Multiverse... Anyone?

[bornagainathiest]

http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-14372387

 

http://prd.aps.org/a...911a2083788d205

 

http://arxiv.org/PS_...1012.3667v2.pdf

 

 

BAA.

[Suzy]

Thanks for the links, I will read them.

 

Ever since I have first heard about the idea I totally love it. I really hope it's true, it would be so cool that everything that could ever happen DID/DOES happen somewhere in the multiverse!

 

I just finished reading a 1997 book by British-Israeli physicist, David Deutsch titled The Fabric of Reality. He's a big proponent of the multiverse theory and in his book he argues for a world-view that has four strands: quantum physics (and its multiverse interpretation), Popperian epistemology, computation (based on the Turing principle) and Darwinian evolution.

 

I'm not qualified to really judge how strong his arguments are but I really enjoyed the book - it presents a fascinating world-view that I like very much. Also that book is more than 10 years old, I'm sure there have been discoveries made since which either strengthen the position of the MWI or weaken it.

 

Oh, and the next book I'm planning to read is "On The Plurality of Worlds" by David Lewis. He's a phylosophist and he derived the multiverse theory not from quantum physics but on purely philosphical grounds.

[bornagainathiest]

Both books sound great Suzy!

 

David Deutsch I know something about (the Everett Interpretation and similar), but David Lewis is a new name to me. Thanks for the head's up on that.

 

I suppose you and I are pretty much on the same wavelength when it comes to next year's general release of the Planck satellite's data?

Like me, you'd like to see scientists use it to firmly nail down the existence of other universes, right?

And if an eternally-existing, infinite ocean of other universes is indicated, so much the better, hmm?

 

Seeing Genesis 1:1 overturned as wrong would be soooooooo sweet!

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Suzy]

Here is "On The Plurality Of Worlds" by David Lewis in PDF: http://www.filedropp...uralityofworlds

 

In philosophy the thesis is called genuine modal realism.

 

Here is a shorter paper on genuine modal realism by Damon Woolsey:

 

http://www.filedropp...om/modalrealism

[Suzy]

And this is a summary of the type of Multiverses by Max Tegmark:

 

http://space.mit.edu.../multiverse.pdf

 

My favorite is the Level III multiverse - the one of quantum physics. But I like all of them.

 

An article titled "The Case for Parallel Universes":

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=multiverse-the-case-for-parallel-universe

[Noggy]

lol multiverse theory by definition is unprovable.

[Suzy]

From the article under the last link I gave:

 

Remember: Parallel universes are not a theory—they are predictions of certain theories.

 

To me, the key point is that if theories are scientific, then it's legitimate science to work out and discuss all their consequences even if they involve unobservable entities. For a theory to be falsifiable, we need not be able to observe and test all its predictions, merely at least one of them. My answer to (4) is therefore that what's scientifically testable are our mathematical theories, not necessarily their implications, and that this is quite OK. For example, because Einstein's theory of general relativity has successfully predicted many things that we can observe, we also take seriously its predictions for things we cannot observe, e.g., what happens inside black holes.

 

Likewise, if we're impressed by the successful predictions of inflation or quantum mechanics so far, then we need to take seriously also their other predictions, including the Level I and Level III multiverse. George even mentions the possibility that eternal inflation may one day be ruled out—to me, this is simply an argument that eternal inflation is a scientific theory.

[ConureDelSol]

While I love the idea of multiverses and I feel it could help to explain how this universe came into being, I can't help but think Christards would try and flip it around and say it's evidence that God is multidimensional or something stupid like that.

[Noggy]

From the article under the last link I gave:

 

Remember: Parallel universes are not a theory—they are predictions of certain theories.

 

To me, the key point is that if theories are scientific, then it's legitimate science to work out and discuss all their consequences even if they involve unobservable entities. For a theory to be falsifiable, we need not be able to observe and test all its predictions, merely at least one of them. My answer to (4) is therefore that what's scientifically testable are our mathematical theories, not necessarily their implications, and that this is quite OK. For example, because Einstein's theory of general relativity has successfully predicted many things that we can observe, we also take seriously its predictions for things we cannot observe, e.g., what happens inside black holes.

