Are We Part Of A Multiverse?

[Deepwater6]

http://discovermagazine.com/2011/oct/18-out-there-welcome-to-the-multiverse/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=

 

 

I am interested to know if my fellow Hypographers think our universe is alone or part of a multiverse. This article from "Discover" gives a few possible scenarios.

[CraigD]

You’ve gotta be specific what you mean by “multiverse” when asking “do you think our universe is part of” one. The term’s gotten a lot of use in the past half century of so, and can mean lots of different things.

 

The OP’s Discover magazine article is about multiverses as a synonym for what Alan Guth calls “pocket universes” (this book review gives a decent overview). IMHO, this theoretical position is equivalent to the “universe is a large scale quantum vacuum fluctuation” theories, updated with cosmic inflation and string theory. They state, in short, that sometimes big bangs just pop out of the “false vacuum”, AKA “nothing”. If forced to guess yes-or-no, I’d say yes, these theories are, if wrong on some details, correct in overview.

 

Then there’s multiverse as a synonym for what Hugh Everett called “many worlds”, which interprets quantum mechanics as saying that every time a measurement is made, the there’s a universe where it had one outcome, another where it had another. Most, but not quite all, MWI theories say there’s no way these many universes can interact, leading me and a lot of others to call it’s rightness something like “yes, but what good is it?”, a variation on “not even good enough to be wrong”.

[Deepwater6]

I was referring Alan Guths theory of pocket universes. The infinite number of these pocket Universes being created at an ever increasing rate. At least that's what I had in my mind when I asked the question. However I was interested in anyone who subscribes to any theory that is in contrast to a single unviverse. If I'm understanding your answers correctly you are in multiverse camp as a whole, but not when it comes down to the details?

 

By the way, I found the article you attached (review) "A New Theory of Cosmic Origins" by I.M. Oderberg" very informative and helpful in understanding Guth's theory further. It was written in terms that explain his view on this theory and it was easy to understand for someone like me who, although intrested does'nt always fully grasp all Physicists theories. Thank you

[belovelife]

i believe in a multi verse

 

like think of a universe that if filled with air

 

a universe that is filled with water

and thats just the types that have matter similar to ours

 

 

 

i imagine anyway

[newdealtn]

If it's anything we can know about, it's part of our universe. The multiverse is by definition beyond our knowledge. When I check that I believe in the multiverse, I certainly mean that I believe in it, not that I think we'll ever know it.

 

It seems to me that space and time must be seen as things that exist, as members of the set of existing things. While the definition of the set may establish certain limits for the members of the set, I don't think the members of the set may establish any limits or other qualities of the set. Existence is not limited to space or time. What then is the nature of existence beyond the realm of space-time? We can say that it is beyond our knowledge since we are space-time beings and can have no experience or knowledge beyond space-time. But we may understand existence outside of extended dimensionality by eliminating the qualities that may belong to existence where space-time are not.

 

Who then believes that the source of the universes in the multiplex might be a dimensionless state of being beyond space and time?

 

Samm

[hsweet]

I have put together some initial thinking on this subject and would appreciate your careful review.

 

Are Multiverses Possible?

 

The speculation on Multiverses or multiple universes reaches as far back as the nineteenth century. Could such a thing be possible?

 

The answer ‘anything is possible’ first comes to mind but that doesn’t get us very far. To get a better answer we need to start with what we know and work from there.

 

What we know about the universe is that it consists of space, time, matter and energy and we know more about each of these than we think we do.

 

Space not only is what separates the heavenly bodies it is what separates the most elementary particles of matter – what ever they are ultimately determined to be.

 

Time is what separates events. Events are fundamentally the movements of matter or energy through space. There is a commencement, a continuation and a completion. Time is the relationship not only between these stages but is the relationship of the stages to other events. The clock itself; whether measuring the movement of sand in an hourglass, the movement of heavenly bodies such as the earth or the activity of atoms; is measuring the commencement, continuation and completion of an event.

 

Energy is the flip side of matter which propels it through space. We all know that E = mc 2.

 

Without matter there would be no time to denote its movement through space as time is but the measurement of that movement. Without particles (matter), there would be no space to separate them as space is what separates particles. Without space, there would be no separation between particles and therefore there could be no particles at all as they would all be fused together. Without energy there would be no matter. Without matter there would be no energy. If there is no ‘E’ on one side of the equation, then there is no ‘m’ on the other side.

 

As each of these elements is completely wrapped up in the other three, none exist independently. We can only conclude that the universe not only consists of space, time, matter and energy but the universe IS space, time, matter and energy.

