The One

[HysteryDiagnosis]

Might not have been so science fiction after all.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028154.200-when-the-multiverse-and-manyworlds-collide.html
TWO of the strangest ideas in modern physics - that the cosmos constantly splits into parallel universes in which every conceivable outcome of every event happens, and the notion that our universe is part of a larger multiverse - have been unified into a single theory. This solves a bizarre but fundamental problem in cosmology and has set physics circles buzzing with excitement, as well as some bewilderment.

The problem is the observability of our universe. While most of us simply take it for granted that we should be able to observe our universe, it is a different story for cosmologists. When they apply quantum mechanics - which successfully describes the behaviour of very small objects like atoms - to the entire cosmos, the equations imply that it must exist in many different states simultaneously, a phenomenon called a superposition. Yet that is clearly not what we observe.

Cosmologists reconcile this seeming contradiction by assuming that the superposition eventually "collapses" to a single state. But they tend to ignore the problem of how or why such a collapse might occur, says cosmologist Raphael Bousso at the University of California, Berkeley. "We've no right to assume that it collapses. We've been lying to ourselves about this," he says.

In an attempt to find a more satisfying way to explain the universe's observability, Bousso, together with Leonard Susskind at Stanford University in California, turned to the work of physicists who have puzzled over the same problem but on a much smaller scale: why tiny objects such as electrons and photons exist in a superposition of states but larger objects like footballs and planets apparently do not.

[tridim]

1. Susskind's holographic theory seems right to me.

Where the 3D-ness of our observable universe is actually a projection of a 2D surface at the edge of the universe. The theory implies strings, or at least the origin points of strings. It's exactly how I imagine the space within the interior of a black hole.

[1monster]

2. Very interesting, but there seems to be some missing steps here. When I do

algebraic types of math, I always write down every step to make sure I'm not making an error and that I understand what I am doing. I always get confused if a step is jumped over simply because it doesn't have to be written down if one knows what was done.

Odd when personal philosophy (Richard Bach's ONE) and science seem to be the same...

[HysteryDiagnosis]

3. It's easier to come up with a conclusion first and then make the math fit sertov like

imaging a black hole as a neutron star cuz you cannot conceive of anything else creating the effects you are seeing..... then making all the details fall into place by dividing by zero.

[1monster]

4. Ah! You mean like this?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

5. Like that and like this:

and most certainly like this:

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=ah63dzac