Physicist: Parallel Universes Exist and We Should Explore Them
Theoretical physicist Sean Carroll expressed that clues in the small-scale structure of the universe point to the existence of numerous parallel worlds.
Carroll says that the fact that tiny particles like electrons and photons don’t have one set location in the universe is evidence that there are many parallel universes.
Recently, in a follow up interview with News.com.au, Carroll expanded his thoughts. “But there’s a lot more going on,” Carroll told News.com.au. “Not every world you imagine actually comes true.”
The common sense rules of physics that rule our lives everyday make sense to us but at very minuscule scales common sense breaks down altogether. At the quantum level, the empty vacuum of space is filled with tiny particles constantly popping in and out of existence.
Bell’s theorem, a fundamental construct in quantum mechanics, may prove that multiverses exist. This theorem deals with situations where particles interact with each other, become entangled, and then go their separate ways, according to New Scientist.
“There are still equations, physical rules, patterns that must be obeyed. Some possible alternate worlds can come true. But not all of them,” Carroll said.
In the past, Carroll has advanced some groundbreaking yet controversial theories on topics such as the Big Bang theory and the nature of time.
He has said that the universe didn’t start in a huge explosion as most people now believe, but instead it is an infinitely old, constantly inflating entity in which time can run both forward and backward.
For Carroll quantum physics is not something that can be broken down and explained in simpler terms.
“As far as we currently know,” he writes. “Quantum mechanics isn’t just an approximation to the truth; it is the truth.”
“Physics is stuck trying to understand the fundamentals of nature and the Big Bang,” Carroll said. “It’s time to take a step back and understand its foundations. It’s time to tackle our understanding of the quantum world.”
In 2011 physicist Brian Greene wrote a book exploring the possibility called The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos.
“You almost can’t avoid having some version of the multiverse in your studies if you push deeply enough in the mathematical descriptions of the physical universe,” Greene told NPR. “There are many of us thinking of one version of parallel universe theory or another. If it’s all a lot of nonsense, then it’s a lot of wasted effort going into this far-out idea. But if this idea is correct, it is a fantastic upheaval in our understanding.”
Even Stephen Hawking suggested that, thanks to quantum mechanics, the Big Bang supplied us with an endless number of universes, not just one.
Up until this point understanding quantum physics and its realms has been impossible, but Carroll hopes that is changing thanks to technology.
“Now we’re getting better at that,” Carroll says. “Technology has improved. Maybe things are going to change.”
Greene, Carroll, and Hawking may be right, and researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee want to find out if there are multiverses or mirror images of our own reality. The team was set to record experiments last year sending a beam of subatomic particles down a 50-foot tunnel, past a powerful magnet and into an impenetrable wall.
“If it exists, it would form a bubble of reality nestling within the fabric of space and time alongside our own familiar universe, with some particles capable of switching between the two,” lead researcher Leah Broussard told New Scientist.
Read more at themindunleashed.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Charles Higley
| #
“thanks to quantum mechanics, the Big Bang supplied us with an endless number of universes, not just one.”
Big problem here. Occam’s Razor says you have to negate the simple before your accept the more complicated. The Steady State (Electric) Universe has never been negated, but the Big Bang was accepted unquestioned for its Biblical origin features. We have spent decades shoring up the Big Bang, band-aiding its shortcoming (and claiming success) and creating stuff that has never been confirmed, which includes Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Dark Force, String Theory, and a multiverse of universes. Someone even calculated, based on these fantasies, that he can calculate how far away is a universe in which I am typing this but wearing a different colored shirt today. How far down the rabbit hole are we when we are willing to accept an infinity of universes when we have not clearly addressed the one we have.
A steady state universe ruled by electromagnetism and currents, recognizing that quasars are localized galaxy products, can be explained virtually entirely by known science, without creating insanely extrapolated and fantasized “science.” Few people realize that String Theory and its many offspring have never been tested or confirmed. They are taken as proven when they simply are not, in any way. The idea of 22 dimensions in string theory is just ludicrous.
In the real world, nature only gave us one Universe and, as a Steady State Universe, we will never know where it came from or where it is going, just as the Big Bang does not let us know what came before it, although the highly imaginative have been rewarded for their fantasies.
So, I have no problem with these guys mentally playing with themselves and hypothesizing science fiction scenarios, but they should not pretend they are doing anything that even slightly approaches the real world.
Reply
geran
| #
Charles, the “Big Bang” wasn’t “accepted unquestioned for its Biblical origin features”
The Big Bang nonsense was in opposition to the Bible. The BB is based on the “theory” that something can create itself, without divine intervention.
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
No, Geran, Charles is correct.
Reply
Tom O
| #
No, Zoe, you and Charles are both wrong. The Big Bang was devised for the singular purpose of giving an alternative to creation since creation can’t be proved or disproved. Then again, neither can the Big Bang, but hey, so what if science has created its own religion!
Reply
Squidly
| #
Geran and Tom are correct .. and to this day the so-called “Big Bang” theory is still forcefully pushed by the anti-creation coalition. They have had all of the resources behind them, from the cash the media and the academia. All this, still no evidence to back the theories but we are continually bullied to believe it to be “fact” (as we are told Ad nauseam). And yet a “Big Bang” universe cannot coexist with a “Black Hole” but still contains magical pixie dust, “dark energy”, “dark matter” and other magical entities that cannot be detected or measured.