 

If each of these elements is interdependent with each of the others, then none could exist separately outside of the universe. There would be no abstract ‘fields’ of space or time or energy as some have thought.

 

This common concept of space or time or energy as an abstract foundation for matter is but an extrapolation of the practical reality of these elements. This is no different than any other straight line extrapolation that assumes that activity further removed is the same as what is currently experienced. We’ve seen this before when people extrapolated their observation of a flat reality to the notion that the entire earth was flat. Haven’t we just increased the scale of this kind of faulty logic?

 

But to speculate that there are multiverses, we need to establish that there is something from which they can arise – some soil for the plants to grow in. If there is no

underlying ‘field’-- no field of energy, no field of time, no field of space-- then there is nothing from which the many universes could arise. Knowing what each of these fields is, we can not conclude that they could exist separately. And even if such was possible, is it reasonable to speculate that any one of these fields could give rise to a universe in which it was but one of the constituents?

 

Could there have been other points from which other universes arose such as the point from which our universe arose? Behind this question is a hidden implication that is based on our everyday perception of reality. It assumes that there was a time and place from which our universe arose and all other universes could have arisen. But to suggest such, we are unwittingly speculating that there must have been a field of time and space to start with which seems unlikely as previously discussed. So as enticing as the multiverse speculation may be, as we look more closely, we find nothing to sustain it.

[Cyberia]

If one universe can start, then why not endlessly more beyond our universe? If another universe interacted with ours, we would see strange things like the "Dark Flow" or expansion slowing down in some part of the universe.

 

But I do not think that there can be universes separated from ours by being in a different dimension or whatever.

[G Anthony Kent]

Multiverse and Metatime

 

Maybe not on a par with Newton, but Hugh Everett may one day be seen as a thinker on a level with A. Einstein. Plus, John Archibald Wheeler’s suggestion concerning the quantum self-interference of probability density waves may be taken more seriously while Everett’s declaration of the “reality of probability” as a sort of substance gains credence.

 

Self-interference can explain the virtual absence of antimatter (AM) in our universe. AM would be confined to our virtual twin, which must exist according to the logical extension of Alan Guth’s inflation hypothesis wherein a virtual particle came into existence from a hyper-excited false vacuum which itself came to exist precisely because of its ultra-high energy level. It would be seen as the deeper mechanism behind apparent “symmetry breaking” and unbalanced annihilation of fundamental sub-nuclear particles and antiparticles to give our universe with matter as the dominant form.

 

There is no such thing as M-Theory. It is just an ideal. As such, it and super-string theory are unfalsifiable fantasies. But quantum principles must be seen to apply to the universe directly, due to the widespread acceptance of Guth's hypothesis. The implications are at least as profound as any M-Theory that could be imagined.

 

The existence of an interference twin could also be helpful in explaining the hyperbolic (proportional to 1/r) black-hole gravity field as the resultant of a superposition of states. As the real expression of a statistical process within the multiverse, we experience only the total sum, the superposed probability density form from which emerges probability, P ---> 1. There are ways that such a superposition might affect the shape of a gravitational potential well. Gravity itself may be viewed as a probability vortex or wave in the Einstein Aether. There is much that has not been considered.

 

The hyperbolic black-hole galactic gravitational field (HBGF) explains the anomalous stellar velocity distribution in galaxies and anomalous velocity distributions in galactic clusters and all the other phenomena that have been ascribed to so-called "Dark Matter". The hyperbolic hyper-massive black-hole universe gravitational field (HHBF) explains how the super-excited "inflaton" gravitational field has mostly collapsed and is now transitioning to a normal inverse square gravitational field, donating its potential energy. It thus fuels accelerating expansion, playing the role of "Dark Energy". See http://garyakent.wordpress.com .

[lawcat]

Mathematically speaking, Yes.

[sigurdV]

http://discovermagazine.com/2011/oct/18-out-there-welcome-to-the-multiverse/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=

 

 

I am interested to know if my fellow Hypographers think our universe is alone or part of a multiverse. This article from "Discover" gives a few possible scenarios.

 

If every object has an outside then theres no limit to Universes.

 

Perhaps its like stating that no matter how many elements there are in a set,

there always remain objects not included...

[7DSUSYstrings]

http://discovermagazine.com/2011/oct/18-out-there-welcome-to-the-multiverse/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C=

 

 

I am interested to know if my fellow Hypographers think our universe is alone or part of a multiverse. This article from "Discover" gives a few possible scenarios.

 

Susskind wrote a book on string theory. He failed that multiverse hypothesis himself because out of the phenomenal exponent of possibilities one would generate that would engulf all others in approch of infinity. It does not fail the concept of compaction as well though. The 9 + 1 can still exist.