Multiverse Theory
The Multiverse theory for the universe is the theory that describes the continuous formation of universes through the collapse of giant stars and the formation of black holes. With each of these black holes there is a new point of singularity and a new possible universe. As Sir Martin Rees describes it in 'Before the Beginning', "Our universe may be just one element - one atom, as it were - in an infinite ensemble: a cosmic archipelago. Each universe starts with its own big bang, acquires a distinctive imprint (and its individual physical laws) as it cools, and traces out its own cosmic cycle. The big bang that triggered our entire universe is, in this grander perspective, an infinitesimal part of an elaborate structure that extends far beyond the range of any telescopes."
This puts our place in the Multiverse into a small spectrum. While the size of the earth in relation to the sun is minuscule, the size of the sun, the solar system, the galaxy, and even the universe, could pale in comparison to this proposed Multiverse. It would be a shift in thinking that may help explain our big bang theory and possibly give light to the idea of parallel universes.
While the idea of a parallel universe may sound farfetched, a book from an Oxford physicist named David Deutsch entitled, "The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes - And Its Implications" describes the possibilities of tapping in on parallel universes. He proposes that through a parallel universe one computer would be able to find an identical counterpart computer from the other universe, and collaborate with it to increase knowledge of the other universe. This involves the collaboration of many theories that have yet to have much proof.
The Multiverse theory itself, regardless of parallel universes, has many implications. Most notable is the unique, complex process from which our own universe was born, and how easily it could have been different. It may imply that, out of the possibly thousands, millions, or billions of universes, ours was special enough to develop life, which, in itself is special. Maybe life in another universe has a different meaning, but we know that our universe, at the very least is special in that it houses our kind of life. If just one physical law were slightly different, then there would be nobody to appreciate the beauty that we can see on an everyday basis. This brings up one ultimate question. If every universe began from another universe, where did it all begin? Recent physicists imply that there is no room for a creator under the current model of thinking. However, with such a complex system of laws, principles, and forces that allowed life to exist, one must give to the possibility of a creator behind it all.
Sources:
http://edge.org/conversation/the-ultra-early-universe-martin-rees
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fabric_of_Reality
http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu/Projects/moderncosmo/Sean's%20mutliverse.html
Yes, John Wheeler, and now Andrei Linde. anthropic principle fit into the theory of the multiverse
ReplyDeleteBut probably, the future will not be a theory of everything string theory
ReplyDeleteМихаил Опенков do you have a link to the recent Linde's paper?
ReplyDeleteI only have this:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0211048v2.pdf
Corina Marinescu http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/
ReplyDeleteString theory gives rise to philosophical questions about visibility in physics. This is a physics or mathematics? If physics, the experiment should be supporting this theory. He is?
ReplyDeleteIf all these "planes" are connected, why don't we call it one universe instead of multiverse? Multiverse implies that many realities are untouchable.
ReplyDeleteJoão Ferreira the image shows those "planes" being connected by a black hole..and by that implies that several parallel universes can form a multiverse. Each Universe has it's own laws so therefore is a multiverse.
ReplyDeleteKinda like why we're not calling South America just Brazil ..even is connected with Peru, Bolivia, Colombia...etc, isn't it? =)
Thomas McKeown Yes, I am referring to the chain reaction that connects these "planes". There is a cause and effect relationship between them, meaning there is a dependency of how one exists because of the effects of another. There is no 100% independency between them. Even if it is somehow very narrow this connection it is still a connection.
ReplyDeleteCorina Marinescu is the criteria of different laws a way to separate planes?
ReplyDeleteIn some other universe, people there will see different laws of physics João Ferreira They will not see our universe. They will see only theirs.
ReplyDeleteIf there are vast numbers of other universes, all with different properties, by pure odds at least one of them ought to have the right combination of conditions to bring forth stars, planets, and living things. Or at least I hope so..
Corina Marinescu I understand and agree with you. I just would not call it multiverse, but a chained universe.
ReplyDeleteIs not Multiverse just a word after all ?... is all just perception for us humans.
ReplyDeleteKinda like TIRAMISU, is a drug for me...for you is just a cake =)
Corina Marinescu Laws of physics are dependent on our empiric knowledge. They are man made to explain what we have seen so far. A "plane" with different laws just means that our current laws are incomplete and a more general law is needed. Once a generic law is discovered, then there is no separation between the planes. Just different aspects of the law in working.
ReplyDeleteAren't you in this Universe by chance João Ferreira ? Why we should construct a theory that uniquely predicts that our universe must be the way we see it? because otherwise it is not a complete physics?
ReplyDeleteI think we can use whatever words we wish. As long as it is clear what definition of those words we use the only difference is in linguistic preference. :)
ReplyDeleteCorina Marinescu in a deterministic perspective, chance is an illusion.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure if I understood your questions.
All laws are constructed to predict the way we see the universe. It is human centered. It is dependent on what we know and what we can do. In order to ever claim that we have a complete understanding of reality, means that we claim to be omniscient, which is not the case and most probably will never be the case.