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
In a world of Computer Generated Images and Virtual Reality, one can create a CGI animation to validate any VR fantasy. Evidence and reason are to only limits unbounded bangs.
Reply
ANTHONY SIMON
| #
Concur, why would expect anything other than Stratified Development of any complex system?
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
First of all, I have no issue with the Big Bang theory, to me it seems the most plausible theory. My father, who lectured on nuclear physics in the 70s, which is what got me interested in particle physics, had a slightly different opinion. He thought the ‘steady state’ theory was probably correct, with an endless series of big bangs and big crunches, each one creating a new universe. Neither of us think it appropriate to ascribe any kind of ‘divine intervention’ to these theories.
As for multiple universes existing at the same time, while it is theoretically possible, we have so far found no evidence to suggest they actually exist, and even if they did, the fact they are separate suggests you cannot travel from one to another.
Reply
geran
| #
Andy, you should have a BIG issue with the “Big Bang theory”.
First of all, it is not a theory. A theory can not violate the laws of physics. The concept of something coming from nothing is not science. It is a false religion.
The correct scientific answer to ‘How did we get here”, is “We don’t know”.
You can say you don’t know, but you can’t knowingly accept the pseudoscience, unless you choose that as your false religion.
Reply
Monty
| #
Perhaps it is unscientific to say something came from nothing. But, philosophically one can.
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Please do not tell me what I should or should not believe, that is my business. Having studied nuclear and particle physics, I can say as far as I and may other scientists are concered, the BB theory is not pseudoscience. It is true we do not, and probably can not, know for certain the origin of the universe, but to call a theory pseudoscience because you do not believe it is not acceptable.
Reply
geran
| #
Andy, I didn’t tell you what to believe. That’s your choice. I only warned you about believing in a false religion.
Have you ever noticed how people get so riled when they think their false religion is being attacked?
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
Yes I have, but just because I believe something different to you does not automatically make you right and me wrong.
geran
| #
The “wrong” comes about from believing in the Big Bang, when it clearly violates the Laws of thermodynamics. That’s why the believers have had to come up with “dark energy” and “dark matter”. To defend their false religion, they resort to making up things.
Andy Rowlands
| #
Well like I said, I am free to believe whatever I choose, and if you want to believe something else, that’s fine. If it violates the laws of thermodynamics, just about every astrophysicist and astronomer, people who have often spent their working lives studying the universe, is wrong, and you are right.
geran
| #
“If it violates the laws of thermodynamics, just about every astrophysicist and astronomer, people who have often spent their working lives studying the universe, is wrong, and you are right.”
I agree, Andy. When people believe in nonsense that violations the laws of physics, they are wrong. We could also include cosmologists and certain corrupt PhD meteorologists in that group.
(Sorry that I’m so late in responding. I didn’t see your comment until this morning.)
Herb Rose
| #
This is why physicist need to go to school for so long. They need extensive time, effort, practice, and commitment to eradicate any good sense they have in order to delude themselves into thinking that they believe and understand this unmitigated crap.
Reply
Tom O
| #
It actually is deciding that the world can be proven by mathematical equation that is the problem. When it was decided that mathematics describes the universe and everything in it because it can permit the prediction of how some events will happen, it was decided that all events can be described by some math equation. And then it just built upon itself, always finding “band aids” when something didn’t quite happen as predicted.
Reply
Squidly
| #
Well said Tom !!
Reply
Squidly
| #
I have actually come up with my own theories of time and the deterministic vs. non-deterministic universe. I have had some rather strong revelations on these topics as of late. Those colleagues that I have discussed this with have been quite intrigued, to say the least.
Some of it is base upon this thought. You and I can never see each others “present”, we an only see (and interact with) each others “past”. Even visually, I cannot see your present. You could have vanished a pico-second ago and I would not know it because that information has not gotten to me yet, hence, I can only observe your past and interact with your past. But it even goes much further in that, theoretically I can observe (and interact) with any of your past, but I can never observe or interact with any of your present or future. Since I cannot interact with your present or future I could also change your past without affecting your present or your future.
From there things begin to get pretty deep, especially concerning “freewill”, determinism and non-determinism. I don’t believe in the deterministic (non-freewill) or Block Universe. In fact, every single Plank time is undetermined and 100% entropy until the very instant it is recorded (happens). It is the opposite of deterministic in that each future Plank time is 100% chaos but is merely suggested by the prior (recorded) Plank time. While each future Plank time is “driven” by the prior Plank time, freewill exists and therefore non-deterministic (freewill). For this reason one can never “know” the future. Sure, you can make prediction of the future by current or present time (suggestive) but you can never actually know or observe the future. If our universe were a Block Universe (deterministic) you could know all of the future. It would be calculable. I don’t believe that is ever possible. Therefore, we are not a Block Universe or deterministic and thus freewill not only exists, it is the predominate state. Not only the predominate state, but perhaps the very purpose of the universe to begin with. That goes a long way to explaining reality as well.
Anyway, thanks for listening ..just some random thoughts I have had as of late.
Cheers! … and don’t let the Coronapocalypse get you!!!
Reply
Squidly
| #
FYI, position and super-position provide support (or evidence) of what I am suggesting.
Reply