Explain Many Worlds Theory / Interpretation to me?
463061
In 1957, Hugh Everett III proposed a radical new way of dealing with some of the more perplexing aspects of quantum mechanics. It became known as the Many-Worlds Interpretation.\n\nAccording to this interpretation, whenever numerous viable possibilities exist, the world splits into many worlds, one world for each different possibility (in this context, the term "worlds" refers to what most people call "universes"). In each of these worlds, everything is identical, except for that one different choice; from that point on, they develop independently, and no communication is possible between them, so the people living in those worlds (and splitting along with them) may have no idea that this is going on.\n\nIn this way, the world branches endlessly. What is "the present" to us, lies in the pasts of an uncountably huge number of different futures. Everything that can happen, does, somewhere.\n\nUntil Many-Worlds appeared, the generally accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics was (and perhaps still is) the Copenhagen Interpretation. The Copenhagen Interpretation makes a distinction between the observer and the observed; when no one is watching, a system evolves deterministically according to a wave equation, but when someone is watching, the wavefunction of the system "collapses" to the observed state, which is why the act of observing changes the system. The Copenhagen Interpretation gives the observer special status, not accorded to any other object in quantum theory, and cannot explain the observer itself, while Many-Worlds models the entire observer-observee system.\n\nThe Many-Worlds Interpretation is an interpretation of quantum mechanics, and pertains to quantum events. But it also has implications for macroscopic systems like you and me. Although you may think that there are certain alternatives you would never choose, can you really be sure of that? There are a practically infinite number of versions of you, who have all split off at some time in the past from the path you are now following. There may be versions of you that split off five or ten years ago, or perhaps five minutes after you were born, to whom those choices may not seem unthinkable. But in a very real sense, those people are still "you" (but it can be argued that we should not use the word "are", or even "were"; we need to invent a new kind of tense...)\n\nMany people find the Many-Worlds Interpretation, and the consequences that flow from it, deeply disturbing. This includes a great many physicists. It is also apparent that many physicists, including many who teach physics, do not have a good understanding of Many-Worlds.\n\nHowever, polls have been taken among theorists who study such things, and have revealed that most of them believe that the Many-Worlds Interpretation represents, in some sense, an accurate description of the way the world really is. The polls also show that many of them would rather not discuss the subject.\n\nIt's not hard to see why so many people find these ideas disturbing. For if they are correct, they have profound implications for our understanding of the nature of the Soul, because the Soul (if there is such a thing) must branch along with the worlds that contain it. It would appear that the writings on which many contemporary religions are based make no mention of such an idea.\n\nIt is commonly thought that Many-Worlds is an unprovable hypothesis, experimentally indistinguishable from the Copenhagen Interpretation, but this may not be the case. It may be possible to observe experimentally one of the predicted effects of Many-Worlds: quantum interference between adjacent worlds. It has even been suggested that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle derives from this quantum interference; after you make a measurement (which of course splits the world), you can't be sure about the subsequent state of the observed system, because you can't be sur
810347
Buddy, your query holds weight in all of its concern, yet to monotonous these days to my knowledge. Since I have soothed such a query in past, I am withdrawn to another fabrication. Yet my previous answers weaved in a way can subside your curiosity as well. Consume a chunk of your time reading it. It may also answer your other questions: -\n\nThe concept holds itself in such an abstruse enigma, that centuries have failed to decipher its existence in a logical form. Scores of fiction writers have sculpted sci-fi books upon the behavior of time. We all have speculated over the so-called ‘Time Travel’ and have rummaged over the numerous possibilities that it may offer.\n\nFor the sweet sake of knowledge, once in a while, just sit down and think over the existence of time. When one questions ‘What is life?’ one is indirectly doubting his flow in time. Sometimes, time bears mercy upon you and hastens up, yet at other times, bestows upon you the curse of its viscous flow.\n\nYet, in reality what WE call time, is nothing but a theoretical fabrication that we, humans have crafted so as to better understand this “Fourth Dimension”. We assume we recognize time and its workings, yet mark my letters, we know absolutely N-O-T-H-I-N-G. We mortals imprint everything that we perceive in our brain, and then we analyze over it, yet never in its crude form. We find ourselves confined to the rigid boundaries of our senses. We bear to our knowledge the sphere of our vision and touch.\n\nThe notion bears itself in utmost simplicity. We can only conclude on matters we are able perceive in a correct mannerism. We do not bear such a sense organ nor are we able to implement over 4% of our brain, so as to perceive the concept of time in a proper ideology. Therefore we cannot chisel a concept concrete enough to bear the yoke of our questions.