Topic: Many Worlds Theory
I posted about the concept of probable worlds in the Current Events forum (Holocaust Survivor Leaves US--Sees What's Coming).
It seems to me that the "one world" illusion is remarkably persistent. With this point of view, then when we hear about plans for the NWO, we may think it will inevitably occur in our world. Various channeled sources have stated that the world is splitting, and that people will find themselves in the world that fits with their vibration.
But how many of us take this idea seriously?
Anyway--here's some scientific confirmation that there is not just "one world."
http://everythingforever.com/everett.htm
Hugh Everett III and the Many Worlds Theory
The Macrocosm of Many Worlds
Our known universe is defined by two transformations. In the first all the strange and chaotic futures we might imagine do not happen because of nature's consistent laws and forces. Primarily gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak force, remove from possibility all of what we would think of as weird or irregular events. The forces of nature create a wonderfully predictable world where the sun rises and sets each day.
However, if we think about it, we can reason that there must be many other unique morning and evenings that don't happen here in our own world, and all are reasonably as possible as the one world we experience. Why don't they exist? Do they exist elsewhere? If we utilize the same laws and forces of nature, we can conceive of many other paths of time, or many tomorrows, all happening in other worlds.
Each one of us who has ever contemplated the universe has at one time wondered why our one world would exist when all the others as equally possible never made it to the party. It is when we study quantum mechanics that we find nature acknowledging all those other worlds that are equal in possibility to our own.
The other possibilities had not been visible within the more mechanistic Newtonian and Relativistic world views. Newton viewed the world as if it was like a giant machine, such as a clock with gears that produce a single precise outcome. And Einstein viewed the world as a solid existence, an undivided path from past to future. But what is imagined as possible by science, beyond the one world we experience, increased significantly after we discovered that all the small particles that collectively construct our world, travel through space as probability waves. Instead of solid motion from point A to point B, like a thrown baseball, particles transfer into a world of probability. Within each wave are an infinite number of positions a traveling particle moves through, and until the particle interacts with something else and then takes a physical position in reality again, the particle is said to not have a single or definite position. Rather the one particle becomes a blaze of paths we describe in science as a quantum wave of probability.
Of course when scientists first explored the atomic world they naturally expected to find individual particles moving through space just like larger objects. They expected electrons would orbit the heavy proton nucleus just as smaller planets orbit the sun. But instead, they discovered that atomic particles virtually transform from solidity to probability in order to travel from one place to another.
We began to understand the strange way that everything tiny travels from place to place when Werner Heisenberg discovered at the beginning of this century that we can never know both the momentum and position of matter or light particles. Heisenberg, Erwin Shrodinger, and Paul Dirac, with later help from others including Albert Einstein, were eventually led to formulate quantum mechanics, beginning a revolution in Physics that has completely changed the way we see the unfolding of the future, and even the past. Quantum theory explains that until we actually observe the past, the world is in a state of simultaneity where the finite events we assume are always finite are still blended together with all the other possible worlds we haven't observed and won't observe. In other words, until we observe a particular past, the past remains fused together and so part of the infinite.
This aspect of the universe was first presented as science in a journal paper written by Hugh Everett III, who was at the time a student of John Archibald Wheeler, a renowned American physicist and longtime Professor at Princeton. In recognizing that each particle of the subatomic realm travels as a wave, simultaneity would apply to every possible outcome of each quantum event. Everett considered that the universe is not limited to the one reality we observe, and instead that all the other possible worlds branch away from every possible particle event and thus many other worlds or branches of time exist just as real as ours does.
No idea expresses the quantum world more vividly than Shrodinger's cat. To illustrate the absurd multiplicity of quantum theory the physicist Erwin Shrodinger created a vivid thought experiment, where he places his cat within a delicately rigged box. Inside the box is a radioactive atom that has a fifty percent chance of decaying. If the atom should decay it will expel an electron particle that will register on a Geiger counter, also inside the box, and the machinery will then break a glass vile of cyanide gas, killing the cat.
The life or death of the cat is used only to dramatize the multiple states of a quantum wave. We know from quantum mechanics that until we observe the atom by opening the box, it remains in a wave-like state. Being a wave it exists in multiple states so it has decayed in one world and remained stable in another. It essentially exists in both states simultaneously. Since the state of the atom is a blur of probability, as odd as it seems, the state of the measurement device also becomes a wave of probability, existing in multiple states at once, which further means the wave is even extended to the cat. The cat itself becomes a wave of probability both alive and dead.
