Physics Proves Parallel Universes Exist/time travel possible

HOLOGRAPHIC uNIVERSE??? that s a ALSO tough one for religions as a whole....

------------------------------
Freaky Physics Proves Parallel Universes Exist

By John Brandon

- FOXNews.com

Look past the details of a wonky discovery by a group of California scientists -- that a quantum state is now observable with the human eye -- and consider its implications: Time travel may be feasible.

Look past the details of a wonky discovery by a group of California scientists -- that a quantum state is now observable with the human eye -- and consider its implications: Time travel may be feasible. Doc Brown would be proud.

The strange discovery by quantum physicists at the University of California Santa Barbara means that an object you can see in front of you may exist simultaneously in a parallel universe
-- a multi-state condition that has scientists theorizing that traveling through time may be much more than just the plaything of science fiction writers.

And it's all because of a tiny bit of metal -- a "paddle" about the width of a human hair, an item that is incredibly small but still something you can see with the naked eye.

UC Santa Barbara's Andrew Cleland cooled that paddle in a refrigerator, dimmed the lights and, under a special bell jar, sucked out all the air to eliminate vibrations. He then plucked it like a tuning fork and noted that it moved and stood still at the same time.

That sounds contradictory, and it's nearly impossible to understand if your last name isn't Einstein. But it actually happened. It's a freaky fact that's at the heart of quantum mechanics.

How Is That Possible?

To even try to understand it, you have to think really, really small. Smaller than an atom. Electrons, which circle the nucleus of an atom, are swirling around in multiple states at the same time -- they're hard to pin down. It's only when we measure the position of an electron that we force it to have a specific location. Cleland's breakthrough lies in taking that hard-to-grasp yet true fact about the atomic particle and applying it to something visible with the naked eye.

What does it all mean? Let's say you're in Oklahoma visiting your aunt. But in another universe, where your atomic particles just can't keep up, you're actually at home watching "The Simpsons." That may sound far-fetched, but it's based on real science.

"When you observe something in one state, one theory is it split the universe into two parts," Cleland told FoxNews.com, trying to explain how there can be multiple universes and we can see only one of them.

The multi-verse theory says the entire universe "freezes" during observation, and we see only one reality. You see a soccer ball flying through the air, but maybe in a second universe the ball has dropped already. Or you were looking the other way. Or they don't even play soccer over there.

Sean Carroll, a physicist at the California Institute of Technology and a popular author, accepts the scientific basis for the multi-verse -- even if it cannot be proven.

"Unless you can imagine some super-advanced alien civilization that has figured this out, we aren't affected by the possible existence of other universes," Carroll said. But he does think "someone could devise a machine that lets one universe


http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...lel-universes/

Subatomic particles are better understood as waves, up down up down or in out in out or tick tock tick tock.

When old school physicists try to see everything as particles, and not energy bundles of angular momentum, they are just looking at tick...tick...
When they come across a tock they get all wonky, and of course Fox can spin this to keep the sheep even more confused.

http://www.16pi2.com/joomla/aetherph...ysicstime.html

Quote:

---

Time is only half of a frequency. We only see the forward moving part of the frequency. In reality, time moves a half step forward and then a half step backward. This is why subatomic particles are observed to have "half spin". We see the effect of the Aether spinning a ring of one dimensional mass forward in time, but we can't see the ring of mass spinning backward in time.

---

However once a 'particle' is not directly engaging in its creation with the aether, i.e. is built from other particles, reverse time no longer exists for it. That includes humans of course. Our existence is built from other ups, ins, or ticks however one wants to describe what we call the building blocks of our matter.
http://www.16pi2.com/joomla/images/stories/ancien5.jpghttp://www.16pi2.com/joomla/images/s...ther_unit2.jpg

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...820013&ps=cprs

Quote:

---

Cleland says at first, scientists thought the laws of quantum mechanics applied to objects on the atomic scale. Cleland says it's true — physicists have observed quantum effects in structures as large as 60 atoms. That's large for the atomic world, but totally invisible in our world.

Cleland wanted to see if he could find the size where the laws of quantum broke down and everyday laws take over.

