees the tree fall

That's "only" a philosophical problem in context of the philosophy "empirism". What you say here is it, that we have to use a "dogma" - an "axiom" - if we like to say the moon is not on the sky as long as no one looks at the moon - or if we like to say the opposite - what you are doing here. In this case it is importnat to know what kind of "dogma" what kind of "axiom" the other one is using. Both should use the same axiomatic system, if they like to discuss, because otherwise it will become an empty discussion.

But bin case of such problems we are perhaps able to say now the Earth "measures" the moon and the moon "measures" the Earth - if "measurement" is able to be without conscious ... but I guess very soon the people will start to discuss in this case whether the moon is conscious and/or the Earth is conscious.

And what happens in a forest as long as no conscious entity watches what happens ... who knows? A unicorne?

Cool. However you would be far better off if you spent some time contemplating the federal reserve's next interest rate move

Money is an illusion. In best case a motivator and a game in worst case an addictive drug which leads to crimes and wars. But I guess it's easy to find out what the federal resverve bank will do: Ask the people, who make the decisions there.

In other news, lay off the acid, or at least share

Something in my words seems to produce in you and irreal frustration and hate. And this frustration wakes in you the will to destroy what you don't understand. I fear that's in general a problem of the US-American mass psyche[ology]. Something seems to be wrong with your education system.

Do you sell LSD or are you just a consumer

Are you an US-American? Where did you go in school?

Actually that is irrelevant

No. Your thoughtless stupidity and intrigance made me curious. I like to know what are the roots for your wrong proudness to think defamation is the right way to live.

because there is no school that can teach what is or is not beyond this universe

You are an uneducated person - that's why I asked.

because this universe itself is still an enigma

Is it? What about it is not an enigma but a very clear and simple thing and we all are only stupid?

Yawn, Bill Gates is, was and always be a dropout

¿Bill Gates? .... What's that now? ... I guess slowly I understand why you asked for LSD. Do you have a probem with alcohol or drugs on your own and that's the reason why you broke one of the ten commandements by calling me a drug dealer?

I would not know as I am never wrong when offering a voluntary opinion.

Actually my life would be simpler if I could be wrong.

No matter as u are motivated to demonstrate how captivated you are

CIAO

No comment, anti-Italian - better to say: one comment! You said nothing with many loud arrogant words - so you are not able to be right or wrong.

Tell us more about the closet that your mother locked you in

no comment, egghead

 

[james bond]

For what do I (=all mankind?) have no evidence?

To convince anyone. To convince me. All it sounds like is personal opinion to me.

The atheist scientists start with something that a given, an assumption. For example, then big bang happened. Then they start making up stuff from there. With Darwin, he started with a cell already. Then afterward, added spontaneous generation which was debunked. Abiogenesis is just SG updated.

Which is very easy realizable. You can take a real cat and do so and the result will not be any other result. But in this case some cats will have to die - without any reason to have to do so.

No. If you kill your cat, then it cannot come back to life. If it's alive, I suppose it could run away before you can show everyone. I can't be the only one who sees it, but those who come later and want to see it. You would be famous having a cat that is alive and dead at the same time. Are you famous?

No. It exists in all thougts of all people, who like to think about the problems in context around "Schrödingers's cat".

Prove it. The guy who made the video eliminated the cat and superposition. I already stated Hugh Everett was mocked and laughed at so hard, he quit his job and went into another industry. He was a better mathematician than physicist. He continued drinking and died early.

No. Not any way. This is for example a way Erwin Schrödinger showed:

In general: The way is physical research. The ideas of Schröderinger are taken serios, because he is an excellent scientist.

So was Everett. Schrodinger and Schrodinger's equation is on my side, remember? I said I liked his thought experiment. The wave exists as potential energy like the electron can be everywhere it can be. It is realized or the energy is realized when it is measured. Now, Everett, he took Schrodinger's equation and manipulated it with his mathematics to fit his wacky idea. You and Everett are on the same side.

Is it? Why?

I can only explain it using Schrodinger's thought experiment; It exists in our thoughts. It is potential energy that is there, i.e. the photon energy. We just don't know where it goes through the right or left slit until it is observed. Then the energy is real; It is released and we see it. What if you had a light reading device? It would record it. That is observable and demonstrable.

You don't read what someone says to you, isn't it? Otherwise you would know now that potential energy is a real energy.

Prove it.

You can't even measure the energy; That's such a lame argument because it proves my point . Now, you're being mocked like Everett .

