Multiverse Or Parallel Universes

[maddog]

As a lay person relying on average "common sense"...

if math allows for infinite universes,

then all "imagined" & "yet to be imagined" universes exist,

not only infinite universes "similar" to ours,

but infinite universes exactly like ours,

& infinite universes nothing like ours;

each universe has either no "living beings" at all or living beings

more advanced, less advanced, or exactly as in our universe, ...

My retort on "common senses" is as I tell my wife -- "all our senses are not in common. They are each distinct and separate."

 

It gets worse when you attempt to derive any kind of sense about universes from it either.

 

... & infinite universes have beings so advanced that they have nearly reached "omnipotency",

yet however close to omnipotent, there are infinite beings still more omnipotent elsewhere

(Gods - 1, Gods - .01, Gods - .001, etc.)

suggesting "Gods" evolve from "lesser" beings in universes with laws of physics unlike ours

that allow "nearly" omnipotent beings to evolve to infinitely omnipotent Gods,

(God - 0)

& therefore Gods evolve from men and men from Gods...?

but doesn't answer who-what created original creation, even if creation is infinitely cyclic;

one might as well imagine the extra unexplained "weight" in our universe currently

called "dark energy" is due to "visiting" omnipotent beings from other universes...

 

Scientifically nothing can be determined about how many "gods" or whether "gods" inhabit a

universe per se. So I figure you just left the conversation on some tangent not related

the threads meaning or purpose. <_<

 

maddog

[Fedgie]

"It gets worse when you attempt to..."

 

Sorry, all I get from the last post is

a. someone told their wife what they thought of "common sense"

b. someone personally set limits on what science can determine

[MichaelSonicBoomGeil]

I dont know that there is a problem other than the misconception or lack of conception on this topic. You can see the idea behind multiverses ona smaller, simpler scale by example of atomic particles when they exist as waves. You can also see the effect of what the laws of the universe "wants" by example when you apply the "consciousness" event to other particles. Ill explain these occurances in details.

 

The effect of particle waves is the probable location any particle can be based on several factors. You could imagine the world around you like a constant gong or cymbal where all particles thoeretically occupy all positions currently possible however we can only see or live in a single instance. The multiverse theory is much like this however most believe that there is an infinite number of universes. I however believe much like the particle wave or a sounding gong, that they do have limits because particles can only occupy the possible locations based on certain factors.

 

All particles "want" to be in a singularity. Our minds, our consciousness is like a motor where pistons are moving up and down to cause what we see as a constant momentum of the wheel. Our consciousness is upheld by about 40 seperate consciousness level event which occur every second. All particles have this event and reach consciousness, more frequently when bunched together, however without the proper "net" (brain) it cannot understand it. When we observe a particle wave it acts as a singularity because of our consciousness.

 

The overall combined theory is simple. The universe, the universes are under a constant pressure to achieve a singularity. The fourth dimension imposes on the third causing aging, especially on us, to refine ourselves through evolution. The third dimension imposes on the 2nd and so forth. I know this is a little off the topic but I like people to understand the why.

[sigurdV]

"Multiverses" First time Ive seen this plural form!

[CraigD]

Tegmark’s Classifications+

I dont know that there is a problem other than the misconception or lack of conception on this topic.

I agree.

 

Because the term “multiverse” is used to mean so many different things in different contexts, it’s easy to conflate the different ideas, creating misconceptions and confusion.

 

My personal taxonomy of the term just takes Max Tegmark’s 4 level scheme, and adds a category for non-scientific, artistic uses of the word, such the fantasy fiction of Michael Moorcock, who arguably coined the term “multiverse” in the 1960s.

 

For example, consider the assertion “there are infinitely many universes in the multiverse”. This statement is provably true in the level 4 Tegmark multiverse, provably false in the level 3, and unknowable in the level 1 and 2.

 

We’d all do well, I think, to know Tegmark’s classifications – they’re essential knowledge for the science connoisseur, IMHO.

[sigurdV]

Both split-off universe have the same past, with the past mass, volume, etc.

 

In principle, the past and future of the MWIs many universe can extend infinitely – the interpretation is neutral on the subject of creation ex nihilo and eternity, leaving those questions to deep developments of quantum theory.

 

 

This is one deep (though not very extensively developed) development of quantum theory, sometime credited to Edward Tyron, who likely didn’t truly originate it, but in 1973 gave the catchy summary of it : "the universe is simply one of those things that happens from time to time".

 

The MWI is good for describing this “nothing theory”: starting with an actual mass-less, energy-less universe, an occasional quantum vacuum fluctuation results some virtual particles briefly actually appearing, then disappearing back into the “virtual particle sea” of the false vacuum, splitting into many universe where different virtual particles briefly appear. A few rare branching paths result in a cascade of actual particles numerous and dense enough to be … the Big Bang, leading to the universe as we know it, including real scenarios like Schrodinger’s cat.

You are using the term "false vacuum" since the energy-less universe contains a vacuum filled with energy right? I once read an article claiming a certain finite measure of the mass in our universe...isnt sure if vacuum energy was included... How much energy does the vacuum contain? Say compared to the baryonic mass?

[CraigD]

You are using the term "false vacuum" since the energy-less universe contains a vacuum filled with energy right?

Something like that. It’s not necessary for the whole universe, or even the volume of it being considered, to be empty of mass/energy, obviously, as the Casimir effect experiments were done in ordinary lab conditions in our present-day universe. The concept underlying the term “false vacuum” is that, even without mass/energy in the form of any real particles, configurations like closely spaced plates can cause virtual particles to become real and exert real, classically measurable force and work.

 

I once read an article claiming a certain finite measure of the mass in our universe...isnt sure if vacuum energy was included...

Yes, from observation, we can estimate the mass/energy of the observable universe as around 3.25 x 10⁵⁴ kg, about 4.5% of it baryonic matter, the rest poorly understood … something.

 

How much energy does the vacuum contain? Say compared to the baryonic mass?

Let me start with a disclaimer: I don’t know the quantum mechanical formalism needed to calculate or fully grasp false vacuum energy (eg: reproduce Casimir’s calculations).

 

Taking his and other physicist results on faith, the energy of an arrangement of two plates is

 

[math]E = \frac{ -\hbar c \pi^{2} A}{720 a^{3}} [/math]

 

where [imath]A[/imath] is the area of a single plate, [imath]a[/imath] the distance between them.

 

So, as the end distance [imath]a = a_1[/imath] approaches zero, is the work done by plates moving from some starting distance [imath]a = a_0[/imath] to [imath]a = a_1[/imath] , the difference in energy of the two configurations, approaches infinity.

 

So the answer to the question “how much energy does the vacuum contain?” is a strange, unobvious one, depending on how work from it is made real. In principle, it’s infinite. It’s also inexhaustible – the virtual particles underlying the Casimir effect are a consequence of quantum mechanics, not a conserved quantity in any classical or pseudo-classical physical sense, so aren’t predicted to be “used up” by the work the effect produces.

 

Note the importance of the “in principle” qualifier in the above. In practice, it’s very difficult to position plates a distances [imath]a[/imath] short enough to produce a measurable Casimir effect force, let alone realize work approaching infinity. Still, the agreement of experiment results with prediction supports that the principle is correct.

 

It’s truly – speaking for my mind – mind boggling!

[Little Bang]

A possible multiverse configuration might be, miniverse, homeverse and megaverse to infinity in both directions.