Technically speaking, Cleland and his colleagues used a "microwave-frequency mechanical oscillator coupled to a quantum bit." While true, that's not very informative for most of us. Let's just say that they took something very small...

They cooled their structure to nearly absolute zero, and to their surprise and delight, the structure they created still behaved in a quantum way

---

Everyone remember this movie of an electron? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofp-OHIq6Wo
Well the more modern wave theories show atoms can also be thought of to exist with a dominant vibratory state. As this article states groups of atoms can behave this way too. Probably helps explain why colloids can have properties of individual atoms as well as a solid.

So by cooling the temperature to near absolute zero, that is individual atoms are not vibrating in relation to each other, they can exhibit a single vibrational state as well.
Now to make the leap from this predictable observation to parallel universes is just ignorance.

Big and Little Science

Apr 13, 2010
Professor Irving Wolfe
thunderbolts.info

What science produces is neither universally true nor real, but is created by the observer and is relative to his predispositions and equipment. As a result, it is not complete but selected, not objective but subjective, and not unique but partial.

This produces an observer-created reality, says physicist Roger Jones, in which "the observer and observed ... cannot be broken down into independent components" because "the observer has an uncontrollable and non-removable effect on what is observed."

The result, according to physicist Arthur March, is that "what is perceived is....the effects brought to light by this procedure," effects which "are created by this process." This means that the scientist each time he observes creates something new, for, as physicist John Wheeler says, "this is a participatory universe."

The scientific observation is therefore less a picture of reality than a sort of mirror in which the observer sees himself, which makes the physical world a product of human consciousness. To physicist Fred Wolf, when we look at the universe "We are looking at ourselves," and to Garry Zukav "we cannot eliminate ourselves from the picture....physics is the study of the structure of consciousness."

"We can only see nature blurred by the clouds of dust we ourselves make," says physicist Sir James Jeans, for whom for instance a rainbow is not an independent object up in the sky but a subjective creation in the observer's mind: "Each man's rainbow is a selection from his own eyes ... from an objective reality which is not a rainbow at all."

The creation of scientific data is therefore caused mainly by two factors. The first is the equipment used, which influences how the data is created. As John Wheeler says, "When we change the observing equipment...We have...A phenomenon that is new," and second, by the pre-existent mental constructs of the observer, which influence how the data is interpreted. That is why Jeans says that the attributes we give to physical objects are "mere articles of clothing...draped over the mathematical symbols; they did not belong to the world of reality."

To Einstein "Time and space are modes by which we think and not conditions in which we live." Scientific theory is therefore neither absolute nor correct, but a compromise which "shows us something about reality in the only way we can get at reality."

Similarly, David Bohm speaks of energy streaming from both the observer and the observed. "The phenomena are the result of the intersection...from the same reality," but it "has no clear meaning" because what is unambiguous is misleading and only "the ambiguous is the reality." These specialists insist that in science the observer is omnipresent, which led physicist and astronomer Arthur Eddington to the astonishing assertion that, in science, "the mind has by its selective power fitted the processes of Nature into...a pattern largely of its own choosing; and in the discovery of this system of law the mind may be regarded as regaining from Nature that which the mind has put into Nature."

Proof is therefore circular in science, with events being considered real only if they correspond to what we already believe. To Jeans the laws of science "are a description, not of nature, but of the human questionings of nature," and they "tell us nothing about nature, but only something about our own mental processes."

Similarly, physicist Heinz Pagels asks, "Are theories 'out there'?" and answers "I don't think so. Theories are inventions," while physicist Werner Heisenberg puts it much more simply: "Science is made by men."

In addition, scientific language, whether mathematical or lexical, suffers from the same defects, it is not real but only a "symbolic means of representing the world," "a dangerous instrument to use," "a symbol definable only in terms of other symbols." Opinions about reality therefore exist only in the scientist's mind and "need not," in Jean's words, "resemble the objects in which they originate," and therefore "it is no longer objective nature itself but nature in relation to the human observer that becomes the material studied by physics."