It is "spooky" because something is wrong with our perception of space and time.

Go on explain more. What's wrong with our perception of space and time?

I have to know nothing about the person Mr. Hugh Everett and your totally mad psychological structure in context of your attacks against this person. The idea "multiverse" is a mathematical plausible idea. The problem is it is not provable. So some people call it meta-physics. And physics is not meta-physics. So physicists don't know what to do with this idea now. A similar problem exists in case of the string theory. But for sure both concepts are interesting for physicists.

You didn't read about Everett, did you? I'm entitled to my scientific opinion if I'm peer reviewing his work. His theory didn't pass peer review; did you know that? It was only in more modern times that Schrodinger (who came before Everett (!)) was taken more seriously. Everett is the one who came up with the many worlds interpretation. No one likes to be associated with that mad man. That's why the newer version was called Multiverse.

Moreover, the creationists have Kalam Cosmological Argument. The multiverse side has no logical argument. They couldn't find anything in the past light in the expanding universe as evidence. Thus, you have nothing anymore. I can explain the wave and it's collapse.

Basically, we have the same facts of the expanding universe. The differences between your view and mine are age of the universe, around 6000 years, vs 13.7 billion years, .

I have to know nothing about the person Mr. Hugh Everett and your totally mad psychological structure in context of your attacks against this person. The idea "multiverse" is a mathematical plausible idea. The problem is it is not provable. So some people call it meta-physics. And physics is not meta-physics. So physicists don't know what to do with this idea now. A similar problem exists in case of the string theory. But for sure both concepts are interesting for physicists.

I give up. I presented scientific evidence, a valid argument, and Schrodinger, his equation, and thought experiment backing me up. I can show you an experiment where no human consciousness is necessary to see the wave collapse. All we have to do is measure the energy released, for example.

 

[esalla]

For what do I (=all mankind?) have no evidence?

To convince anyone. To convince me. All it sounds like is personal opinion to me.

The atheist scientists start with something that a given, an assumption. For example, then big bang happened. Then they start making up stuff from there. With Darwin, he started with a cell already. Then afterward, added spontaneous generation which was debunked. Abiogenesis is just SG updated.

Which is very easy realizable. You can take a real cat and do so and the result will not be any other result. But in this case some cats will have to die - without any reason to have to do so.

No. If you kill your cat, then it cannot come back to life. If it's alive, I suppose it could run away before you can show everyone. I can't be the only one who sees it, but those who come later and want to see it. You would be famous having a cat that is alive and dead at the same time. Are you famous?

No. It exists in all thougts of all people, who like to think about the problems in context around "Schrödingers's cat".

Prove it. The guy who made the video eliminated the cat and superposition. I already stated Hugh Everett was mocked and laughed at so hard, he quit his job and went into another industry. He was a better mathematician than physicist. He continued drinking and died early.

No. Not any way. This is for example a way Erwin Schrödinger showed:

In general: The way is physical research. The ideas of Schröderinger are taken serios, because he is an excellent scientist.

So was Everett. Schrodinger and Schrodinger's equation is on my side, remember? I said I liked his thought experiment. The wave exists as potential energy like the electron can be everywhere it can be. It is realized or the energy is realized when it is measured. Now, Everett, he took Schrodinger's equation and manipulated it with his mathematics to fit his wacky idea. You and Everett are on the same side.

Is it? Why?

I can only explain it using Schrodinger's thought experiment; It exists in our thoughts. It is potential energy that is there, i.e. the photon energy. We just don't know where it goes through the right or left slit until it is observed. Then the energy is real; It is released and we see it. What if you had a light reading device? It would record it. That is observable and demonstrable.

You don't read what someone says to you, isn't it? Otherwise you would know now that potential energy is a real energy.

Prove it.

You can't even measure the energy; That's such a lame argument because it proves my point . Now, you're being mocked like Everett .

It is "spooky" because something is wrong with our perception of space and time.

Go on explain more. What's wrong with our perception of space and time?

I have to know nothing about the person Mr. Hugh Everett and your totally mad psychological structure in context of your attacks against this person. The idea "multiverse" is a mathematical plausible idea. The problem is it is not provable. So some people call it meta-physics. And physics is not meta-physics. So physicists don't know what to do with this idea now. A similar problem exists in case of the string theory. But for sure both concepts are interesting for physicists.

