Parallel Universes

[Leyla]

Transcript:

AMANDA PEET: People who've said that there were extra dimensions of space, have been labeled as, you know, crackpots or people who are bananas. I mean, what, do you think there are extra dimensions? Well, string theory really predicts it.

BRIAN GREENE: What we think of as our universe could just be one small part of something much bigger.

SAVAS DIMOPOULOS: Perhaps we live on a membrane, a three-dimensional membrane that floats inside higher dimensional space.

BRIAN GREENE: There could be entire worlds right next to us, but completely invisible.

NIMA ARKANI-HAMED (Harvard University): These other worlds would, in a very literal sense, be, be parallel universes. This isn't a particularly exotic or, or strange notion.

GARY HOROWITZ: Well, we think these extra dimensions exist because they come out of the equations of string theory. Strings need to move in more than three dimensions. And that was a shock to everybody, but then we learned to live with it.

BRIAN GREENE: But M-theory would go even further, demanding yet another spatial dimension, bringing the grand total to 11 dimensions.

BURT OVRUT: We know that there would have to be 11 dimensions for this theory to make sense. So there must be 11 dimensions. We only see three plus one of them. How is that possible?

BRIAN GREENE: For most of us, it's virtually impossible to picture the extra, higher dimensions: I can't. And it's not surprising. Our brains evolved sensing just the three spatial dimensions of everyday experience. So how can we get a feel for them?

BRIAN GREENE: The existence of giant membranes and extra dimensions would open up a startling new possibility, that our whole universe is living on a membrane, inside a much larger, higher dimensional space.

It's almost as if we were living inside...a loaf of bread? Our universe might be like a slice of bread, just one slice, in a much larger loaf that physicists sometimes call the "bulk."

And if these ideas are right, the bulk may have other slices, other universes, that are right next to ours, in effect, "parallel" universes.

Not only would our universe be nothing special, but we could have a lot of neighbors. Some of them could resemble our universe, they might have matter and planets and, who knows, maybe even beings of a sort.

Others certainly would be a lot stranger. They might be ruled by completely different laws of physics. Now, all of these other universes would exist within the extra dimensions of M-theory, dimensions that are all around us. Some even say they might be right next to us, less than a millimeter away.

But if that's true, why can't I see them or touch them?

BURT OVRUT: If you have a brane living in a higher dimensional space, and your particles, your atoms, cannot get off the brane, it's like trying to reach out, but you can't touch anything. It might as well be on the other end of the universe.

JOSEPH LYKKEN: It's a very powerful idea because if it's right it means that our whole picture of the universe is clouded by the fact that we're trapped on just a tiny slice of the higher dimensional universe.

BRIAN GREENE: Gravity pulls us down to the Earth, and keeps our Earth in orbit around the sun. But in fact, we overcome the force of gravity all the time. It's not that hard. Even with the gravity of the entire Earth pulling this apple downward, the muscles in my arm can easily overcome it.

If we do live on a membrane and there are parallel universes on other membranes near us, we may never see them, but perhaps we could one day feel them through gravity.

SAVAS DIMOPOULOS: If there happens to be intelligent life on one of the membranes, then this intelligent life might be very close to us. So theoretically, and purely theoretically, we might be able to communicate with this intelligent life by exchanging strong gravity wave sources.

BRIAN GREENE: So who knows? Maybe someday we'll develop the technology and use gravity waves to actually communicate with other worlds.

[Telos]

Sorry that I'm being an annoyance to your threads, Leyla, but I think this is very important.

This isn't news. There was no event. There was no discovery. Nothing happened to report. M theory is an idea, NOT a discovery.

And it's an idea that has a basis in math, NOT in observation.

I'd be excited if it was theory that had a basis in experimentation, but it's not. It's theory that has a basis in other theory.

It's almost as if we were living inside...a loaf of bread? Our universe might be like a slice of bread, just one slice, in a much larger loaf that physicists sometimes call the "bulk."

Yeah, that sounds like an elegant universe alright. Loaf. Bulk. Branes. Strings. Gravity phones. There really is no accounting for taste...

My belligerence with string theory is with its passivity, and not as much with its inelegance. I don't see the use of a mathematical theory that can't be tested. It kind of defeats the whole purpose of mathematics - to explain the observable world. String theory doesn't explain the world we live in - it explains a fanciful world that we'll probably never be able to see! Am I the only one who finds that preposterous?