On top of that, the scientific report is also a fabrication, for it does not describe what happened but what should have happened and makes no reference to feelings or trial and error. To analysts Broad and Wade the "scientific paper is as stylized as a sonnet" and its framework "is a fiction designed to perpetuate a myth." It is also socially conditioned, riddled with personality and culturally relative, which is why Schlegel says that "science is altogether a human activity," while Karl Popper adds that in science "the authority of truth is the authority of society."

All the steps in the process called science are colored by the human touch.

These insights led Einstein to the belief that, with the exception of the measurement of the speed of light in a vacuum, every observation is inescapably conditioned by the observer's frame of reference. It led Niels Bohr to his principle of complementarity, (that no single observation can contain all the possible descriptions of a phenomenon), and it led Werner Heisenberg to his uncertainty relation, which states that not all the properties of a subatomic object can be fully investigated by one observation at the same time.

To these men scientific knowledge is severely limited or created and subjective, which led Eddington to doubt the reality which science creates. To him, what he calls the "external world" is a human artifact, a structure created as "an answer to a particular problem," and "We refuse to contemplate the awful contingency that the external world, after all our care in arriving at it, might be disqualified by failing to exist."

For these reasons both David Bohm and Niels Bohr see the creation of science as similar to the creation of poetry, and Roger Jones insists that, in science, "whatever it is that we are describing, the human mind cannot be parted from it."

What these men are saying is that, surprisingly, human involvement is the most influential tool of science and we can therefore never know what the world is like in itself apart from us as observers. "Physics," says Eddington, "is a world contemplated from within...What the world might be deemed like if probed in some supernatural manner by appliances not furnished by itself we do not profess to know." What is left for science, therefore, is to talk about what it sees. That is all that science is.

Einstein believed that in today's science "there is no ultimate theory, no...ultimate fact about the stuff the world is made of," there is only talk, which is why Einstein said that "physical concepts are free creations of the human mind." This was forcefully reiterated by Harvard astrophysicist Bruce Gregory, who said that in science "What is real is what we regularly talk about" and therefore "When we create a new way of talking about the world, we naturally create a new world."

Physics is a conversation about nature, says Gregory, or, as Bohr put it, "It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns only what we can say about nature." I close therefore with Schlegel's provocative statement that "The natural world is not so much a fixed structure, waiting to be symbolically reproduced in our science, as it is a complex source of experience which can be described in various and alternative ways."

That is the best that the scientific investigation of nature can achieve. It can get no closer to reality than that because in science, to use Bohm's felicitous phrase, "the observer is the observed." Science can yield accurate phenomenological data of the act of observation, but has no tools with which to perceive the ultimate reality that underlies the phenomena, a reality of which, to quote French physicist Bernard d'Espagnat, science can get only "fleeting reflections."

As physicist Fred Wolf put it, "the whole universe comes into existence whenever we observe it" and therefore "we are the artists in the game of the universe." More than that, the universes which we create depend not only upon our choices of observation but also upon the order in which we carry them out, and it is therefore our choices and our sequence of analysis which "create the alternative possibilities as realities."

To Wolf, as a result, scientific "reality is a matter of choice" and "the real is mainly determined by thought...The world we live in depends on the pictures of that world we paint in our minds" and how we paint it is determined by desire.

As Heinz Pagels puts it, "Human intention influences the structure of the physical world," which is not a picture of the real, but a creation deriving from our interactions with it.

As a consequence, fundamental matter becomes to us a fluid, varying, imprecise, uncertain and unmeasurable realm and we cannot discover if there is anything more graspable beneath. That is the only kind of knowledge about the fundamental universe available to us with our present methods, and our ultimate knowledge of any branch of science turns out to be equally imprecise and uncertain. In all of its fields we have derived many partial subjective truths but no fundamental ones, nor is there the prospect of any. There is nothing but ignorance.

Excerpts from a speech given to the 1994 Velikovsky Symposium.

For the full text of Professor Wolfe's speech, as well as those delivered by other participants, see:

http://www.kronia.com/symposium_papers.html

I don't believe all this. I'm getting ready to drive to work. In another dimension at this very time I'm taking the day off? I don't think so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keehah

When they come across a tock they get all wonky, and of course Fox can spin this to keep the sheep even more confused.