You didn't read about Everett, did you? I'm entitled to my scientific opinion if I'm peer reviewing his work. His theory didn't pass peer review; did you know that? It was only in more modern times that Schrodinger (who came before Everett (!)) was taken more seriously. Everett is the one who came up with the many worlds interpretation. No one likes to be associated with that mad man. That's why the newer version was called Multiverse.

Moreover, the creationists have Kalam Cosmological Argument. The multiverse side has no logical argument. They couldn't find anything in the past light in the expanding universe as evidence. Thus, you have nothing anymore. I can explain the wave and it's collapse.

Basically, we have the same facts of the expanding universe. The differences between your view and mine are age of the universe, around 6000 years, vs 13.7 billion years, .

I have to know nothing about the person Mr. Hugh Everett and your totally mad psychological structure in context of your attacks against this person. The idea "multiverse" is a mathematical plausible idea. The problem is it is not provable. So some people call it meta-physics. And physics is not meta-physics. So physicists don't know what to do with this idea now. A similar problem exists in case of the string theory. But for sure both concepts are interesting for physicists.

I give up. I presented scientific evidence, a valid argument, and Schrodinger, his equation, and thought experiment backing me up. I can show you an experiment where no human consciousness is necessary to see the wave collapse. All we have to do is measure the energy released, for example.

Dude the cat is meaningless the only reason it still exist is that professors have nothing else to babble

 

[Wuwei]

No! That's not imagination. Erwin Schrödinger spoke about a concrete real existing problem of physical science - a real cat which is really dead and really alive the same time.

You have no evidence;

For what do I (=all mankind?) have no evidence?

it was a thought experiment.

Which is very easy realizable. You can take a real cat and do so and the result will not be any other result. But in this case some cats will have to die - without any reason to have to do so.

It only exists in your thoughts .

No. It exists in all thougts of all people, who like to think about the problems in context around "Schrödingers's cat".

Anyway,

No. Not any way. This is for example a way Erwin Schrödinger showed:

In general: The way is physical research. The ideas of Schröderinger are taken serios, because he is an excellent scientist.

the wave that shows up when not being observed is still a mystery.

Is it? Why?

If not real and is potential energy, then where is it?

You don't read what someone says to you, isn't it? Otherwise you would know now that potential energy is a real energy.

It's another one of those things we can't explain right now like quantum entanglement's spooky action at a distance.

It is "spooky" because something is wrong with our perception of space and time.

Hugh Everetts idea is very plausible.

ROFL . You need to learn about Mr. Hugh Everett III. No need to read further.

I have to know nothing about the person Mr. Hugh Everett and your totally mad psychological structure in context of your attacks against this person. The idea "multiverse" is a mathematical plausible idea. The problem is it is not provable. So some people call it meta-physics. And physics is not meta-physics. So physicists don't know what to do with this idea now. A similar problem exists in case of the string theory. But for sure both concepts are interesting for physicists.

You nailed it. It looks like you are the only person left on this thread who understands physics. One is a troll and the other believes religion over physics.
.

 

[esalla]

No! That's not imagination. Erwin Schrödinger spoke about a concrete real existing problem of physical science - a real cat which is really dead and really alive the same time.

You have no evidence;

For what do I (=all mankind?) have no evidence?

it was a thought experiment.

Which is very easy realizable. You can take a real cat and do so and the result will not be any other result. But in this case some cats will have to die - without any reason to have to do so.

It only exists in your thoughts .

No. It exists in all thougts of all people, who like to think about the problems in context around "Schrödingers's cat".

Anyway,

No. Not any way. This is for example a way Erwin Schrödinger showed:

In general: The way is physical research. The ideas of Schröderinger are taken serios, because he is an excellent scientist.

the wave that shows up when not being observed is still a mystery.

Is it? Why?

If not real and is potential energy, then where is it?

You don't read what someone says to you, isn't it? Otherwise you would know now that potential energy is a real energy.

It's another one of those things we can't explain right now like quantum entanglement's spooky action at a distance.

It is "spooky" because something is wrong with our perception of space and time.

Hugh Everetts idea is very plausible.

ROFL . You need to learn about Mr. Hugh Everett III. No need to read further.

I have to know nothing about the person Mr. Hugh Everett and your totally mad psychological structure in context of your attacks against this person. The idea "multiverse" is a mathematical plausible idea. The problem is it is not provable. So some people call it meta-physics. And physics is not meta-physics. So physicists don't know what to do with this idea now. A similar problem exists in case of the string theory. But for sure both concepts are interesting for physicists.

