The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Do we require the concept of a multiverse to explain phyics?  (Read 5692 times)

Offline FZM7

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
I was thinking that so far we have not been able to confirm anything as random. We have been able to put an equation behind nearly everything we have discovered, quantum physics is an exception at the moment but soon we will uncover it too.

If it is true that there is nothing random in the universe then all events that occur do so at 100% probability because when you factor in all the variables the outcome can be predicted surely. So we no longer need a multiverse to explain all the possible outcomes because technically there is only one outcome.

What do you think?
« Last Edit: 12/02/2015 11:04:25 by chris »


 

Offline JohnDuffield

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 488
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
Re: Multiverse Vs Universe
« Reply #1 on: 09/02/2015 14:25:36 »
I don't think "the multiverse" explains anything at all. In fact, I think it's pseudoscience.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Multiverse Vs Universe
« Reply #2 on: 09/02/2015 15:57:54 »
Qm is about probabilities to me. Those you gain two ways, through statistics and through mathematics. There is nothing 'decided' in HUP for example, unless you refer to the rules defining it? A deterministic universe demands a lot of presumptions, you want a 'container universe' as a first. As a second you will want easily defined rules leaving nothing to 'chance'. That's not what we see.
=

Let me put it this way, assuming a arrow QM rules :)
No arrow, and you get your determinism. But you won't be able to measure.
« Last Edit: 09/02/2015 16:00:00 by yor_on »
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
Re: Multiverse Vs Universe
« Reply #3 on: 09/02/2015 18:40:44 »
Quote from: FZM7
I was thinking that so far we have not been able to confirm anything as random. We have been able to put an equation behind nearly everything we have discovered, quantum physics is an exception at the moment but soon we will uncover it too.
That's not true at all. There's nothing to even hint at that. Quantum mechanics is inherently probabilistic. Many physicists have tried to prove otherwise. However experiments show that its probabilistic in nature.

Quote from: FZM7
If it is true that there is nothing random in the universe then all events that occur do so at 100% probability because when you factor in all the variables the outcome can be predicted surely. So we no longer need a multiverse to explain all the possible outcomes because technically there is only one outcome.

What do you think?
We never needed a multiverse to explain quantum mechanics. The multiverse has many different reasons for being postulated. A lot of them come from cosmology.
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: Multiverse Vs Universe
« Reply #4 on: 09/02/2015 21:33:49 »
I don't think "the multiverse" explains anything at all. In fact, I think it's pseudoscience.
We can never see beyond our own universe, and may not even see the boundaries of the universe.  But, that doesn't mean there is nothing beyond.

But the idea of infinite nearly identical parallel universes is pretty much hogwash.  So many little things that might have hinged on the flip of a coin that could have extreme consequences later....  and just on Earth. 

What if there was no Theia impact and the creation of the moon (assuming that is how it formed).  What if the dinosaurs didn't go extinct? 

However, for the most part, Jupiter, and all the other planets are unaffected by what is happening here on Earth, or at least until Man has started to explore our neighborhood.  But the different planets and different solar systems all would still have had events leading to what they are like today.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Multiverse Vs Universe
« Reply #5 on: 09/02/2015 22:00:14 »
I guess you might call a 'multi verse' a try for determinism. It's slightly hidden but it presumes all actions to 'exist somewhere'. Where it loses me is in its implication for each event, becoming 'all of them', event by event splitting into multitudes, each new (probable) event generating new multitudes in its turn. It becomes a really complicated universe thinking of it that way. Then again, I adhere to the idea of there being 'something' from where events spring. But I don't expect us to be able to measure on it. So calling it 'deterministic' becomes difficult, as long as we want to measure. It's more of a philosophical view.
=

Why I don't like it is its bifurcations, each 'possibility' you measure on quantum mechanically becoming (demanding) a universe in its own right. From there you will find that all of those probabilities in their turn must generate new bifurcations, ad infinitum. Better to stop at Planck scale, assuming that around there is where we get that outcome from, sort of :) . Doing so you will find your 'deterministic universe' there, but not measurably so. There is no arrow there, and there is no way you can be measuring 'inside' it. Whenever you measure you use your local clock and ruler, making all tries to measure a lie. It's the exact same as pointing out that everything we know (measuring) comes from us existing in a 'inside' of this universe.  Time is like a fountain, opening from a strata where the arrow disappear.
« Last Edit: 10/02/2015 13:00:59 by yor_on »
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: Multiverse Vs Universe
« Reply #6 on: 09/02/2015 22:34:36 »
Events occurring within our macro-reality are definitely deterministic. This is why we ground our perceptions of reality upon the results we gather from experimental resource. If not, then we'd be at a complete loss at defining our reality from those experimental results. However, at the quantum level, determinism fails to explain observations and probability takes over. I personally believe that as we gather more information about these events, we will find ourselves being drawn closer to understanding causes we as yet do not. As more information is collected, we may find our conclusions drawing back toward a deterministic view. Before we declare probability to have won this battle, every detail must be examined and understood. Until we gain this ultimate wisdom, IMHO, the verdict is still out.
 