Of course the state of the cat can be interpreted in one of two ways, both of which define reality in dramatic fashions. We can be conservative and say the decaying particle existing as a wave is not real, meaning that it has neither decayed nor remained stable until we open the door of the box, but this then means that the cat is neither dead or alive. Being conservative means saying the cat somehow doesn't really exist until we observe it.
If we don't try to avoid the fact that two realities are obviously existing simultaneously, then we say the particle has decayed in one reality, and remained stable in the other reality, so that two conflicting realities exist, but neither is connected to our observer standing outside the box. Only when we open the box to observe the dead or alive cat, do we find ourselves in one of the two realities.
In one choice we try to say that the cat is neither dead or alive and so is not real, existing only as probability until we look inside the box, although then we must wonder about the experience of the cat inside the box. With the second choice we say the experiment has created at least two cats, one is dead and one is alive, and each exists in separate worlds. As we open the box we connect through our interaction or observation with one of those realities.
In either case what is suddenly being defined as we open the box is not necessarily only the future. After all it is what has happened in the past that is collapsing into a single reality as we open the box to observe the condition of the cat.
In the first interpretation if we insist on avoiding the profound but obvious conclusion that before we observe the cat there are at least two worlds just on the other side of the closed door, then we destroy the chain of cause and effect, and we loose all sense of the world being solidly real, then we egocentrically resolve that we ourselves create reality as we observe events. All this without yet resolving the problem of what the cat observes from within the box. And if we are arrogant enough to say that the cats observations aren't as real as our own, claiming that it takes a human observer to create reality, which is a claim that your cat at home doesn't exist when no one is observing it, we then place the person making that claim in the box and start over.
Clearly, the only sound alternative is the second interpretation, where both outcomes are real, and we become a part of one of them. But then as we study this more carefully, it is not simply the space inside of the box that is splitting into two realities. The outside world as we open the door to observe the cat, and so we ourselves, split into two principle realities. In one we exist observing the cat alive and in another we also exist observing the cat as dead. We don't simply find ourselves in one of the realities, we exist in both as time itself branches.
So we are given a choice. We can either sacrifice reality as we know it for a hollow probable world, or accept reality as much grander than even an imaginative person is normally comfortable with. This may be why, after Heisenberg first developed the uncertainty principle, that it wasn't until 1957, some fifty years later, that Everett developed the first formal theory that began to describe many other worlds. His doctorate thesis on the subject was dubbed the Many-Worlds interpretation of quantum theory and has been considered a valid scientific theory ever since.
The Second transformation
The first transformation eliminates all the weird or abstract worlds we might find in a science fiction movie. It cuts down infinite possibilities to a specific set of worlds, a set that is defined by the laws and forces of nature. This leaves us with what we would normally imagine as possible. The second transformation then is when that group of many possible worlds is transformed into the single world we live in.
Primarily, it is the speed of light and four forces which define the wave of many worlds, and as time passes, enough particle waves collapse to create a single defined reality, and that is the world in which we live. What then are we to think then of all the other possible outcomes which represent the paths of space-time we do not experience.
If you were to peer into these parallel worlds you would see yourself move in every possible direction. Your arm will raise and lower, your legs will move one way and the other. In the next few moments you will sit up, stand up, lay down, and stretch from head to toe. Each other world is only slightly different than the next possibility, each having only an infinitely small difference. If we were somehow aware of all the other branches of time, almost instantly one's surroundings would burst into a solid blur of mass and energy. Looking back in time we would see a dense wave of all the many worlds formed since the Big Bang.
Some scientists shrug at this, and continue to believe there is something that makes quantum reality only work at the micro level. And since it is not easy to prove otherwise by scientific testing the absolute truth of either hypothesis, the result has been that science itself is in limbo waiting for more evidence. It's almost as if science has developed a phobia, avoiding what is simple and even sensible.
The consequences of the quantum wave is indeed very profound and has already made a tremendous impact upon society. In addition to television shows and movies where characters cross over into parallel worlds, physicists have been given the chance to act as philosophers, debating over the structure of reality and the role of the observer. What is agreed to be certain is that the universe is not a single solid world of moving objects, there are many worlds that at least exist as potential, and we, rather than simply observe an external reality, to some degree partake in its creation simply by opening our eyes.