---

You were reading my posts in the parallel thread over at the religious section weren't you? :ROFL:

http://gold-silver.us/forum/index.ph...17944#msg17944

I'm writing a novel about a guy who's about to have a nervous breakdown while his soul/doppleganger is chilled out on a beach in Tahiti. I'm going to have to read into this a little more. Good stuff.

have the mod duplicated the thread. I dont remember positing this here.... :oo-->

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by singular_me

have the mod duplicate the thread. I dont remember positing this here.... :oo-->

---

I would be willing to take confessional with them at this time. ^-^

Time travel is old news!

I put instant coffee in a microwave oven and...PRESTO!

Scientists in Sweden film moving electron for the first time

just watched it... since I have grown kinda obsessed with Torus and Vortices, I have to conclude that the dark spot/line in he middle of the electron is where the opposite polarities meet and repusle each other.

Quote:

---

Einstein believed that in today's science "there is no ultimate theory, no...ultimate fact about the stuff the world is made of," there is only talk, which is why Einstein said that "physical concepts are free creations of the human mind." This was forcefully reiterated by Harvard astrophysicist Bruce Gregory, who said that in science "What is real is what we regularly talk about" and therefore "When we create a new way of talking about the world, we naturally create a new world."

---

Subjective Reality will always refelct on indvidual's environment. The environment shapes our minds. This is because we can only observe what we see and understand. Subjective Reality is a source of conflicts. As long as we remain focuses on the effects instead of the causes, what we perceive as Reality will forever be an illusion, because when every new data comes in, we must readjust our way of thinking.


But in the realm of Absolute Reality, it is the Mind that creates and experiences itself endlessly. That very Mind has no conflicts but ironically, could turn out being completely Holographic by nature if parallel universes exist. Definitely a tough one.


This to say that whatever (mainstream) doctrine, would it be sciencific or religious cannot provide man with what he needs to understand the Universe.

The very Super Elites know this and that is why their game is to continally shape our reality with opposing diatribes and partially wrong/right data.

Aint kind of strange that scientists started paying attention to the Dark Matter a more than a generation ago.... while esotericists have been studying it for centuries, calling it Ether, and their works were completely suppressed during the Dark Ages and Renaissance? Today anyone referring to their findings is called a new-ager or masonic-supporter.

Oh man! Always grind your own beans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kregener

Time travel is old news!

I put instant coffee in a microwave oven and...PRESTO!

---

Quote:

---

UC Santa Barbara's Andrew Cleland cooled that paddle in a refrigerator, dimmed the lights and, under a special bell jar, sucked out all the air to eliminate vibrations. He then plucked it like a tuning fork and noted that it moved and stood still at the same time.

---

How did he 'note' that? How did he observe it?

I visit a lot of 'free energy' sites, and the surprising thing is that a lot of the theories you see there make sense in terms of classical physics. It's the mainstream scientific press that has ventured off into lala land.

Who here actually believes in time travel? Me, no.

Quote:

---

It's the mainstream scientific press that has ventured off into lala land

---

mainstream has the habbit to release, both kinds of data... true and untrue. Yet mainstream news today tell us everything "they" are going to do witn us the cattle, all wrapped in a socialist agenda that seems okay for many ppl.

We must look for information everywhere, thats the only way to know what is going on.

The mainstream funds projects on both sides of the fence, so diviseness in sciences can be sustained. Thats the role of foundations and gov grants. Hence the average ppl will find too tricky as which source to believe and give up.

an examole:
'Cold Fusion' Moves Closer to Mainstream Acceptance
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0321182909.htm

Cold fusion was suppressed for at least 2 decades...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horn

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by singular_me

have the mod duplicate the thread. I dont remember positing this here.... :oo-->

---

I would be willing to take confessional with them at this time. ^-^

---

maybe later ... LOL

I personally think time travel is BS. If it was possible, someone from the future would have been here already. Imagine it, "So how did you pick those winning numbers on the 300 million dollar Super Lottery? Well Bob, I looked them up on a database and went back to the past and picked them."