Do you believe in the quantum universe? (see details below)?
113875
wow you go pretty deep....hmmm i think not, of corse then agian, thinking hurts my brain
1099566
I am just answering you but... I like applied physics. I don't like the theorists that lose themselves in tricky constructions. For simplicity (Occam) better believe in one and only universe. \n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation\n\nCheck the external links at wikipedia.\n\nHere is something I have found:\n:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\nQ1 Who believes in many-worlds?\n"Political scientist" L David Raub reports a poll of 72 of the "leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists" about the "Many-Worlds Interpretation" and gives the following response breakdown [T].\n\n        \n1) "Yes, I think MWI is true"                    58%\n2) "No, I don't accept MWI"                      18%\n3) "Maybe it's true but I'm not yet convinced"   13%\n4) "I have no opinion one way or the other"      11%\n\nAmongst the "Yes, I think MWI is true" crowd listed are Stephen Hawking and Nobel Laureates Murray Gell-Mann and Richard Feynman. Gell-Mann and Hawking recorded reservations with the name "many-worlds", but not with the theory's content. Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg is also mentioned as a many-worlder, although the suggestion is not when the poll was conducted, presumably before 1988 (when Feynman died). The only "No, I don't accept MWI" named is Penrose.\n\nThe findings of this poll are in accord with other polls, that many- worlds is most popular amongst scientists who may rather loosely be described as string theorists or quantum gravitists/cosmologists. It is less popular amongst the wider scientific community who mostly remain in ignorance of it.\n\nMore detail on Weinberg's views can be found in _Dreams of a Final Theory_ or _Life in the Universe_ Scientific American (October 1994), the latter where Weinberg says about quantum theory:\n"The final approach is to take the Schrodinger equation seriously [..description of the measurement process..] In this way, a measurement causes the history of the universe for practical purposes to diverge into different non-interfering tracks, one for each possible value of the measured quantity. [...] I prefer this last approach"\n\nIn the The Quark and the Jaguar and Quantum Mechanics in the Light of Quantum Cosmology [10] Gell-Mann describes himself as an adherent to the (post-)Everett interpretation, although his exact meaning is sometimes left ambiguous.\n\nSteven Hawking is well known as a many-worlds fan and says, in an article on quantum gravity [H], that measurement of the gravitational metric tells you which branch of the wavefunction you're in and references Everett.\n\nFeynman, apart from the evidence of the Raub poll, directly favouring the Everett interpretation, always emphasized to his lecture students [F] that the "collapse" process could only be modelled by the Schrodinger wave equation (Everett's approach).\n\n[F] Jagdish Mehra The Beat of a Different Drum: The Life and Science Richard Feynman\n[H] Stephen W Hawking Black Holes and Thermodynamics Physical Review D Vol 13 #2 191-197 (1976)\n[T] Frank J Tipler The Physics of Immortality 170-171
1057879
I think you have it backwards.  The macrocosm reflects (to a degree), the microcosm.\n\nAt present, no-one knows if there are other universes.  My suspicion (not belief, just suspicion) is that everything that is possible is in some sense actual.  My other suspicion is that nothing is actual at all, so there is nothing to prevent the existence of everything.  Yes, that's a contradiction, but we're allowed to contemplate them once we step outside the bounds of what is knowable.
271997
It's amazing isn't it?! It's so beyond our technology to fully test the theory though. I do however believe in parallel universes because math proves that you can have more dimensions beyond what we possess. Have to be able to open your mind to understand, ya know?
1137754
I believe it. I also believe in the theory, in which, as you may also know, whole cosmos is going to turn back into that extra atom. What I wonder alot, when the expansion of the universe will stop and start to shrink back :=)))
818029
I am going to put a slightly spin on this question. I DO believe that there are parallel universes. There are at least as many universes as there are people and possibly as many universes as there are living things. We each experience a different universe, but they all exist at the same time. Our "Universe" is what we experience (see, hear, smell, taste, feel, and any other undocumented sense). THAT is where parallel universes come into their own, and THAT is where relativity comes into play. My universe starts with me where I am and ends "out there somewhere". I will never get to experience the end, because wherever I am will always be the start of my universe.