 

Likewise, if we're impressed by the successful predictions of inflation or quantum mechanics so far, then we need to take seriously also their other predictions, including the Level I and Level III multiverse. George even mentions the possibility that eternal inflation may one day be ruled out—to me, this is simply an argument that eternal inflation is a scientific theory.

 

Yeah, but those theories also predict other scenarios. Multiverse is one interpretation of it, and you can't prove it.

[Suzy]

From the article under the last link I gave:

 

Remember: Parallel universes are not a theory—they are predictions of certain theories.

 

To me, the key point is that if theories are scientific, then it's legitimate science to work out and discuss all their consequences even if they involve unobservable entities. For a theory to be falsifiable, we need not be able to observe and test all its predictions, merely at least one of them. My answer to (4) is therefore that what's scientifically testable are our mathematical theories, not necessarily their implications, and that this is quite OK. For example, because Einstein's theory of general relativity has successfully predicted many things that we can observe, we also take seriously its predictions for things we cannot observe, e.g., what happens inside black holes.

 

Likewise, if we're impressed by the successful predictions of inflation or quantum mechanics so far, then we need to take seriously also their other predictions, including the Level I and Level III multiverse. George even mentions the possibility that eternal inflation may one day be ruled out—to me, this is simply an argument that eternal inflation is a scientific theory.

 

Yeah, but those theories also predict other scenarios. Multiverse is one interpretation of it, and you can't prove it.

 

I'm not sure if we really can't prove it. We may not be able to prove or disprove it with the technology we have NOW, but that doesn't mean we never will be able to. In the book I mentioned, "The Fabric of Reality" by David Deutsch, he talks a lot about quantum computation and how it works - since that's his main area, he is working on the building of quantum computers. Now, if we manage to build more complex quantum computers than what we have now (just very simple, basic forms) and they would operate the way predicted by the multiverse interpretation then that would be a very strong evidence for the multiverse (type III at least).

[Noggy]

If its outside our universe we can't know anything about it by definition. If we could prove it, it would be a part of our universe.

[bornagainathiest]

Dear Suzy and Noggy,

 

I hope that I can clear things up when it comes to the potential detection of other universes.

 

This page... http://www.universet...ope-bubblology/# ...uses a very helpful diagram, which I shall link to directly, here... http://www.universet...1/07/Bubble.jpg

 

Here we see the direct interaction of two different universes, both of which have originated from the parent false vacuum.

Ours is on the left and the other one is on the right. Ours shows the early phases of it's history, with various epochs listed.

Following Inflation and Re-heating we have what's called, The Last Scattering. Then Reionisation and finally there is the epoch where we exist, on the planet Earth.

 

When it comes to detecting the imprint of another universe on our Light Cone, we need to look back to the epoch of Last Scattering. This is more commonly known as the Cosmic Microwave Background. If you put the query, "Surface of Last Scattering" into Wikipedia, you'll be re-directed to the CMB page. That's because they are the same thing - but are being referred to by some in a different way. That's all. The CMB is also known as the S.O.L.S. because the uniform glow of the white-hot plasma that filled universe after the Inflationary epoch contains imprinted within it the pattern of what happened in earlier periods of our universe's evolution. Once the temperature had dropped sufficiently, protons and neutrons could form and the universe became transparent - no longer filled with that hot plasma 'fogginess'. So the CMB is our key to understanding the very early universe.

 

If you go here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang ...you'll see this diagram... http://en.wikipedia....300_no_WMAP.jpg .

This shows a stylized representation of our universe's Light Cone, but displayed on it's side. The earlier one, showing our Light Cone colliding with that of another universe shows similar information, but it's displayed vertically.

 

So, if you can flip your attention from one to the other, I'll explain how they fit together.

 

1. Parent False Vaccum (Universe Today) = Quantum Fluctuations (Wikipedia)

2. Inflation & Re-Heating Surface (UT) = Inflation (Wiki)

3. Last Scattering (UT) = Afterglow Light Pattern 380,000 years (Wiki)

4. (Not shown in UT) = Dark Ages (Wiki)

5. Reionization (UT) = 1st Stars about 400 million years

6. Earth = (after development of stars, etc.) Our epoch of Accelerated Expansion

 

So the Last Scattering in the Universe Today article equates to the CMB Afterglow on the Wiki page.