\n\nWe foolish mortals don’t even have the ability to measure time in its proper state. The state of time is always subjected to our memory, thoughts, personality, the circumstances, and innumerable other factors. You can’t even correspond two events in the same mannerism! Fragments from your memory are always erased, resulting to the unjustifiable way in which we perceive time.\n\nYet we can ALWAYS speculate! And we HAVE speculated! In such speculations, we have come to many ways to understand time. Scientists were entangled in similar doubts, yet they fashioned a theory that best satisfied the debatable world of ‘Philosophical Physics’. The theory states that time is completely relative to the individual who experiences it and furthermore a relationship exists between the three basic dimensions of space and time, leading to the birth of the space-time ideology. (I swear they stole the idea from me!)\n\nAnother speculation (Fasten your seatbelts for a Psycho Ride!). Suppose time is a fabric. (A complete supposition) A vast expanse of infinite non-molecular material. This fabric is existent yet not perceivable by our limited senses. If we are to possess a way to make a ‘cut’ in this fabric, we CAN gain access to two different periods in time. But then again, that is theoretical, and humanly impossible. \n\nSo far we have considered time to be a concept in whose relation we all exist. But in technical truth, time is relative to every individual! What we consider time is the manufacture of us mortals. What if time exists independently for everyone? When one perishes, he actually repeats his so called 'life'. Perhaps the period from the Big Bang to the collapse of the universe has repeated itself millions of times already! There is no telling, for there is no concrete platform, to which we can relate existence. We just have to relate everything to everything else!\n\nNow those are speculations. No one can state them correct or incorrect, for one does not bear a perception that great. Perhaps we are just the play-stuff of a superior colossal existence. Then again, what is existence?
390483
There are heavenly many dimensions.\n\nYours sincerely,\nThe Immortal God.
525630
Its actually the theory that if the entire universe is made up into 10 gates. The 9th gate is what our particular section is.  The 8th through first gates are not very friendly so we don't talk to them.  The 10th are nice though, so we call them from time to time.
846992
How can this be answeared? Well only if there is more then one universe then you are in one of them ofcourse which is alternate from all the rest..so maybe
721615
Parallel Universe is a term used in science fiction, and in descriptions of some concepts in physics.  There is no Parallel Universe Theory.\n\nThere is something in physics called the "many-worlds interpretation" of quantum mechanics.  This has to do with the awkward problem of how we interpret what happens to things from the moment a certain kind of event occurs to when we make an observation of it.  Some events are completely random ... such as when a particle of a radioactive material decays.  So lets say you have a radioactive substance in a box, and if it decays, this causes a poison to be released which kills a cat in the box.  (This is the famous "Schrödinger's Cat" thought experiment, and nobody actually *does* this experiment and kills a cat ... it's just a hypothetical exercise.) Let's say the odds are 50-50 that the particle decays.  Before we open the box and look inside, is the cat alive or dead?\n\nSome people would say that the cat is *both* alive and dead.  The technical term for it is that the cat is in a 'superposition' of two states, both alive and dead ... and the cat 'collapses' into one state or the other at the moment we open the box.  This is the dominant interpretation.\n\nBut a different interpretation is that, at the moment of decay, the world splits into two realities ... two worlds or universes you might say.  In one world, the cat is alive, in the other the cat is dead.  As you are part of the world, you too get split into two versions.  One version is in the world with the dead cat.  The other version of you is in the world with the live cat.  It is not until you open the box that you know which version of the world you are in.\n\nHow does this affect your daily life?  Well, it's possible that some decisions you make (small ones, like what you had for breakfast, whether you wore the red shirt or the green shirt ... basically decisions that are more a matter of whim rather than much thinking or logic) are affected by random effects in your brain.  If so, then the world may have split into two parallel worlds at that moment.  Maybe putting on the red shirt made you slightly more noticeable at and that cyclist that *almost* hit you, in a parallel world actually did crash into you and sprained your ankle.   Science fiction stories and movies love to play with this stuff.
1044107
None.  That is the point.  If they exist is not proved, and hypothetical tests to see if they exist are flawed.  \n\nOn your other question of visualizing multiple dimensions, I have a few hints.  Have you read Flatland yet?  Start there, its good, and not overly mathematical.  Multiple dimensions can mean different things to different scientists.  We use them all the time for their mathematical properties.  But mathematics is just a description, the real world is something observable.  In terms of observation, you would not be able to detect a separate dimension by any means pedantic.  We may be able to prove that physical space has more than three dimensions, but that does not mean that those other dimensions are physical space.  Just like time.  Some particle interactions appear to go backward in time briefly.  What if there is more than one time dimension?  \n\nSo the classic three dimensional physical picture of multiple dimensions will always be flawed by the observers expectation of the properties of the unseen dimension.  Which is why we describe those dimensions using 'imaginary' constructions.  Hope this helps a bit.