Anders Öhlund right. So if we go to the definition of universe: commonly defined as the totality of existence it is weird to say there are many universes. The word has the "uni" part which means unique.
ReplyDeleteThomas McKeown "we cannot readily explore other universes". Why this assumption?
ReplyDeleteThomas McKeown verse is derived from latin truth. Can you have many truths?
ReplyDeleteJoão Ferreira You are still discussing semantics rather than physics :) While I like discussing language that is not the topic at hand here.
ReplyDeleteAnders Öhlund you right. No more questions.
ReplyDeleteWords were made by humans, for humans...also words can be adjusted and even replaced.
ReplyDeleteAlso you didn't answer me João Ferreira ...are you in this universe by chance?
Brer Rabid good comparison
ReplyDeleteNothing wrong with being in love with physics/tech/mechanics...etc
ReplyDeleteMore info to stretch my brain with.
Corina Marinescu I am part of the universe. In or out does not make sense to me. Do you mean "I" as this particular life form, or something else?
ReplyDeleteBrer Rabid I call them systems.
ReplyDeleteYes indeed João Ferreira you're part of this Universe, as we discovered, our universe is pure relativity, it is abstract; therefore theories that uniquely predicts that our universe must be the way we see it are just waste of time. After all what do we really see?
ReplyDeleteOr here: Faraday could explain all of physics as an example candles. It can not do any Brian Greene or Michio Kaku
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteI continue to mumble his own: for clarity in physics
Corina Marinescu "seeing" is figurative. It is based on our understanding. In order to do science you have to make definitions. There is no rule on how to make a definition. They can be very subjective.
ReplyDeleteThis means science is highly dependent on semantics. In this case the definition of universe as totality of existence is no more when multiverse comes into the picture. How do you define now universe? Also, when we say Multiverse "theory" you are not implying it a scientific theory, right? a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.
If we are not precise in our terminology then all science crumbles.
João Ferreira" If we are not precise in our terminology then all science crumbles." Yes!!!
ReplyDeleteJoão Ferreira are we done with semantics, words and terminology?
ReplyDeleteAll physics changed. She rushed to the Pythagorean top. Example: konstatnty dimensionless fundamental interactions as an indicator of intensity. Same with clarity. Mathematical beauty and consistency have become the criteria of truth. So Messrs. philosophers
ReplyDeleteJoão Ferreira Come now; terms shift as understanding advances. The word "atom" has a definite meaning rooted in an earlier understanding. We now know without question that atoms are divisible, yet we still refer to them by the name "atom" even though it means indivisible.
ReplyDeleteSo we have this thing called a universe which for a long time has been understood in a particular way but now we find out that there may be many of these things - perhaps an infinite number. Each one fits our understanding of a universe so rather than come up with a new name, use the name everyone already knows and, like the atom, understand that our knowledge has advanced beyond our older assumptions (in this case, the assumption that the universe is all there is and the only one of its kind). It makes sense to call each one a universe and the whole shebang a multiverse.
Arbitrary speculation.
ReplyDeleteUniverse can be reliably defined as the fact that each pair of things is related. As such, it is not possible to have wholly separate pieces.
ReplyDeleteWhen I had the Internet in 2001, I found that several websites including www.the-origin.org by Rogger Ellman suggested that "Nothingness" must be the best candidate for the initial state of the Universe (=multiverse) as it doesn't require any additional explanation. Anything else requires explanation of its own existence.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, it has been shown that there are very simple rules, the repeated application of which is equivalent to universal turing machines (can in theory calculate anything that any computer could ever compute! -- every computer game or virtual reality simulation). One example of a proven Universal Turing Machine, is Wolfram 2,3 Turing Machine, consisting of just 6 instructions!
Computer-generated virtual realities look like good models of reality experience of my own life, and thus, to me it seems that in order to explain where does it all come from, it is sufficient to answer: how to derive (i.e., logically deduce) these (or other equivalent 6 or less) instructions to construct a Universal Turing Machine from the assumption of "Nothingness."
Mindey I. Nothingness doesn't answer the problem - if we started with nothing we still had to at some point have something - there is still a first "something" and we still have the challenge of explaining its existence.
ReplyDeleteThat said, jumping to a divine explanation imposes an assumption: namely, we assume that if there is some sort of uncaused cause, it must be a personal, sentient being, yet there is no reason for this. If the multiverse theory is true, and something/some force/some natural law out there is churning out new universes, there's no reason for this force/process to be sentient. Since it's churning out an infinite number of these things, the possibility that life will exist in some of them is 100%, thus explaining our existence. This still requires an assumption, but it's just as plausible as a sentient divine being.
It is important (if you desire to avoid contradictions) to drop any pretense of being able to encapsulate the nature of Universe within the bounds of any given conceptual framework, no matter how clever, interesting, elaborate, or intricate. Universe by nature is not unitarily conceptual. Not even by so-called 'God' (which appears to me to be a name that folk ascribe to that which they choose not to understand concerning themselves). Universe is not a system, and consideration in general and specific is predicated on focusing on the aspects considered, which inescapably means the process of dividing Universe into considerable parts, howsoever subsequently reintegrated conceptually, so that by the time one considers what is Universe, one has already and unavoidably proven that whatever you think it is, it is not just that.