BRIAN GREENE: So who knows? Maybe someday we'll develop the technology and use gravity waves to actually communicate with other worlds.

And maybe we won't, Brian, because maybe gravity waves don't exist and maybe other brane-dwelling worlds don't exist because maybe branes don't exist.

It's ironic that I'm being so hard on physicists. I'd normally be hard on Maharashi, who claims that he can levitate his body through meditation. Physicists are running out of experiments as they wait for newer and more powerful particle accelerators to be developed. They need to extract funding to keep their carreers going - so they're writing wild books of "ifs" and "maybes" and "who knows" and "purely theoretically's" and so on in order to garner public interest and keep their carreers afloat.

The world is waiting for new scientists. It's in luck! AP is a new science.

We can actually carry out observations and experiments of wider reality through dreams, astral projections, and OBE's. That's what this forum is about. I hope everyone works to make that dream a reality.

So, I just want to remind everyone that spending so much time in theory can make you flighty and passive to experience. And it's sad to see that happen to open-minded and brilliant people

[Leyla]

Actually the "big news making event" was when they realized the five thories were really one.

The physicists can't observe it first hand. And most of us who can observe it first hand aren't physicists.

Personally, I find it a great comfort to know that science is finally catching up to what mystics have known from the beginning.

Not sure why it upsets you so much.

Maybe you are afraid that AP will "lose it's magick" if they figure it out?

[beavis]

I don't see the use of a mathematical theory that can't be tested. It kind of defeats the whole purpose of mathematics - to explain the observable world. String theory doesn't explain the world we live in - it explains a fanciful world that we'll probably never be able to see! Am I the only one who finds that preposterous?

Would you prefer they didnt try to figure out the laws of physics? An untestable theory is better than no theory at all.

maybe gravity waves don't exist

Gravity doesnt affect things until light can get to them (gravity moves at the speed of light). Earth orbiting the sun makes a gravity wave with frequency 1 year.

Would be more useful if we could get a faster frequency, but still its a gravity wave and it exists.

[catmeow]

Hi all

My belligerence with string theory is with its passivity, and not as much with its inelegance. I don't see the use of a mathematical theory that can't be tested. It kind of defeats the whole purpose of mathematics - to explain the observable world. String theory doesn't explain the world we live in - it explains a fanciful world that we'll probably never be able to see! Am I the only one who finds that preposterous?

Yes.

It's not preposterous to formulate a theory which unifies 5 other theories.  In fact it's a pretty good thing.  The fact that they can be unified in this way is a good indicator that all 5 theories are correct and valid. Each of the 5 theories is basically a "specialisation" of the one larger theory.  It's a good thing.

This isn't news. There was no event. There was no discovery. Nothing happened to report. M theory is an idea, NOT a discovery.

Well I think that the genius who managed to formulate the theory might disagree with you.  However, I have been aware of this theory for some time so for me it is not a big event.

And it's an idea that has a basis in math, NOT in observation.

Untrue.  It is a theory which is based on 5 other theories each of which is based on observed facts and measurements of the physical universe.  Therefore it is by definition based on observation.

I don't think M-Theory necessarily explains the astral dimensions, since these may have nothing whatsoever to do with the physical universe.  But it might explain how UFO's get here?

Anyway, Happy Christmas everyone!  

catmeow

[Telos]

Maybe you are afraid that AP will "lose it's magick" if they figure it out?

No, I'd love them to figure it out. I love science! Can't you tell

But they're not figuring it out. Poll any number of M theorists and ask if strings have anything to do with consciousness, and most of them will say "no, consciousness emerges at the biological level," including Brian Greene. Remember the part where he said you can't teach a dog physics? That's when he questioned whether you can teach a human everything about the universe. Like dogs, our minds might not be sufficiently "wired."

He goes more in depth in this article:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/greene.html

NOVA: Do you think there are limits to how much we can know about the universe?

Greene: I don't know. I'd like to think that there aren't, but I suspect that's a little optimistic. An analogy that's used in the NOVA program that I'm quite fond of is: We are certainly aware of intelligent beings on this planet whose capacity to understand the deep laws of the universe is limited. No matter how hard you try to teach your cat general relativity, you're going to fail. There we have an example of an intelligent living being that will never know this kind of truth about the way the world is put together. Why in the world should we be any different? We can certainly go further than cats, but why should it be that our brains are somehow so suited to the universe that our brains will be able to understand the deepest workings?

The interview goes on to visualizing extra spatial dimensions. Greene admits he can't do it. Can you?