You nailed it. It looks like you are the only person left on this thread who understands physics. One is a troll and the other believes religion over physics.
.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Yo woowoo, you just said that the lunatic is the last person on this thread who understands physics. Interesting how you counted yourself out of understanding physics all on your own.

Play on woo woo

 

[zaangalewa]

For what do I (=all mankind?) have no evidence?

To convince anyone.

From what?

To convince me.

That's unimportant for me. I informed you about some things, that's all.

All it sounds like is personal opinion to me.

The atheist

Atheism is a spiritual belief. If you like to discuss about a belief you don't need physics to do so.

scientists start with something that a given, an assumption. For example, then big bang happened. Then they start making up stuff from there. With Darwin, he started with a cell already. Then afterward, added spontaneous generation which was debunked. Abiogenesis is just SG updated.

Big bang = the universe expands, so it was more little once before it started to expand => the universe was created once
Theory of evolution = Every living entity has with every other living entity a common ancestor => we are all sisters and brothers

Which is very easy realizable. You can take a real cat and do so and the result will not be any other result. But in this case some cats will have to die - without any reason to have to do so.

No. If you kill your cat, then it cannot come back to life.

That's what I said. If you make the experiment then cats will die.

If it's alive, I suppose it could run away before you can show everyone.

Really funny. Still the problem is in 50% the cat will be dead and only in 50% the cat wil be alive, when you measure. But before you measure the cat is in a superposision and it is as well 50% alive and 50% dead.

I can't be the only one who sees it, but those who come later and want to see it. You would be famous having a cat that is alive and dead at the same time. Are you famous?

No. It exists in all thougts of all people, who like to think about the problems in context around "Schrödingers's cat".

Prove it.

You said it is only in my imaginations and I answered this. You should perhaps slowly start to learn how to think.

The guy who made the video eliminated the cat and superposition. I already stated Hugh Everett was mocked and laughed at so hard, he quit his job and went into another industry. He was a better mathematician than physicist. He continued drinking and died early.

No. Not any way. This is for example a way Erwin Schrödinger showed:

In general: The way is physical research. The ideas of Schröderinger are taken serios, because he is an excellent scientist.

So was Everett. Schrodinger and Schrodinger's equation is on my side, remember? I said I liked his thought experiment. The wave exists as potential energy like the electron can be everywhere it can be. It is realized or the energy is realized when it is measured. Now, Everett, he took Schrodinger's equation and manipulated it with his mathematics to fit his wacky idea. You and Everett are on the same side.

Is it? Why?

I can only explain it using Schrodinger's thought experiment; It exists in our thoughts. It is potential energy that is there, i.e. the photon energy. We just don't know where it goes through the right or left slit until it is observed. Then the energy is real; It is released and we see it. What if you had a light reading device? It would record it. That is observable and demonstrable.

You don't read what someone says to you, isn't it? Otherwise you would know now that potential energy is a real energy.

Prove it.

You can't even measure the energy; That's such a lame argument because it proves my point . Now, you're being mocked like Everett .

It is "spooky" because something is wrong with our perception of space and time.

Go on explain more. What's wrong with our perception of space and time?

I have to know nothing about the person Mr. Hugh Everett and your totally mad psychological structure in context of your attacks against this person. The idea "multiverse" is a mathematical plausible idea. The problem is it is not provable. So some people call it meta-physics. And physics is not meta-physics. So physicists don't know what to do with this idea now. A similar problem exists in case of the string theory. But for sure both concepts are interesting for physicists.

You didn't read about Everett, did you? I'm entitled to my scientific opinion if I'm peer reviewing his work. His theory didn't pass peer review; did you know that? It was only in more modern times that Schrodinger (who came before Everett (!)) was taken more seriously. Everett is the one who came up with the many worlds interpretation. No one likes to be associated with that mad man. That's why the newer version was called Multiverse.

Moreover, the creationists have Kalam Cosmological Argument. The multiverse side has no logical argument. They couldn't find anything in the past light in the expanding universe as evidence. Thus, you have nothing anymore. I can explain the wave and it's collapse.

Basically, we have the same facts of the expanding universe. The differences between your view and mine are age of the universe, around 6000 years, vs 13.7 billion years, .

