> S. Atkins wrote:
>
> > I have been asked to forward this message from an anonymous poster.
> >
> > **********************Is the world real?
> >
> > Theoretical physicists have developed a parallel universe hypothesis to
> > account for the various ghostlike, unexplainable effects resulting from
> > Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. This hypothesis stems from the need
> > to
> > give Heisenberg's quantum mechanics a physical expression. Hence, a
> > system
> > of parallel worlds. These worlds would be alternative dimensions
> > superimposed upon our own in which every single potential condition
> > contained in quantum mechanics actually existed. This model of reality,
> > if
> > confirmed, might help us form an image of Heisenberg's mathematically
> > abstract atom.
>
> Wouldn't this theory mean that matter does not exist as a "solid" if you
> understand what I mean? It's a difficult thing to explain, but I'll
> have a go. Matter exists, so we are told :), as an actual presence in
> space, that is rigid at it's basic form (ie molecular level) and there
> is something that can be "touched" present. If MWH is correct, then
> surely this matter theory is incorrect, as presumably matter exists
> unconditionally. It would be, in my mind, impossible to have multiple
> Universes Co-existing with our own in the same part of space, due to the
> fact that if matter is "solid" then *all* Universes matter would be in the
> same parts of space as in the other dimensions. Does that make sense?
> This would result in us being able, quite easily - by touch alone - to
> detect the presence of other universes. Presumably the other "you" is
> just as real in that dimension as in this, so why can we not see him if
> matter is real, and he co-exists in the same space, but another dimension
> (what definition would "dimension" take in this case?)?
I would suggest as many spatial dimensions as the real numbers, *all*
perpendicular to our space-time. That may not be enough: I would hope
that as many as all functions from real numbers to real numbers would be
sufficient.
> The only way I can see this theory being possible is by matter actually being
> made up of Photons, and thus no more "solid" than light. If a Photonic basis
> is what matter is built from, then maybe different wavelengths/frequencies
> interact well with eachother, to produce our universe, and other combination
> produce other universes. In this way, "matter" could be present, but we would
> be unable to see or touch it.
>
> Appologies for the somewhat fuzzy explanation. I hope that someone can see
> what I'm getting at. Please feel free to interpret what I've said in a
> better way.
>
> >
> > According to the parallel universe hypothesis, there is only one
> > universe at
> > the beginning of time, but each atomic event causes it to split off into
> > two
> > or more parallel dimensions, so that we soon have a continuous branching
> > pattern like in a hierarchical communications network or a tree.
>
> What is an atomic event classed as? Is it something fairly major, or is it
> something as simple as decision making?
It's fairly small-scale. Actually, some interpretations of Quantum
Mechanics seem to exclude decision-making from the domain of study.
At this level of resolution, you should imagine your body as experiencing
much more than 6.023*10^26 atomic events per second [yes, I whipped
Avogadro's constant out: 1 event/mol/second (*way* too slow!)]