Would you prefer they didnt try to figure out the laws of physics? An untestable theory is better than no theory at all.

No, and that's true. I don't object to theory-making, just theory-dwelling, and an untestable theory is a sad place to dwell. Don't you think?

Gravity doesnt affect things until light can get to them (gravity moves at the speed of light).

That's an assumption. Relativity theory predicts that, but it hasn't been demonstrated. There is indirect evidence which suggests that gravity waves exist, but that doesn't mean they do. If gravity waves did exist, then the universe should be pulling itself back to a collapse, but it isn't - so instead of disspelling the theory of gravity waves, scientists instead theorized the existence of "dark matter" and "dark energy," dark mysterious things you can't see that interfere with our understanding the universe. Few people thought "maybe relativity is wrong," because it already revolutionized our understanding of light. Well, relativity might need adjustment.

Relativity is a good theory, it's testable. That means that someday we will either show that gravity waves do or don't exist, but that day is not today.

The fact that they can be unified in this way is a good indicator that all 5 theories are correct and valid.

No, it isn't a good indicator at all Witten unified the 5 theories by adding yet another dimension that no one can see. Does it sound impressive to just keep adding things you don't see?

Untrue. It is a theory which is based on 5 other theories each of which is based on observed facts and measurements of the physical universe. Therefore it is by definition based on observation.

Actually, the 5 theories are also based on theory - quantum theory and relativity theory. Remember quantum and relativity theory have holes in their assumptions. They're astoundingly good theories, but they're far from solid.

M theory is based on 5 theories based on 2 theories based on observation.

I apologize, I should have said it was not based directly in observation. Thank you for allowing me to clarify it

Well I think that the genius who managed to formulate the theory might disagree with you.

Actually, I think he would concede that what he discovered was a nice proposition. To mathematicians, it's a very elegant, beautiful, nice proposition. It appeals to their sense of blackboard aesthetics. It's not news that mathematicians agree on what is and what is not a nice-looking equation.

It was not a scientific discovery in the sense of making observations about the universe. I try not to put words into Witten's mouth, but he would agree with me. If he didn't, people would say, "where's your evidence?" and he would have none.

But it might explain how UFO's get here?

UFO's are unidentified. We should identify them before making assumptions on how they got here.

Sorry, I'm an M theory party pooper. Merry Christmas!

[catmeow]

But they're not figuring it out. Poll any number of M theorists and ask if strings have anything to do with consciousness, and most of them will say "no, consciousness emerges at the biological level," including Brian Greene

I agree with you, I don't think M-theory is about explaining consciousness or the astral planes.

The interview goes on to visualizing extra spatial dimensions. Greene admits he can't do it. Can you?

So what?  The fact that we can't visualize a mathematical theory has no relevance.  Ability to visualise a theory is not a test of its accuracy.

I don't object to theory-making, just theory-dwelling, and an untestable theory is a sad place to dwell. Don't you think?

Nope. M theory IS testable, by virtue of the fact that it explains the observed facts.

The fact that they can be unified in this way is a good indicator that all 5 theories are correct and valid.

No, it isn't a good indicator at all

Disagree.  It IS a good indicator.     I purposely said indicator not proof.

Witten unified the 5 theories by adding yet another dimension that no one can see. Does it sound impressive to just keep adding things you don't see?

I don't understand your argument here at all.  What relevance is the fact that we can't actually see a mathematical construct?  None at all. If a mathematical model requires a construct to make it work, then the construct is valid whether or not we can see it.  Mathematical models don't have to be constructed purely of tangible things.  If that were the case we wouldn't have the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics.

You also seem to have a problem with the fact that Witten added a dimension.  There is no problem here as far as I can see?  Witten simply discovered that when he added another dimension the 5 theories unified.  This is just good maths.  As I said before, Witten's theory is a general theory.  The other 5 are specialisations of this.  This is just normal scientific practice.  

M theory is based on 5 theories based on 2 theories based on observation.

So you agree therefore that M theory is based on observation.

But it might explain how UFO's get here?

UFO's are unidentified. We should identify them before making assumptions on how they got here.

Disagree.  We haven't identified what consciousness is.  Should we therefore not attempt to understand it?

catmeow

[Telos]

Catmeow, I'm beginning to think that some of our arguments are entering the realm of sophistry. I always see that as a sign that the people in question actually agree on something, but just through different reasoning. That appears to be the case here, so I'll try to make this short.