I have to know nothing about the person Mr. Hugh Everett and your totally mad psychological structure in context of your attacks against this person. The idea "multiverse" is a mathematical plausible idea. The problem is it is not provable. So some people call it meta-physics. And physics is not meta-physics. So physicists don't know what to do with this idea now. A similar problem exists in case of the string theory. But for sure both concepts are interesting for physicists.

I give up.

Okay.

I presented scientific evidence, a valid argument, and Schrodinger, his equation, and thought experiment backing me up. I can show you an experiment where no human consciousness is necessary to see the wave collapse. All we have to do is measure the energy released, for example.

 

[esalla]

For what do I (=all mankind?) have no evidence?

To convince anyone.

From what?

To convince me.

That's unimportant for me. I informed you about some things, that's all.

All it sounds like is personal opinion to me.

The atheist

Atheism is a spiritual belief. If you like to discuss about a belief you don't need physics to do so.

scientists start with something that a given, an assumption. For example, then big bang happened. Then they start making up stuff from there. With Darwin, he started with a cell already. Then afterward, added spontaneous generation which was debunked. Abiogenesis is just SG updated.

Big bang = the universe expands, so it was more little once before it started to expand => the universe was created once
Theory of evolution = Every living entity has with every other living entity a common ancestor => we are all sisters and brothers

Which is very easy realizable. You can take a real cat and do so and the result will not be any other result. But in this case some cats will have to die - without any reason to have to do so.

No. If you kill your cat, then it cannot come back to life.

That's what I said. If you make the experiment then cats will die.

If it's alive, I suppose it could run away before you can show everyone.

Really funny. Still the problem is in 50% the cat will be dead and only in 50% the cat wil be alive, when you measure. But before you measure the cat is in a superposision and it is as well 50% alive and 50% dead.

I can't be the only one who sees it, but those who come later and want to see it. You would be famous having a cat that is alive and dead at the same time. Are you famous?

No. It exists in all thougts of all people, who like to think about the problems in context around "Schrödingers's cat".

Prove it.

You said it is only in my imaginations and I answered this. You should perhaps slowly start to learn how to think.

The guy who made the video eliminated the cat and superposition. I already stated Hugh Everett was mocked and laughed at so hard, he quit his job and went into another industry. He was a better mathematician than physicist. He continued drinking and died early.

No. Not any way. This is for example a way Erwin Schrödinger showed:

In general: The way is physical research. The ideas of Schröderinger are taken serios, because he is an excellent scientist.

So was Everett. Schrodinger and Schrodinger's equation is on my side, remember? I said I liked his thought experiment. The wave exists as potential energy like the electron can be everywhere it can be. It is realized or the energy is realized when it is measured. Now, Everett, he took Schrodinger's equation and manipulated it with his mathematics to fit his wacky idea. You and Everett are on the same side.

Is it? Why?

I can only explain it using Schrodinger's thought experiment; It exists in our thoughts. It is potential energy that is there, i.e. the photon energy. We just don't know where it goes through the right or left slit until it is observed. Then the energy is real; It is released and we see it. What if you had a light reading device? It would record it. That is observable and demonstrable.

You don't read what someone says to you, isn't it? Otherwise you would know now that potential energy is a real energy.

Prove it.

You can't even measure the energy; That's such a lame argument because it proves my point . Now, you're being mocked like Everett .

It is "spooky" because something is wrong with our perception of space and time.

Go on explain more. What's wrong with our perception of space and time?

I have to know nothing about the person Mr. Hugh Everett and your totally mad psychological structure in context of your attacks against this person. The idea "multiverse" is a mathematical plausible idea. The problem is it is not provable. So some people call it meta-physics. And physics is not meta-physics. So physicists don't know what to do with this idea now. A similar problem exists in case of the string theory. But for sure both concepts are interesting for physicists.

You didn't read about Everett, did you? I'm entitled to my scientific opinion if I'm peer reviewing his work. His theory didn't pass peer review; did you know that? It was only in more modern times that Schrodinger (who came before Everett (!)) was taken more seriously. Everett is the one who came up with the many worlds interpretation. No one likes to be associated with that mad man. That's why the newer version was called Multiverse.

Moreover, the creationists have Kalam Cosmological Argument. The multiverse side has no logical argument. They couldn't find anything in the past light in the expanding universe as evidence. Thus, you have nothing anymore. I can explain the wave and it's collapse.

Basically, we have the same facts of the expanding universe. The differences between your view and mine are age of the universe, around 6000 years, vs 13.7 billion years, .