586401
Parallel universes may exist.  Some cosmological theories encompass this possibility.  At the moment (and possibly always) there can be no verification by observation whether they  exist or not.  The question is, and may always be, an open question, without any definitive answer.
484232
According to quantum mechanics, an object exists for you only when you are aware of its existence. Otherwise it is a probablitly.\nI will give an example: If you look away from your computer to say a TV, then the computer object has ceased to exist and TV has started existing. But the you who is looking at TV is different from the previous you who was looking at the computer, because when the computer ceased to exist, so did you and so did the universe frame containing you, computer and the elements like light that made looking at computer possible. Now you, TV and the process of looking at TV is happening in a different universe.\nNow if you again turn your head to look towards computer, you will cease to exist with the TV universe and enter a third universe identical to the first universe. But how do you see the same computer if you are entering the new universe, then this is one of the less known uses of our memory, that is being used by the universe to make fools of us.
1049362
yes i do.  it begs the question...so where is the edge of the universe...and what does it look like?  is it moving further outward or just hanging out like a big wall?  very deep.
183563
If free will doesn't exist, then it would be pointless for you to ask this question.\n\nIf that's not enough of an answer, we're probably saved by the statistical nature of quantum mechanics.  But, free will is not something that physics can address at this time.  There's no data.
817838
Do you believe in God?
635497
enough to admire it\n\nQM is here to stay like it or not (Einstein did not)\n\nIt is not just a theory but the most provable experimentally modern fundamental theory of the subatomic world.\n\nUnlike the Relativity and other classics theories, it is not a deterministic but "statistical" one. We can know this and that with certain degrees of probability -- that's what QM tells us. It works and that's whats counts at the end\n\n"There is nothing more practical than a GOOD theory."
1045850
What in the universe are you talking about?
626622
The universe is an indefinite entity.It is bounded by 'nothing' even in the strict sense of modern physics.
103742
Your reasoning does not necessarily follow. \n\nConsider one of the suppositions that some scientists have posited as a possible conclusion to the unknowable state of subatomic particles posited by Quantum theory: every choice may spin off a new universe. \n\nNow - mind you - I am not positing that this is what happens, but some serious people have proposed this - every choice you can make, some iteration of you does make, since thought itself is quite possibly quantum mechanical (it is passed via electrons, so the possibility cannot be precluded.) And each of these choices spins a new thread off the universe into a multiverse of possible outcomes. \n\nAs you can see, this is just one possible means by which you actually can have complete control of your destiny, and for God to still know the outcome. An infinite God would still be God of a multiverse of infinite possibility.\n\nYour choices are yours. You know you make them. You can feel yourself make them, as you make them - I don't need to prove this, anyone reading can intuit for themselves that I am telling a basic truth.\n\nThe fact that God does have some inkling of how all this will turn out does not represent any sort of interference with your free will. Nor is it a disproof of God. It is merely a reflection that an infinite wisdom can consider infinite possibilities, and find any of them to be quite unsurprising.\n\nSo no - while God is self-limiting in the sense that he does not appear to want to interfere in our doings (and the universe appears to have been explicitly designed to permit free will) - this is not an argument for God's powerlessness or non-existence. It is proof only that, if there is a God, infinite choices and possibilities are not out of reach of his infinite power.
63744
B only seems impossible because you're looking at it from a small, everyday perspective.  Read a book on quantum phenomenon and you'll discover that particles literally appear out of no where everyday, and we take this as completely normal.  The Universe and Everything is far more sophisticated than you're giving it credit for.
322257
I agree. Every single emotion; every single scenario imaginable; both sides of the extreme and what lies in between will occur in this universe. In my opinion, anything is possible in this universe…ANYTHING! And I don’t think this universe has meaning without human ‘observation / awareness’ (consult ‘the observer effect’ in quantum physics + my question about the sound of tree falling in the forest).