M theory IS testable, by virtue of the fact that it explains the observed facts.

At the end of part one of the Nova program, Nobel Prize winner Sheldon Lee Glashow said this:

No experiment can ever check up what's going at the distances that are being studied. The theory is permanently safe. Is that a theory of physics, or a philosophy?

The fact that they can be unified in this way is a good indicator that all 5 theories are correct and valid.

No, it isn't a good indicator at all

Disagree.  It IS a good indicator.     I purposely said indicator not proof.

And I said I didn't think it was a good indicator because the way in which the theories were unified meant adding more intangibilities.

More intangibility = more removed from tangible experience.

Mathematical models don't have to be constructed purely of tangible things. If that were the case we wouldn't have the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics.

The more a model is based on tangible things, the better it is. Saying "force = mass x acceleration" is way better than "faeries = goblins x acceleration." I can see force and I can see mass, so it's better if I can relate those to acceleration. I cannot see faeries and I cannot see goblins, so it's not useful for me to relate them to acceleration. Likewise, I cannot see strings and I cannot see extra dimensions, so it's not useful for me to relate them to what I see in the universe.

I can see dreams and astral dimensions, but I can't see strings and extra spatial dimensions.  

M theory is based on 5 theories based on 2 theories based on observation.

So you agree therefore that M theory is based on observation.

Not directly, no.

We haven't identified what consciousness is. Should we therefore not attempt to understand it?

Yes we have.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=consciousness

We just don't completely understand it. Obviously, we should attempt to understand it. Hopefully, exploring consciousness will allow us to better understand the universe, since consciousness is our vehicle for understanding.

In that regard, I think exploring consciousness is more useful to the human race than studying M theory.

My problem with M theory is that it's so far removed from experience. On the other hand, consciousness is experience.

I agree with you, I don't think M-theory is about explaining consciousness or the astral planes.

That's really all I was trying to say. In order to prevent the "why not?" or accusations of closed-mindedness, I sought to explain my reasoning in advance. It's mostly moot now, though, since you agree.

So, what's your opinion on the disparity of M theory and consciousness?

[Leyla]

Don't get so bogged down in technicalities that you miss the forest for the trees.

What makes you so sure that these "other worlds all around us" they have discovered are not the same ones we are traveling to?

Can you prove they are not?

[Telos]

Leyla, is English your native language? Please don't take offense at my asking. Your location does say Bangladesh.

What makes you so sure that these "other worlds all around us" they have discovered...

They haven't discovered any other worlds all around us.

[Leyla]

Okay then. If you insist, I will rephrase.

What makes you so sure that these "other worlds all around us" that are predicted in string theory are not the same ones we are traveling to?

Can you prove they are not?

(Yes, I am a bit secretive about my identity, considering how easily these posts turn up on google searches.)

[Telos]

What makes you so sure that these "other worlds all around us" that are predicted in string theory are not the same ones we are traveling to?

First, parallel universes are not a direct prediction of string theory. It just includes the possibility, so string theory could be right and there could be no parallel universes. Second, parallel universes exist in many other physical theories anyway, so AP need not seek justification in M theory, and M theory need not seek justification in AP.

But since you brought up how AP separation feels a little like anti-gravity, it's worth some discussion. If AP worked within M theory, it would have to use gravitons (which we don't know exist) to send information to another universe. So, that would mean that some mechanism within our brain allows us to send, recieve, detect, and decode graviton transmissions. You can already tell what Brian Greene thinks of that. He used a phone in his model, not his brain.

Are you using gravitons to communicate with other worlds? If so, then wouldn't the other worlds be using gravitons to communicate with you? Maybe they understand the subject better than we do. Why don't you ask them?

If you show a sensitivity to graviton transmission, then you should be able to help physicists actually find a graviton. And if you help find the graviton, you would be the most famous person who ever existed. I'm not kidding.

Extra dimensions, however, are directly predicted by string theory. As you know, extra dimensions are not the same as parallel universes, but they do widen our conception of reality. Could AP have something to do with the extra dimensions of M theory? Probably not. The extra dimensions of M theory are "curled up," allowing only strings to enter them, given them space to vibrate in different ways so they can take on the properties of electrons, photons, and other subatomic particles. There are no worlds within these dimensions. M theory has more to do with ye old alchemy than parallel universes.

[catmeow]

NOVA: Do you think there are limits to how much we can know about the universe?