I have to know nothing about the person Mr. Hugh Everett and your totally mad psychological structure in context of your attacks against this person. The idea "multiverse" is a mathematical plausible idea. The problem is it is not provable. So some people call it meta-physics. And physics is not meta-physics. So physicists don't know what to do with this idea now. A similar problem exists in case of the string theory. But for sure both concepts are interesting for physicists.

I give up.

Okay.

I presented scientific evidence, a valid argument, and Schrodinger, his equation, and thought experiment backing me up. I can show you an experiment where no human consciousness is necessary to see the wave collapse. All we have to do is measure the energy released, for example.

What about the partridge in the pear tree

 

[james bond]

You nailed it. It looks like you are the only person left on this thread who understands physics. One is a troll and the other believes religion over physics.

Woo woo thinks he understand physics. Yet, you were wrong about quantum entanglement, age of the Earth (no rocks and fossils can survive billions of years), and now multiverses.

Read about your hero Hugh Everett III and weep -- The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett. In 2011, he was debunked once and for all. Yet, some like atheist scientist Stephen Hawking won't let go of their multiverse lie. He thought he could travel back in time and probably believed in parallell universes as that was what his last paper was about. This, despite saying he wasn't a fan of the multiverse.

"According to one school of thought, the cosmos started expanding exponentially after the Big Bang.

In most parts, this expansion or "inflation" continues eternally, except for a few pockets where it stops.

These pockets are where universes like ours are formed—multitudes of them that are often likened to "bubbles" in an ever-expanding ocean dubbed the multiverse.

Many scientists don't like the idea, including Hawking, who said in an interview last year: "I have never been a fan of the multiverse."

If we do live in an ever-inflating multiverse, it would mean the laws of physics and chemistry can differ from one universe to another, a concept that scientists struggle to accept."

The skeptics got it right:

''Fringe idea'

"It is a debate that touches on the very foundations of cosmology," Hertog said.

"The underlying question is whether we can achieve a deeper understanding of where the laws of nature come from, and whether they are unique."

Not everyone likes the new theory.

"The idea that we live in a 'multiverse' is a fringe idea in a small part of a subfield of the physics community," said theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder of the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies.

"Nobody who does serious science works with the multiverse because it's utterly useless," she told AFP.

The main problem, Hossenfelder explains, is that any multiverse theory is "underdetermined" and "doesn't contain enough information to make calculations".

For detractors, a multiverse theory complicates our understanding of our own Universe.'

It's utterly ridiculous that it continues despite the 2011 paper and findings. There is no limit to stupidity.

After death, Hawking cuts 'multiverse' theory down to size

With a science paper published after his death, Stephen Hawking has revived debate on a deeply divisive question for cosmologists: Is our Universe just one of many in an infinite, ever-expanding "multiverse"?

phys.org

 

[zaangalewa]

For what do I (=all mankind?) have no evidence?

To convince anyone.

From what?

To convince me.

That's unimportant for me. I informed you about some things, that's all.

All it sounds like is personal opinion to me.

The atheist

Atheism is a spiritual belief. If you like to discuss about a belief you don't need physics to do so.

scientists start with something that a given, an assumption. For example, then big bang happened. Then they start making up stuff from there. With Darwin, he started with a cell already. Then afterward, added spontaneous generation which was debunked. Abiogenesis is just SG updated.

Big bang = the universe expands, so it was more little once before it started to expand => the universe was created once
Theory of evolution = Every living entity has with every other living entity a common ancestor => we are all sisters and brothers

Which is very easy realizable. You can take a real cat and do so and the result will not be any other result. But in this case some cats will have to die - without any reason to have to do so.

No. If you kill your cat, then it cannot come back to life.

That's what I said. If you make the experiment then cats will die.

If it's alive, I suppose it could run away before you can show everyone.

Really funny. Still the problem is in 50% the cat will be dead and only in 50% the cat wil be alive, when you measure. But before you measure the cat is in a superposision and it is as well 50% alive and 50% dead.

I can't be the only one who sees it, but those who come later and want to see it. You would be famous having a cat that is alive and dead at the same time. Are you famous?

No. It exists in all thougts of all people, who like to think about the problems in context around "Schrödingers's cat".

Prove it.

You said it is only in my imaginations and I answered this. You should perhaps slowly start to learn how to think.

The guy who made the video eliminated the cat and superposition. I already stated Hugh Everett was mocked and laughed at so hard, he quit his job and went into another industry. He was a better mathematician than physicist. He continued drinking and died early.