 

Now, if we go back to the UT diagram... http://www.universet...1/07/Bubble.jpg ...we can see that the collision of another universe's Light Cone with ours affects the shape of the Cone within every epoch (the Inflationary, the Last Scattering, the Reionization and our current time too) but this collision will only be recorded by one of them - the Surface of Last Scattering a.k.a. the Cosmic Microwave Background. The properties of our universe in any other epoch will not record the effects of another Light Cone impinging on ours. That is why we study the CMB closely to see if the characteristic patterns of a collision, or collisions, are there. That is why the data from the WMAP and Planck probes are so important.

 

These links...

http://en.wikipedia....i/CMB_cold_spot

http://en.wikipedia....i/Laura_Mersini

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Flow

... display the tentative observations and predictions made by scientists, based upon the WMAP data. Evidence of patterns within the CMB seem to be suggesting the imprint of other universes beyond ours. However, the much higher quality data from the Planck satellite (to be released next year) is needed to firm up these speculations.

 

So, it really does seem that the detection of other universes interacting with ours is both possible and being eagerly looked for.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Suzy]

If its outside our universe we can't know anything about it by definition. If we could prove it, it would be a part of our universe.

 

As I understand from Deutsch's book if those quantum computers would be built and would work the way predicted that doesn't mean we could know what is happening in other universes. It's just that quantum computers would be able to do computations that they wouldn't be able to do if there's only one universe, because there aren't enough resources for such computations in one universe. However quantum computers could easily do those computations if there is a multiverse.

[Suzy]

Dear Suzy and Noggy,

 

I hope that I can clear things up when it comes to the potential detection of other universes.

 

This page... http://www.universet...ope-bubblology/# ...uses a very helpful diagram, which I shall link to directly, here... http://www.universet...1/07/Bubble.jpg

 

Here we see the direct interaction of two different universes, both of which have originated from the parent false vacuum.

Ours is on the left and the other one is on the right. Ours shows the early phases of it's history, with various epochs listed.

Following Inflation and Re-heating we have what's called, The Last Scattering. Then Reionisation and finally there is the epoch where we exist, on the planet Earth.

 

When it comes to detecting the imprint of another universe on our Light Cone, we need to look back to the epoch of Last Scattering. This is more commonly known as the Cosmic Microwave Background. If you put the query, "Surface of Last Scattering" into Wikipedia, you'll be re-directed to the CMB page. That's because they are the same thing - but are being referred to by some in a different way. That's all. The CMB is also known as the S.O.L.S. because the uniform glow of the white-hot plasma that filled universe after the Inflationary epoch contains imprinted within it the pattern of what happened in earlier periods of our universe's evolution. Once the temperature had dropped sufficiently, protons and neutrons could form and the universe became transparent - no longer filled with that hot plasma 'fogginess'. So the CMB is our key to understanding the very early universe.

 

If you go here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang ...you'll see this diagram... http://en.wikipedia....300_no_WMAP.jpg .

This shows a stylized representation of our universe's Light Cone, but displayed on it's side. The earlier one, showing our Light Cone colliding with that of another universe shows similar information, but it's displayed vertically.

 

So, if you can flip your attention from one to the other, I'll explain how they fit together.

 

1. Parent False Vaccum (Universe Today) = Quantum Fluctuations (Wikipedia)

2. Inflation & Re-Heating Surface (UT) = Inflation (Wiki)

3. Last Scattering (UT) = Afterglow Light Pattern 380,000 years (Wiki)

4. (Not shown in UT) = Dark Ages (Wiki)

5. Reionization (UT) = 1st Stars about 400 million years

6. Earth = (after development of stars, etc.) Our epoch of Accelerated Expansion

 

So the Last Scattering in the Universe Today article equates to the CMB Afterglow on the Wiki page.

 

Now, if we go back to the UT diagram... http://www.universet...1/07/Bubble.jpg ...we can see that the collision of another universe's Light Cone with ours affects the shape of the Cone within every epoch (the Inflationary, the Last Scattering, the Reionization and our current time too) but this collision will only be recorded by one of them - the Surface of Last Scattering a.k.a. the Cosmic Microwave Background. The properties of our universe in any other epoch will not record the effects of another Light Cone impinging on ours. That is why we study the CMB closely to see if the characteristic patterns of a collision, or collisions, are there. That is why the data from the WMAP and Planck probes are so important.