Greene: I don't know. I'd like to think that there aren't, but I suspect that's a little optimistic. An analogy that's used in the NOVA program that I'm quite fond of is: We are certainly aware of intelligent beings on this planet whose capacity to understand the deep laws of the universe is limited. No matter how hard you try to teach your cat general relativity, you're going to fail. There we have an example of an intelligent living being that will never know this kind of truth about the way the world is put together. Why in the world should we be any different? We can certainly go further than cats, but why should it be that our brains are somehow so suited to the universe that our brains will be able to understand the deepest workings?

I have actually taught my cat the theories of general relativity, quantum mechanics, particle physics and relativistic quantum chemistry. She understood it all perfectly and has gone on to produce a theory which blows M theory apart. But my cat refuses to talk...  

catmeow

[catmeow]

Hi all

Catmeow, I'm beginning to think that some of our arguments are entering the realm of sophistry. I always see that as a sign that the people in question actually agree on something, but just through different reasoning. That appears to be the case here

Telos, well yes I think so.  To be fair to you I can actually see where you're coming from in much of your criticisms about a theory which is hard to verify directly.  It just seemed you had a bit of an issue with intangibles whereas these don't bother me.  Nuff said.

On the subject of multiple universes, there are several current theories which all postulate multiple parallel physical universes or a "multiverse" as it is now called.  These include not just parallel universes in the M sense, where each universe is a slice in higher dimensional space, but also multiple universes which simply exist in their own space, and universes which contain other universes.  Also the notion (taken seriously) that our universe is a simulation created for the delight and delectation of super-minds, which would in fact therefore be our creators (God) and who might themselves therefore be similar simulations of greater creators.  All of these notions are in fact plausible, and difficult to falsify.  So take your pick!    

Despite this, I have faith that within the next few years we will hopefully see some actual experimental verification of at least one of these theories, and we may be able to largely wrap up the fundamental laws of the physical universe.  

However, I think it is naive to think that the astral (and "higher") planes are part of the physical universe.  The overwhelming observed facts indicate that astral planes, and ESP, operate independently of physical laws.  For instance, telepathy appears to be independent of distance.  It does not observe the normal square-law. Precognition breaks the laws of time.  During astral projection we can apparently travel to distant galaxies in an instant, breaking all the laws of physical science.

So my overwhelming instinct is that theories such as M theory will not explain the astral planes or ESP.  Consciousness is yet a third issue.  At the moment there is no adequate physical theory of consciousness that explains human abstract thought that I am aware of.  Penrose and Hameroff claim a theory, but no one seems to understand it!  I don't think that anyone has as yet identified that part of the brain which (allegedly) stores memories.

My view is of a fantastic beautiful physical universe (or multiverse) and a similar fantastic beautiful astral universe (or multiverse) and perhaps further higher multiverses.  Each existing according to their own laws.  Let the physical scientists discover the laws of the physical universe, and the astral scientists formulate the laws of the astral universe!  

catmeow

[Leyla]

If I get the jist of what you're saying, astral projectors can't possibly enter the dimensions of string theory, because they're just too gosh darn small.

What size is the human "consciousness?"

From personal experience I have fit into some small inch-wide spaces when out of body, and woudn't be a bit surprised to find I could go down into subatomic size.

[Telos]

From personal experience I have fit into some small inch-wide spaces when out of body, and woudn't be a bit surprised to find I could go down into subatomic size.

That would be extremely fascinating. The more experiences you have to share the better.

[Leyla]

It's not so uncommon- I knew a guy who went out of body and climbed inside the butter dish.

If the soul is a wave of engery I imagine you could take any shape or size.

The overwhelming observed facts indicate that astral planes, and ESP, operate independently of physical laws. For instance, telepathy appears to be independent of distance. It does not observe the normal square-law. Precognition breaks the laws of time. During astral projection we can apparently travel to distant galaxies in an instant, breaking all the laws of physical science.

I don't know if any ESP or clarvoyant people are really "breaking" any laws, or anything so fantastic. All particles are able to move backward and forward in time, and can even communicate with one another across distances. And we are all made up of particles.

The other thing that interests me are these "Wormholes" because one of the most powerful/frightening experiences I ever had out-of-body was I got lost in time.

I had overstayed on the astral and was being tugged back into body, when a series of round portals opened up in front of me and I did not know where I belonged. I could have walked into any one of them.

Thankfully one of the "mes" from the future pointed the way home.