No. Not any way. This is for example a way Erwin Schrödinger showed:

In general: The way is physical research. The ideas of Schröderinger are taken serios, because he is an excellent scientist.

So was Everett. Schrodinger and Schrodinger's equation is on my side, remember? I said I liked his thought experiment. The wave exists as potential energy like the electron can be everywhere it can be. It is realized or the energy is realized when it is measured. Now, Everett, he took Schrodinger's equation and manipulated it with his mathematics to fit his wacky idea. You and Everett are on the same side.

Is it? Why?

I can only explain it using Schrodinger's thought experiment; It exists in our thoughts. It is potential energy that is there, i.e. the photon energy. We just don't know where it goes through the right or left slit until it is observed. Then the energy is real; It is released and we see it. What if you had a light reading device? It would record it. That is observable and demonstrable.

You don't read what someone says to you, isn't it? Otherwise you would know now that potential energy is a real energy.

Prove it.

You can't even measure the energy; That's such a lame argument because it proves my point . Now, you're being mocked like Everett .

It is "spooky" because something is wrong with our perception of space and time.

Go on explain more. What's wrong with our perception of space and time?

I have to know nothing about the person Mr. Hugh Everett and your totally mad psychological structure in context of your attacks against this person. The idea "multiverse" is a mathematical plausible idea. The problem is it is not provable. So some people call it meta-physics. And physics is not meta-physics. So physicists don't know what to do with this idea now. A similar problem exists in case of the string theory. But for sure both concepts are interesting for physicists.

You didn't read about Everett, did you? I'm entitled to my scientific opinion if I'm peer reviewing his work. His theory didn't pass peer review; did you know that? It was only in more modern times that Schrodinger (who came before Everett (!)) was taken more seriously. Everett is the one who came up with the many worlds interpretation. No one likes to be associated with that mad man. That's why the newer version was called Multiverse.

Moreover, the creationists have Kalam Cosmological Argument. The multiverse side has no logical argument. They couldn't find anything in the past light in the expanding universe as evidence. Thus, you have nothing anymore. I can explain the wave and it's collapse.

Basically, we have the same facts of the expanding universe. The differences between your view and mine are age of the universe, around 6000 years, vs 13.7 billion years, .

I have to know nothing about the person Mr. Hugh Everett and your totally mad psychological structure in context of your attacks against this person. The idea "multiverse" is a mathematical plausible idea. The problem is it is not provable. So some people call it meta-physics. And physics is not meta-physics. So physicists don't know what to do with this idea now. A similar problem exists in case of the string theory. But for sure both concepts are interesting for physicists.

I give up.

Okay.

I presented scientific evidence, a valid argument, and Schrodinger, his equation, and thought experiment backing me up. I can show you an experiment where no human consciousness is necessary to see the wave collapse. All we have to do is measure the energy released, for example.

What about the partridge in the pear tree

As far as I know Lord Ribbeck on Ribbeck in Havelland had engaged a partridge after his death to tell children the story of Lord Ribbeck on Ribbeck in Havelland. And still today sometimes a child sits around, eats one of his pears, and sings about Lord Ribbeck, who had lived once on Ribbeck, in Havelland.

 

[Muhammed]

No Multiple Worlds Can Exist At The Same Time.

Show me where the Bible says that...…..

If you want to know how this deals with atheist science and God, then it isn't in the Bible but Kalam Cosmological Argument which states:

The atheists used to argue that we cannot know statement 3 because there exists multiverses. This paper shows that the multiple states cannot exist at the same time. That is perception or the waves. What can exist is that which can be measured (observed; consciousness does not have to be present). Thus, Kalam Cosmological Argument holds true.

To you, it means that you are wrong again. Will you ever chalk it up to experience and actually learn some real science?

#2 in the Kalam Cosmological Argument is an unsupported assertion.

 

[james bond]

#2 in the Kalam Cosmological Argument is an unsupported assertion.

No. Proven by science.

 

[esalla]

For what do I (=all mankind?) have no evidence?

To convince anyone.

From what?

To convince me.

That's unimportant for me. I informed you about some things, that's all.

All it sounds like is personal opinion to me.

The atheist

Atheism is a spiritual belief. If you like to discuss about a belief you don't need physics to do so.

scientists start with something that a given, an assumption. For example, then big bang happened. Then they start making up stuff from there. With Darwin, he started with a cell already. Then afterward, added spontaneous generation which was debunked. Abiogenesis is just SG updated.