 

These links...

http://en.wikipedia....i/CMB_cold_spot

http://en.wikipedia....i/Laura_Mersini

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Flow

... display the tentative observations and predictions made by scientists, based upon the WMAP data. Evidence of patterns within the CMB seem to be suggesting the imprint of other universes beyond ours. However, the much higher quality data from the Planck satellite (to be released next year) is needed to firm up these speculations.

 

So, it really does seem that the detection of other universes interacting with ours is both possible and being eagerly looked for.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

Thanks a lot.

 

This would be a Level I. or Level II. multiverse, right?

[Foxy Methoxy]

The level of theory regarding a multiverse is mindblowing. The universe itself is so enormous, it's hard to fathom, but a multiverse? That is quantum upon quantum. We can barely even consider ourselves specks in this whole thing.

[Noggy]

If its outside our universe we can't know anything about it by definition. If we could prove it, it would be a part of our universe.

 

As I understand from Deutsch's book if those quantum computers would be built and would work the way predicted that doesn't mean we could know what is happening in other universes. It's just that quantum computers would be able to do computations that they wouldn't be able to do if there's only one universe, because there aren't enough resources for such computations in one universe. However quantum computers could easily do those computations if there is a multiverse.

 

No, thats the problem. There are LOTS of different interpretations of quantum effects. The multiverse is only 1 interpretation of it. There are OTHER WAYS to explain the phenonmen that is QM. And the other ways are provable. Saying there are multiverses is as provable and scientific as saying that there is a God that created everything. Sure, maybe, but we can't prove it, and there are better ways to explain it.

[bornagainathiest]

Thanks a lot.

This would be a Level I. or Level II. multiverse, right?

 

Hey, why don't you ask me a difficult question for a change, Suzy?

 

Seriously though, here's my take on this.

 

http://space.mit.edu...mark/crazy.html

 

A Level 1 Multiverse (according to Max) are the, "regions beyond our cosmic horizon".

By that, I take him to mean regions of our own universe that we cannot see, but which we logically and reasonably assume must be there. This link... http://www.sciencefo...82-what-we-see/ ...is very useful because it uses the same Light Cone diagram as the one on the Wiki CMB page - the one lying on it's side.

 

Please look at the second diagram down and you'll see that Michel123456 has added in the WMAP satellite and the Light Cone of us folks here on Earth. My understanding is that a region beyond our cosmic horizon is anywhere outside of our own Light Cone. These regions are fully connected to the part of the universe we can see and (as Occam's Razor would suggest) they should also share the same properties as our local environment.

 

Max's description of a Level 2 Multiverse agrees with the article from Universe Today.

Here a completely different and separate bubble emerges from the parent false vacuum and undergoes it's own period of Inflation and becomes a fully-fledged universe. Evidence for it's existence may or may not be found in the Planck CMB data.

We'll just have to wait and see.

 

So, come next year, if they do find a confirming pattern in the CMB, this would strongly indicate we live in a Level 2 Multiverse. Needless to say, the theological implications of this are tremendous!

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Genesis 1:1 will have been categorically proven to be 100% wrong. If universes spring spontaneously into existence by purely natural processes, then there's no need to invoke a Creator. God is superfluous and irrelevant.

 

Btw, lower down on the ScienceForums page, MigL makes a similar kind of objection to Noggy's. Michel123456's response is very good for the clarity with which it shows how unseen regions of our universe do affect us. This is why Dark Flow and the CMB Cold Spot are so exciting. They are equivalent to Point C (event C), and appear to be telling us that what is outside of our Light Cone is having an effect on our observable universe.

 

That help?

 

BAA.

[mymistake]

If its outside our universe we can't know anything about it by definition. If we could prove it, it would be a part of our universe.

 

As I understand from Deutsch's book if those quantum computers would be built and would work the way predicted that doesn't mean we could know what is happening in other universes. It's just that quantum computers would be able to do computations that they wouldn't be able to do if there's only one universe, because there aren't enough resources for such computations in one universe. However quantum computers could easily do those computations if there is a multiverse.

 

Let's hope that nobody in those other universes develops a quantum computer that uses our resources.

[bornagainathiest]

If its outside our universe we can't know anything about it by definition. If we could prove it, it would be a part of our universe.

