One of the parallel worlds cannot be extremely different from the other
tsukuba.ac.jp
tsukuba.ac.jp
Farnsworth: "No, just the two."
Absent Rules, Anything can happen.
From this Existence forms, each in isolation from the others.
Every possible universe forms in the infinite and eternal Null, including those far beyond our ability to comprehend or classify.
In Null EVERYTHING happens eventually.
From this our universe and an infinite number that appear identical to this "point in time" exist, indistinguishable until thier point of differentiation.
These universes have the appearance of being alternative timelines when in fact they were never connected to our universe in any fashion and were always independent.
This illusion appears to be the point of issue here....
(Side note: there are infinite variations that appear the same to the end with the only differences being things like whether a non-interventionist deity actually created that copy or if it's a spontaneous generation or the result of another universes actions etc. They can't be differentiated by any internal observer, and often not by external ones, yet they are unique and separate.)
(Side note 2: Quantum particles appear to be a manifestation of the indeterminate differentiation, as we cannot know "which universe" we exist in until the spin of the particle is observed etc. In essence, scientific study reduces the probability space in which the observers exist within, limiting the range of universes which they can now occupy.)
And yes, this is just some shit I came up with and it's semi-religious in nature, as a means to "answer" the "reason for life" while being reconciled with the scientific facts established.... I'm pretty sure I'm wrong somehow about some part.
Until now, we've learned a lot about space A. In particular, we've found that it doesn't undergo extreme changes (or "blow up") under certain conditions. Recently, scientists noticed that spaces A and B can change in certain ways so that objects in them that seem different at first can end up looking the same.
In this research paper, the authors investigated whether space B behaves in the same way as space A. They took a phenomenon that we know happens in space A, moved it over to space B, and checked whether it still works the same way. They found that just like in space A, no blowing up occurs in space B under certain conditions.
This is a big deal because it gives mathematical proof for a similarity between the A-side and B-side that scientists had previously only guessed might be true. To prove their theorem, the authors had to make some assumptions, but in future work, they'll see if their theorem still holds true even without those assumptions.
So in a nutshell, they're trying to explore whether certain properties of one world in string theory also hold true in its "mirror" world. They've found evidence for this in one specific case, but there's still more work to do.
How does this interact with quantum mechanics? Would spaces A and B evolve differently over time depending on the randomness of quantum behavior or are the outcomes of quantum interactions shared between both spaces?
Because we cannot experiment with items that are so small.
However...
Science has thrown math at the theories of strings and the math tends to work out. The models we've built tend to confirm it.
At one time mankind didn't believe in unseen 'creatures' that made one sick. At one time mankind didn't believe in anything we cannot see, and yet we have infrared detectors, xray detectors, photon detectors, etc...
No proof doesn't mean shit in science, it only means we haven't been looking long enough or hard enough, or we don't have the right tools /at the moment/ but perhaps in the near future.
Here's a bit of a primer:
> https://www.space.com/17594-string-theory.html#:~:text=Has%2....
Science is full of ideas that work out mathematically but were supplanted by a better model (epicycles) or refined when their predictions didn’t match reality (ethers).
String theory could easily be that; we didn’t find super-symmetric pairs at the LHC.
More epicycles are needed!
Honestly I think this is even true of much of our current understanding of physics. People take it for granted that we've discovered some irrefutable facts, but there is so much we don't know and understand.
It's entirely possible while the math checks out currently for our theories, they could be way off in many ways.
This after around 40 years of work.
We have no real evidence because it can't even make a prediction that could be tested.
https://web.archive.org/web/20230704153349/https://www.tsuku...
https://mega.nz/file/XpMQzDRY#P-67TlnJSD_ly3Qy-XOcTNUm8lQE8h...
It blocked me despite trying from 2 different continents. The internet worsens every year.
This is a strange paper