Big bang = the universe expands, so it was more little once before it started to expand => the universe was created once
Theory of evolution = Every living entity has with every other living entity a common ancestor => we are all sisters and brothers

Which is very easy realizable. You can take a real cat and do so and the result will not be any other result. But in this case some cats will have to die - without any reason to have to do so.

No. If you kill your cat, then it cannot come back to life.

That's what I said. If you make the experiment then cats will die.

If it's alive, I suppose it could run away before you can show everyone.

Really funny. Still the problem is in 50% the cat will be dead and only in 50% the cat wil be alive, when you measure. But before you measure the cat is in a superposision and it is as well 50% alive and 50% dead.

I can't be the only one who sees it, but those who come later and want to see it. You would be famous having a cat that is alive and dead at the same time. Are you famous?

No. It exists in all thougts of all people, who like to think about the problems in context around "Schrödingers's cat".

Prove it.

You said it is only in my imaginations and I answered this. You should perhaps slowly start to learn how to think.

The guy who made the video eliminated the cat and superposition. I already stated Hugh Everett was mocked and laughed at so hard, he quit his job and went into another industry. He was a better mathematician than physicist. He continued drinking and died early.

No. Not any way. This is for example a way Erwin Schrödinger showed:

In general: The way is physical research. The ideas of Schröderinger are taken serios, because he is an excellent scientist.

So was Everett. Schrodinger and Schrodinger's equation is on my side, remember? I said I liked his thought experiment. The wave exists as potential energy like the electron can be everywhere it can be. It is realized or the energy is realized when it is measured. Now, Everett, he took Schrodinger's equation and manipulated it with his mathematics to fit his wacky idea. You and Everett are on the same side.

Is it? Why?

I can only explain it using Schrodinger's thought experiment; It exists in our thoughts. It is potential energy that is there, i.e. the photon energy. We just don't know where it goes through the right or left slit until it is observed. Then the energy is real; It is released and we see it. What if you had a light reading device? It would record it. That is observable and demonstrable.

You don't read what someone says to you, isn't it? Otherwise you would know now that potential energy is a real energy.

Prove it.

You can't even measure the energy; That's such a lame argument because it proves my point . Now, you're being mocked like Everett .

It is "spooky" because something is wrong with our perception of space and time.

Go on explain more. What's wrong with our perception of space and time?

I have to know nothing about the person Mr. Hugh Everett and your totally mad psychological structure in context of your attacks against this person. The idea "multiverse" is a mathematical plausible idea. The problem is it is not provable. So some people call it meta-physics. And physics is not meta-physics. So physicists don't know what to do with this idea now. A similar problem exists in case of the string theory. But for sure both concepts are interesting for physicists.

You didn't read about Everett, did you? I'm entitled to my scientific opinion if I'm peer reviewing his work. His theory didn't pass peer review; did you know that? It was only in more modern times that Schrodinger (who came before Everett (!)) was taken more seriously. Everett is the one who came up with the many worlds interpretation. No one likes to be associated with that mad man. That's why the newer version was called Multiverse.

Moreover, the creationists have Kalam Cosmological Argument. The multiverse side has no logical argument. They couldn't find anything in the past light in the expanding universe as evidence. Thus, you have nothing anymore. I can explain the wave and it's collapse.

Basically, we have the same facts of the expanding universe. The differences between your view and mine are age of the universe, around 6000 years, vs 13.7 billion years, .

I have to know nothing about the person Mr. Hugh Everett and your totally mad psychological structure in context of your attacks against this person. The idea "multiverse" is a mathematical plausible idea. The problem is it is not provable. So some people call it meta-physics. And physics is not meta-physics. So physicists don't know what to do with this idea now. A similar problem exists in case of the string theory. But for sure both concepts are interesting for physicists.

I give up.

Okay.

I presented scientific evidence, a valid argument, and Schrodinger, his equation, and thought experiment backing me up. I can show you an experiment where no human consciousness is necessary to see the wave collapse. All we have to do is measure the energy released, for example.

What about the partridge in the pear tree

As far as I know Lord Ribbeck on Ribbeck in Havelland had engaged a partridge after his death to tell children the story of Lord Ribbeck on Ribbeck in Havelland. And still today sometimes a child sits around, eats one of his pears, and sings about Lord Ribbeck, who had lived once on Ribbeck, in Havelland.

You would know