 

As I understand from Deutsch's book if those quantum computers would be built and would work the way predicted that doesn't mean we could know what is happening in other universes. It's just that quantum computers would be able to do computations that they wouldn't be able to do if there's only one universe, because there aren't enough resources for such computations in one universe. However quantum computers could easily do those computations if there is a multiverse.

 

No, thats the problem. There are LOTS of different interpretations of quantum effects. The multiverse is only 1 interpretation of it. There are OTHER WAYS to explain the phenonmen that is QM. And the other ways are provable. Saying there are multiverses is as provable and scientific as saying that there is a God that created everything. Sure, maybe, but we can't prove it, and there are better ways to explain it.

 

Sorry Noggy, but I can't agree.

 

If a cosmologist makes a prediction (that the CMB will display patterns that indicate collisions with another, separate universe) and then said prediction is confirmed by the data, why should we look for other interpretations?

 

Take the power spectrum of the CMB. It was calculated to be a perfect black-body radiation curve. Then, when the data came in, this was confirmed. Here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cmbr.svg

The prediction and the data agree.

 

Why opt for other explanations of the CMB power spectrum, when there's a next-to-perfect fit?

 

Ok, the jury's still out and will be so until some time next year.

But then, if the Planck data confirms Multiversal theory, will there really be any need to invoke rival explanations?

 

Ummm...help me out here, please.

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

The level of theory regarding a multiverse is mindblowing. The universe itself is so enormous, it's hard to fathom, but a multiverse? That is quantum upon quantum. We can barely even consider ourselves specks in this whole thing.

 

Shock and awe seem to be appropriate here, Foxy.

 

One of my astro-buddies gave me a rough example of just how v-a-s-t our own universe is, not so long ago. He gave me a nickel and walked away from where I was standing, to a distance of 75 feet. He held the nickel up and I could barely see it.

Apparently the amount of sky it covered will contain at least 10,000 galaxies, all the way out to the edge of the observable universe. This is also true for every part of the sky. Not individual stars or planets, but whole galaxies - each one containing with millions or billions of stars and planets.

 

How's that for mindblowing?

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Here's one of my faves...

 

http://upload.wikime..._7293_VISTA.jpg

 

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Helix_Nebula

 

Please click on the left-hand video.

It starts with (more-or-less) the view of the sky you'd get with your eyes and then zooms in for a tight close up.

 

Notice how a lot of material seems to radiate away from the center? These blobs-and-tails look a bit like comets, but they aren't. You can read about them under the heading, "Knots". Now if you look at the VISTA image, there's a good one at the 12:00 o'clock position. This cometary knot is (very approximately) the size of our Solar System.

 

The thought that just blows me away is this...

 

It takes YEARS for NASA's probes to travel to Jupiter and Saturn, which are ( v.roughly) halfway across our solar system. Ok, they don't do it a straight line, but I think the point is still made. At that rate it might take over a thousand years for a Voyager or a Pioneer just to cross the full diameter of the Helix Nebula.

 

... and look how small the nebula is in the night sky!

It's only 700 light years away. Just over the picket fence, really.

 

Got a headache yet? I know I have.

 

BAA.

[Noggy]

Sorry Noggy, but I can't agree.

 

If a cosmologist makes a prediction (that the CMB will display patterns that indicate collisions with another, separate universe) and then said prediction is confirmed by the data, why should we look for other interpretations?

 

Take the power spectrum of the CMB. It was calculated to be a perfect black-body radiation curve. Then, when the data came in, this was confirmed. Here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cmbr.svg

The prediction and the data agree.

 

Why opt for other explanations of the CMB power spectrum, when there's a next-to-perfect fit?

 

Ok, the jury's still out and will be so until some time next year.

But then, if the Planck data confirms Multiversal theory, will there really be any need to invoke rival explanations?

 

Ummm...help me out here, please.

 

BAA.

 

Because there are lots of things that can cause that kind of curve that aren't the multiverse.

 

"THERE ARE LOTS OF THINGS THAT CAN CAUSE HUMANS, BUT THIS BOOK SAYS THAT GOD DID IT, ITS THE SIMPLEST AND MOST PERFECT ANSWER".