ReplyDeleteIt is not possible to come to a concept of Universe, as there is no vantage from which to obtain a unit perspective of the whole from within Universe, which is the sphere of conscious conceptual operation. There can be no unitary consciousness, because consciousness is predicated on awareness, and awareness implies something other than awareness of which one is aware. Consciousness is like that: functional, and it must have something other than itself upon which to function, something external to grasp, else it cannot exist qua consciousness, qua awareness, qua grasp of (some portions of) Universal reality.
Each has a portion of the whole in mind, and the individual portions are only partially overlapping, so that no one mind can access all aspects of Universe qua totality. Universe has no outside, notwithstanding the common parlance of "things being within Universe" which implies an alternative. Universe contains everything and every think, but is not itself contained, except epistemologically, self-referentially, in the sense that Universe never contradicts itself.
Therefore, the best one can do (and this is enough!) is to define Universe unambiguously and without contradiction of the facts of experience, and without inventing arbitrary notions for the sake of emotional comfort.
Thus: Universe is the fact that each pair of things is related. The word 'fact' is important in that sentence. Sentience, being what it is, can discover facts but cannot invent them out of whole cloth, so the nature of Universe is intimately related to the nature of facts, i.e., epistemological inferences from experience.
An alternative and depending on context potentially more useful, but logically equivalent, definition of Universe is given by R. Buckminster Fuller. I do not claim it is obviously equivalent, but I suppose that upon consideration you will be hard pressed to discern a difference in the action of the definition, at any given level of detail.
"Universe is the aggregate of all humanity's consciously apprehended and communicated nonsimultaneous and only partially overlapping experiences." ~ Bucky Fuller
You see, the fact that Universe exists a priori to any given individual consciousness, and while Universe is not a function of consciousness but rather the cause of conscious function, yet Universe cannot be conceived via consciousness. It can be perceived, and it can be defined reliably, for the purposes of consideration of portions of Universe; but it cannot be imagined as can, for example, an apple.
Kinds of helps visual a possible "why" of quantum particle behavior.
ReplyDeleteDavid Chako Do you distinguish between Universe as the body of human knowledge derived from our corporate experiences and the universe as the known container for matter thrust out from the big bang? Are you speaking physically or epistemologically?
ReplyDeleteBucky Fuller also said "Universe is, inferentially, the biggest system." which we both know that is wrong David Chako since size is relative and Universe is not a system.
ReplyDeleteSo his version of what Universe is or must be has no meaning for me, since his ideas and notions were limited by his own existence.
The universe is inevitable and impossible..therefore is unnatural. Unnatural universe has no fundamental constants and cannot be defined by the laws of nature or physics we know now. Seems to me that we should not define Universe with "whatever we think we know" at this point...but rather discuss and be open to what we do not know.
Truth is we don’t have an understanding of a basic extraordinary fact about our universe.
Space-time could be 10Dimensional so in our 4D fabric what do we really know? more over how much we do not know?
Naturalness is not required in my opinion. There isn’t a single, inevitable, perfect universe.
Corina Marinescu Aha! You spotted one if Fuller's rare inconsistencies! You impress! I attribute it to a lack of editing of his voluminous corpus.
ReplyDeleteBut while he (and I) may error in lingo, the fact remains: universe is both inescapable and inscrutable by nature. It is a mystery ... not a miracle ... and as such is unique. Cheers!
Open is not the correct adverb. Active is more pointed.
ReplyDeleteAgree, active sounds better David Chako .
ReplyDeleteChris Roberts yes, explanation of transition from "Nothingness" to something, is essential, and hard to explain. However, we had been making progress at reducing the number of instructions needed to define a Universal Turing Machine. Marvin Minsky discovered a 7-state 4-symbol universal Turing machine in 1962. The Wolfram 2-state 3-color Turing machine was proven to be a UTM just in 2007. There is a section on Wikipedia on smallest UTMs ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Turing_machine#Smallest_machines ). I think, it is not unthinkable that we could eventually arrive at something as small as 1 instruction, and then conceive of a way in which "Nothingness" could have naturally transitioned into it.
ReplyDeleteJust take an example, for instance, the numbrer the digits of π have no apparent pattern and pass tests for statistical randomness, and seem to be normal ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pi#Properties see 3rd paragraph ). What it means, is that given long enough sequence of its digits, you can find any combination of them. There is even a file system, called πfs ( https://github.com/philipl/pifs/blob/master/README.md ) based on that assumption -- you don't write data, you simply find the location of the data -- it's already in the π.
Although to my knowledge it is not proven that π is UTM, but if it is, I think it could be a good candidate for what could be the conclusion from assumption of nothingness. Sphericity of nothingness in all directions? I don't know.