Are you using gravitons to communicate with other worlds? If so, then wouldn't the other worlds be using gravitons to communicate with you? Maybe they understand the subject better than we do. Why don't you ask them?

They're one step ahead of you on this. Many of these string theorists are not satisfied merely observing particle collisions in an accelerator, but are attempting to learn astral projection, which they call 'quantum tunneling' so as to better observe the collapse of the wave-function and to communicate with "inter-dimensional disincarnate entities" as they refer to them.

They are even taking such drugs as DMT to astral project, so they can directly ask these entities how to solve their equations!
         
Which calles into question ..how exactly did that genius guy pull the five theories into one, and did he have help??

[catmeow]

Hi all

So, what's your opinion on the disparity of M theory and consciousness?

Sorry Telos, don't understand the question - can you elaborate?

Many of these string theorists are not satisfied merely observing particle collisions in an accelerator, but are attempting to learn astral projection, which they call 'quantum tunneling' so as to better observe the collapse of the wave-function and to communicate with "inter-dimensional disincarnate entities" as they refer to them.

My cat has already built such a quantum tunneling device in the back garden.  She uses it to catch up with her buddies on Betelgeuse...  

catmeow

[Tombo]

Gravity doesnt affect things until light can get to them (gravity moves at the speed of light). Earth orbiting the sun makes a gravity wave with frequency 1 year.

Would be more useful if we could get a faster frequency, but still its a gravity wave and it exists.

gravity moves at the speed of light? is that really so? I heard different.


Is it possible that the Astral dimension is a Parallel Universe? (If We forget M-Theorie for a second)
I would say: why not?

[Telos]

They're one step ahead of you on this. Many of these string theorists are not satisfied merely observing particle collisions in an accelerator, but are attempting to learn astral projection, which they call 'quantum tunneling' so as to better observe the collapse of the wave-function and to communicate with "inter-dimensional disincarnate entities" as they refer to them.

They are even taking such drugs as DMT to astral project, so they can directly ask these entities how to solve their equations!

Many? Who? Where are they? Are they sharing their experiences? Do they have websites?

I tried searching the forum, as you asked, and could only find one person who said he/she was a physicist.

[catmeow]

Hoi Tombo!

Is it possible that the Astral dimension is a Parallel Universe? (If We forget M-Theorie for a second)
I would say: why not?

My opinion is that the astral planes are not physical.  So I don't think the astral planes are part of a parallel physical universe.  I already gave my reasons which are simplistic but valid:

However, I think it is naive to think that the astral (and "higher") planes are part of the physical universe. The overwhelming observed facts indicate that astral planes, and ESP, operate independently of physical laws. For instance, telepathy appears to be independent of distance. It does not observe the normal square-law. Precognition breaks the laws of time. During astral projection we can apparently travel to distant galaxies in an instant, breaking all the laws of physical science.

As far as I am aware, wormholes apart, it is impossible according to  current physical sciences to travel to distant galaxies instantaneously....!    

catmeow

[catmeow]

Many? Who? Where are they? Are they sharing their experiences? Do they have websites?

From here maybe?  

http://www.brainmachines.com/body_matrix.html  

Just search for "quantum tunneling" to get to the relevant paragraph.

Turn your PC volume down to avoid the Keanu Reeves Matrix soundtrack!  Actually the monologue is beginning to grow on me....

catmeow

[Telos]

I just waxed through that site trying to look for someone who said they were a physicist.

Instead, it looks like good, wholesome "take risks, embrace knowledge and reason" satanist propaganda made by punk rockers and worshippers of Warner Bros. (they created all holy "The Matrix").

Nothing wrong with that. But do you have a direct link that shows that they're physicists?

[catmeow]

Nope!  

Anybody?

catmeow

[Leyla]

My opinion is that the astral planes are not physical. So I don't think the astral planes are part of a parallel physical universe.

When I am out of body I appear as a non physical ghost. However, I do have a physical body. When I meet higher intelligences they appear to be non physical ghosts. How do I know they don't also have a physical body?

It could be that our world appears non physical to them when they are here, just as our their world appears non physical to us when we are there.

When they are here- they are the ghost in our physical world.
When we are there- we are the ghost in their physical world.

As for the physicists, we lost a lot of posts last year, but I think I may have something saved on my hard drive, because it was so interesting. I will dig around.

Otherwise all I had to do was type in "physicist" and "DMT" into a Google search to find tons of these guys practicing projection through chemical shortcuts.