 

There are lots of theories out there that predicted lots of good things, and lots of bad things. Just because your theory predicts one thing doesn't mean its real. It just means that it is one possible explanation. Multiverse theory also predicts lots of things we cant see. And doesn't predict everything. There are other theories out there that predict this kind of curve, and also predict other things. What if those other things are true? Is multiverse theory still true? Or is the new theory true? You can't just say there are multiverses based on one bit of evidence. And if there are other things that predict the same kind of phenomena, then its probably not the multiverse part of the theory that is predicting that kind of phenomena.

[Foxy Methoxy]

The level of theory regarding a multiverse is mindblowing. The universe itself is so enormous, it's hard to fathom, but a multiverse? That is quantum upon quantum. We can barely even consider ourselves specks in this whole thing.

 

Shock and awe seem to be appropriate here, Foxy.

 

One of my astro-buddies gave me a rough example of just how v-a-s-t our own universe is, not so long ago. He gave me a nickel and walked away from where I was standing, to a distance of 75 feet. He held the nickel up and I could barely see it.

Apparently the amount of sky it covered will contain at least 10,000 galaxies, all the way out to the edge of the observable universe. This is also true for every part of the sky. Not individual stars or planets, but whole galaxies - each one containing with millions or billions of stars and planets.

 

How's that for mindblowing?

 

 

Indeed. Consider, too, the evidence of galaxies in our expanding universe are drifting apart and at some point will be so distant to one another, they will likely be impossible to find. Then consider the possibility of universes drifting apart in the same way and the expanse become unfathomable.

[bornagainathiest]

Sorry Noggy, but I can't agree.

 

If a cosmologist makes a prediction (that the CMB will display patterns that indicate collisions with another, separate universe) and then said prediction is confirmed by the data, why should we look for other interpretations?

 

Take the power spectrum of the CMB. It was calculated to be a perfect black-body radiation curve. Then, when the data came in, this was confirmed. Here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cmbr.svg

The prediction and the data agree.

 

Why opt for other explanations of the CMB power spectrum, when there's a next-to-perfect fit?

 

Ok, the jury's still out and will be so until some time next year.

But then, if the Planck data confirms Multiversal theory, will there really be any need to invoke rival explanations?

 

Ummm...help me out here, please.

 

BAA.

 

Because there are lots of things that can cause that kind of curve that aren't the multiverse.

 

"THERE ARE LOTS OF THINGS THAT CAN CAUSE HUMANS, BUT THIS BOOK SAYS THAT GOD DID IT, ITS THE SIMPLEST AND MOST PERFECT ANSWER".

 

There are lots of theories out there that predicted lots of good things, and lots of bad things. Just because your theory predicts one thing doesn't mean its real. It just means that it is one possible explanation. Multiverse theory also predicts lots of things we cant see. And doesn't predict everything. There are other theories out there that predict this kind of curve, and also predict other things. What if those other things are true? Is multiverse theory still true? Or is the new theory true? You can't just say there are multiverses based on one bit of evidence. And if there are other things that predict the same kind of phenomena, then its probably not the multiverse part of the theory that is predicting that kind of phenomena.

 

Ok then Noggy, let's hear about these "other things" please.

 

"Because there are lots of things that can cause that kind of curve that aren't the multiverse."

 

Such as...?

Could you please present these other things - these lots of other things (presumably from peer-reviewed papers) that cause a perfect black-body radiation curve?

 

"Just because your theory predicts one thing doesn't mean its real. It just means that it is one possible explanation."

 

Yes, I agree.

Science always deals with inferred knowledge about reality, However, when one explanation fits reality to umpteen decimal places better than any rival theories, why is it necessary to still consider other, less accurate explanations as being equally valid?

Please say why you think this is so. Thank you.

 

"There are other theories out there that predict this kind of curve, and also predict other things. What if those other things are true? Is multiverse theory still true? Or is the new theory true?"

 

Please cite these other theories. Thank you.

 

Please also clarify what you mean by the word, 'true'. Thank you.

 

"You can't just say there are multiverses based on one bit of evidence."

 

Can you please justify this assertion. Thank you.

 

"And if there are other things that predict the same kind of phenomena, then its probably not the multiverse part of the theory that is predicting that kind of phenomena."

 

Once again Noggy...

Please cite what these other things are and who makes these predictions. Thank you.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Noggy,

 

Of course it's right and proper that ALL science submit itself to testing and questioning, but it's also right and proper that those doing so cite the source/s of their objections and questions.