929237
Actually, I have a similar theory - I reckon that when you see 'ghosts' they could either be images from alternate universes like you said, or I prefer to say other dimensions, as I believe there may be countless numbers of other dimensions which must over lap with ours. Since everything, by which I actually mean absolutely EVERYTHING, is made of vibrating energies, some very strong, some weaker, 'ghosts' could be images formed by very weak energy/veryslow vibrations, while you and I are made up of strong, fast vibration which give us density and substance. These weaker energies/slower vibrations are probably less tied to a particular dimension and therefore slip more easily between them.
542027
Reminder: 5n Theory, all continents used to be attached to one another- so in theory this is highly possible- if two of every species has moved from place to place. Also remember, animals have a good sense of unusual events happening, like earthquakes and things, so they might have had the sense to know where to go. Then you might ask about the unicorns, but it is said that they were too stubborn to get on the ship... dragons and pegasuses... I have no idea about.
470564
Here is the mathematical formula:\n\nThe universe is endless.\n\nSo are the possibilities of having a life-form like humans elsewhere in the universe.\n\nEndless divided by endless equals to unknown
1129913
When the word "interpretation" is used in connection with quantum physics, it usually means "What is happening when the array of probabilities given by the theory are actually resolved by an observation?"  The question refers to what is called "quantum reality" and there have been books written on the subject.\n\nOne interpretation is that all possible outcome exist in parallel universes and that when we make an observation we are entering into one of them.  But there are many more.
73297
I could give you several answers, but a few of them would be just theories...\n\nIn other words, "several" is more than "a few"--but how many is really up to you.
669660
its actualy String-theory that proposes the existance of many other universes. the theory proposes a so called "Landscape of probabilities" with probabilities of as many as 10 to power of 500 universes, and with that many probabilities it is very likely that some of them will be similar to or just like our own universe.\n\nif you would like to know more about this facsinating subject, i would suggest this book http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0316155799/104-3626905-5554311?v=glance&n=283155\nits a great and easy to understand book.
1139876
The thing that i can try to understand is that God created this physical world with very specific set of rules. And from that i learned that there is no "by chance" in this world.
348301
'Flatland' must be a very exciting story. I wish I have read it.\n--a 2d world surely is a more interesting place compared to a 1d world. Roughly speaking, the added options would be 'left', 'right', 'up', 'down', which are far more entertaining than the 'forward' and 'backward' of the 1d space. \n-- the 3d world easily beats a 2d world and needs few comments. we get 'depth', just to name one thing we would miss in the 2d world. there are many others, no doubt.\n-- a 4d world would be an awesome place. before else, the question is what do we put on the 4th dimension. whatever would be it must have the dimension of space. so it can be time times velocity. let's say we neglect what velocity would mean and just focus on time. now things are going to heat up. what can we do with time, if we are able to use it just as we use the ordinary space? surely we would like to move forward and backward in time. still, I would not think we would be able to see .... ohhh wait a second!! this is really cool! I think I just got your idea of seeing 'inside and out, of every object and event in the entire univers'. yes, it must be this, because we would be able to travel in time, along the 4th direction, and we would be able to see things as they evolve; suddenly appearing in what was before an apparently empty space, turning into real objects and dissapear eventually. hehe I like it
561306
you should read more into string theroy and the M theory.  they are both very interesting.  it is hard to wrap your mind around but  this is just one universe that goes along a membrane of universes that goes on infinetely.  the science channel often has show that explin all this much better and they make it pretty easy to understand.
48409
There is certainly no evidence for that, just some very speculative ideas.\n\nEverything that we see - planets, stars, galaxies, cats, frogs - is part of this universe. That is pretty much by definition. Basically anything that we can ever observe is in this universe.\n\nThe speculation about other universes arises from a couple of scientific theories. One is from thinking about what came "before" the Big Bang. (I put "before" in quotes, since the Big Bang was the origin of both space and time for our universe, so it isn't clear at all that anything like our concept of "before" even applies.)\n\nWith these ideas one imagines some sort of meta-universe, from which lots of smaller univerese pop up and form. Some of these form and decay quickly, in microseconds. Others form and become big but nothing happens in them, no stars just some hydrogen floating around. In the lucky ones, such as ours, the universe pops into something large with all the right parameters for stars, planets, capybaras and Lindsay Lohan.\n\nThe second approach comes from an interpretation of Quantum Mechanics which, frankly, few physicists believe. It is not a crank theory though. This is the "many-worlds" interpretation. Basically it says that on the quantum level when ever there is a choice between a particle doing A or doing B the universe actually splits. In one universe choice A exists, in the other choice B. It is easy to see that this would lead to gazillions and gazillions of "parallel universes," some of which are very close to ours but with slight differences. Say, identical except Lindsay Lohan is Emperor of Earth.\n\nThere is no experimental evidence for either the pre-big band meta-universe idea, or for parallel universes from the many-worlds interpretation of QM. (Personally I think the many-worlds interpretation is just wrong, while the meta-universe idea sounds good.) So it's all speculation.