The mulitverse interpretation is just one of many possible theoretical implications for how quantum probabilities work. There is no evidence for it. This is entirely personal bias on the part of the Google researcher, and is quite clearly just a click bait headline and article on the part of The Daily Mail.

I suppose the nonsensical statement and article could be strategic in order to play into a larger psyop going on. But I can't speculate on how.

Personally, I find parallel worlds the least compelling of all the interpretations physicists have come up with to explain quantum mechanics.

I believe this announcement could be related to a Blue Beam event, something so big it delays some Normies from awakening even longer.

'Neven has conflated the notion of a quantum mechanical Hilbert space, which is an infinite-dimensional mathematical space where quantum mechanical wavefunctions "live," with the notion of parallel universes and a multiverse,' Siegel argued Friday.

accessed parallel universes

a) Universe implies to turn (verse;vertere;wer) one (uni;unus)

b) Parallel implies besides (para) one another (allēlois;allos)

Being implies parallel (life) during same direction (inception towards death), hence being able to have intercourse with one another.

c) Ones consent to any suggestion gives another parallel access to ones mind/memory, while tricking one to turn against others within conflicts of reason.

multiple parallel universes simultaneously

Aka mass consent to suggestion by few multiplying parallel access simultaneously, while turning each one of many against each other.

to solve an impossible problem

Being implies temporary problem (life) within ongoing solution (inception towards death)...hence each ones problem to resist (living) the temptation (dying) of being dissolved, hence living (growth) and dying (loss) happening simultaneously.

believing it is work

To believe implies to hold onto, which contradicts work aka an expressed force.

Google is full of crap. Heck, our spacecrafts have only made it out to the far reaches of Pluto in the past thirty years or so, so how can Google assume there are other universes when we haven't even gotten out of our own?

I hope the other universes like being bombarded with ads.

Grok

The claim that Google's quantum computer "Willow" solved a problem in five minutes that would take classical supercomputers 10 septillion years to solve is based on theoretical calculations and benchmarks, not on an actual problem that has physically taken 10 septillion years to solve. Here's how this works:

1. Benchmarking: Google used a specific benchmark called Random Circuit Sampling (RCS). This benchmark is designed to be a problem where quantum computers can theoretically outperform classical computers by an exponential margin. The task involves sampling the output of randomly selected quantum circuits, which is computationally intensive for classical computers due to the complexity of quantum states.

2. Theoretical vs. Practical: The 10 septillion years figure is a hypothetical estimate. It's calculated based on the current capabilities of classical computers and the nature of the problem. If a classical computer were to use current algorithms and hardware capabilities to solve the same problem, it would take an astronomical amount of time due to the sheer number of calculations required. However, no one has waited 10 septillion years to confirm this; it's a projection based on known computational limits.

3. Error Correction and Quantum Advantage: Google's claim also revolves around advancements in quantum error correction with Willow. They've shown that errors decrease as the number of qubits increases, which is a major step in practical quantum computing. This is part of demonstrating "quantum advantage" where quantum computers perform tasks unfeasible for classical computers in a reasonable timeframe.

4. Is it a Psyop?:

   • Perspective for Psyop: The term "psyop" (psychological operation) implies manipulation or propaganda. In this context, one could argue skepticism if:

     • There's a lack of peer-reviewed, detailed technical data that others in the field can verify.
     • Google might be overhyping the capabilities of quantum computing for corporate or financial gain (although this would be more about marketing than a traditional psyop).
     • There's a broader narrative where tech giants might be using such announcements to steer public perception or policy around technology development and funding.

   • Against Psyop:

     • The quantum computing community, including competitors like IBM and Microsoft, would likely challenge any unfounded claims through their own research and publications.
     • Google has published research in reputable journals, allowing for scrutiny by the scientific community.
     • The problem they solved is very specific and not immediately practical for everyday use, suggesting the demonstration is more about proving theoretical capabilities than creating a narrative for immediate application.

In conclusion, Google's claim is based on theoretical computational complexity rather than actual elapsed time. It's not a psyop in the classical sense but rather a demonstration of quantum computing's potential, with the caveat that significant scientific and engineering challenges remain before such technology becomes practically useful. The scientific community's ongoing scrutiny and replication attempts will be key in validating these claims.

Absolute BS!

I guess this is one way to explain the outright falsehoods and fake sources that come out of AI on occasion.

Easy enough to say you did. The theory is every single choice made by every single person creates an alternate universe, so what you chose for breakfast created an alternate universe almost entirely identical to the current one. Making 'accessing a parallel universe' irrelevant. Bring something back that you've duplicated, and we'll talk.

Parallel universes is bullshit invented by jews and satanists to undermine the perceived value of your eternal soul. There is one unique you in all existence. You have meaning.