 

So, the onus is now squarely upon you to address this issue. I've politely asked you to do so and I would be very grateful if you would please substantiate your objections.

 

Thanks again,

 

BAA.

[Suzy]

If its outside our universe we can't know anything about it by definition. If we could prove it, it would be a part of our universe.

 

As I understand from Deutsch's book if those quantum computers would be built and would work the way predicted that doesn't mean we could know what is happening in other universes. It's just that quantum computers would be able to do computations that they wouldn't be able to do if there's only one universe, because there aren't enough resources for such computations in one universe. However quantum computers could easily do those computations if there is a multiverse.

 

No, thats the problem. There are LOTS of different interpretations of quantum effects. The multiverse is only 1 interpretation of it. There are OTHER WAYS to explain the phenonmen that is QM. And the other ways are provable. Saying there are multiverses is as provable and scientific as saying that there is a God that created everything. Sure, maybe, but we can't prove it, and there are better ways to explain it.

 

Of course, currently the multiverse is just one interpretation of QM, nobody said anything else. It's pretty controversial too. (Just like any other interpretation of QM is.) The question is whether there can be a test that distinguishes between different interpretations. I think there can be and what Deutsch writes about quantum computers in his book, if they will work the way it's predicted then it cannot be explained by the Coppenhagen interpretation and the collapse of the wavefunction, for example, however the multiverse interpretation would give a pretty good explanation for it.

 

Also science is never about 100% certainties, but it's about our best theories at a time. Even if we will never be able to know for 100% certainty if there are really other universes (because we will never be able to visit them - but this way you can never be 100% sure of the Big Bang theory, the TOE or anything in science either), there can be developments made (such as in the area of quantum computation) which will make the multiverse interpretation our best interpretation or theory to explain them - out of the interpretations those exist now at least.

 

If then someone finds an even better theory or interpretation then that can blow away the multiverse interpretation of course (just like there's a chance for any theory to be blown away if a better is found), but that's just the way science generally works. And while God might have seemed the best explanation for things for ancient people in the past, surely it isn't our best explanation for anything now, considering the data and knowledge we have collected since then. On the Multiverse interpretation the jury is still out.

[Suzy]

Thanks a lot.

This would be a Level I. or Level II. multiverse, right?

 

Hey, why don't you ask me a difficult question for a change, Suzy?

 

Seriously though, here's my take on this.

 

http://space.mit.edu...mark/crazy.html

 

A Level 1 Multiverse (according to Max) are the, "regions beyond our cosmic horizon".

By that, I take him to mean regions of our own universe that we cannot see, but which we logically and reasonably assume must be there. This link... http://www.sciencefo...82-what-we-see/ ...is very useful because it uses the same Light Cone diagram as the one on the Wiki CMB page - the one lying on it's side.

 

Please look at the second diagram down and you'll see that Michel123456 has added in the WMAP satellite and the Light Cone of us folks here on Earth. My understanding is that a region beyond our cosmic horizon is anywhere outside of our own Light Cone. These regions are fully connected to the part of the universe we can see and (as Occam's Razor would suggest) they should also share the same properties as our local environment.

 

Max's description of a Level 2 Multiverse agrees with the article from Universe Today.

Here a completely different and separate bubble emerges from the parent false vacuum and undergoes it's own period of Inflation and becomes a fully-fledged universe. Evidence for it's existence may or may not be found in the Planck CMB data.

We'll just have to wait and see.

 

So, come next year, if they do find a confirming pattern in the CMB, this would strongly indicate we live in a Level 2 Multiverse. Needless to say, the theological implications of this are tremendous!

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Genesis 1:1 will have been categorically proven to be 100% wrong. If universes spring spontaneously into existence by purely natural processes, then there's no need to invoke a Creator. God is superfluous and irrelevant.

 

Btw, lower down on the ScienceForums page, MigL makes a similar kind of objection to Noggy's. Michel123456's response is very good for the clarity with which it shows how unseen regions of our universe do affect us. This is why Dark Flow and the CMB Cold Spot are so exciting. They are equivalent to Point C (event C), and appear to be telling us that what is outside of our Light Cone is having an effect on our observable universe.

 

That help?

 

BAA.

 

Thanks. And what's your opinion about the Level III Multiverse?