Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Alternate Histories & Timelines
multi-verse may be here sooner than anyone thought..
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Harte" data-source="post: 180748" data-attributes="member: 443"><p>It's an interesting idea, but flawed by bias.</p><p>He states: "This is no longer up for debate — parallel universes have been proven to be real through physical experiments described in <a href="http://www.academia.edu/33655363/Tim_Folger_Discovers_A_Time_Machine" target="_blank"><em>Tim Folger Discovers A Time Machine</em>.</a> "</p><p>Which is not the case.</p><p></p><p>The entire thing hinges on the Copenhagen Interpretation being the correct (and real) way to interpret results.</p><p>There are many "official" interpretations of QM, 14 different ones summarized below:</p><p>[ATTACH=full]8009[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>A couple of those (besides the straight-up Copenhagen Interpretation) might allow for the author's hypothesis, but it's a cinch that the rest don't, and there is (at present) no way to distinguish between the various interpretations.</p><p></p><p>Note that the interpretations above are merely the most commonly debated. The interpretation the author uses is not included in the chart (stems from Copenhagen) but is listed at the source (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Summaries" target="_blank">wiki.</a>)</p><p></p><p>Harte</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Harte, post: 180748, member: 443"] It's an interesting idea, but flawed by bias. He states: "This is no longer up for debate — parallel universes have been proven to be real through physical experiments described in[I] [/I][URL='http://www.academia.edu/33655363/Tim_Folger_Discovers_A_Time_Machine'][I]Tim Folger Discovers A Time Machine[/I].[/URL] " Which is not the case. The entire thing hinges on the Copenhagen Interpretation being the correct (and real) way to interpret results. There are many "official" interpretations of QM, 14 different ones summarized below: [ATTACH type="full" alt="8009"]8009[/ATTACH] A couple of those (besides the straight-up Copenhagen Interpretation) might allow for the author's hypothesis, but it's a cinch that the rest don't, and there is (at present) no way to distinguish between the various interpretations. Note that the interpretations above are merely the most commonly debated. The interpretation the author uses is not included in the chart (stems from Copenhagen) but is listed at the source ([URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Summaries']wiki.[/URL]) Harte [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
Alternate Histories & Timelines
multi-verse may be here sooner than anyone thought..
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top