Offline mriver8

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Re: Multiverse Vs Universe
« Reply #7 on: 10/02/2015 01:21:28 »
You know I don't think it's hogwash and don't think the human brain is capable of grasping the existence of infinity. Because that's sort of what the theory of the multiverse is which is an attempt to explain that everything exists even if we can't see it. Like alternate worlds with different scientic laws governing them for example. Saying things occur with 100 percent probability doesn't disprove or prove that there is only one limited universe at all. If you think it does please explain because in my mind it doesn't. Here's something else mind bending to grasp if their were infinite variations of scientific laws in infinite realities how could someone in this reality grasp the laws that govern the next. Stephen Hawking mentioned different laws in different worlds once but just think about the fact that a person from this reality wouldn't be able to grasp them. And that's just looking at it very simply. I personally think there's a reason why we can conceive infinite worlds and I think it's because they exist. In fact the in all likelihood a human would not even be able to grasp it although the multiverse seems to make sense to me. I wonder why this topic of our limited ability to interpret things isn't touched upon more.
 

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6890
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Re: Multiverse Vs Universe
« Reply #8 on: 10/02/2015 09:30:21 »
You know I don't think it's hogwash and don't think the human brain is capable of grasping the existence of infinity. Because that's sort of what the theory of the multiverse is which is an attempt to explain that everything exists even if we can't see it. Like alternate worlds with different scientic laws governing them for example. Saying things occur with 100 percent probability doesn't disprove or prove that there is only one limited universe at all. If you think it does please explain because in my mind it doesn't. Here's something else mind bending to grasp if their were infinite variations of scientific laws in infinite realities how could someone in this reality grasp the laws that govern the next. Stephen Hawking mentioned different laws in different worlds once but just think about the fact that a person from this reality wouldn't be able to grasp them. And that's just looking at it very simply. I personally think there's a reason why we can conceive infinite worlds and I think it's because they exist. In fact the in all likelihood a human would not even be able to grasp it although the multiverse seems to make sense to me. I wonder why this topic of our limited ability to interpret things isn't touched upon more.

You are certainly right in saying that we have great trouble coming to terms with the notion of infinity, which your multiverse admirably demonstrates. The problem being that a multiverse introduces confinements where one universe ends and another begins. The universe is infinite, however many dimensions there may be within it, they are all infinite, therefore there can be no other universe.
 

Offline FZM7

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: Multiverse Vs Universe
« Reply #9 on: 10/02/2015 12:47:24 »
Quote from: FZM7
I was thinking that so far we have not been able to confirm anything as random. We have been able to put an equation behind nearly everything we have discovered, quantum physics is an exception at the moment but soon we will uncover it too.
That's not true at all. There's nothing to even hint at that. Quantum mechanics is inherently probabilistic. Many physicists have tried to prove otherwise. However experiments show that its probabilistic in nature.
I would be so grateful if you could refer an article or two to this point
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Multiverse Vs Universe
« Reply #10 on: 10/02/2015 15:41:11 »
I think the only thing that's deterministic inside our universe, in the sense that it always behave in a predictable manner, are constants. As soon as those constants 'interact' with matter, energy, motion etc you pass into non linear circumstances though. Those may, or may not, be predictable.
 

Offline Bill S

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1802
  • Thanked: 11 times
    • View Profile
Re: Multiverse Vs Universe
« Reply #11 on: 10/02/2015 23:16:17 »
Here’s a thought: Can we distinguish between a multiverse and the “bouncing universe?  On the face of it the idea of an evolving sequence seems very different from the concept of a multitude of co-existing universes.  Is it, though?  If we stick with the majority view; namely, that our Universe had a beginning, and that time was created along with the Universe, then, presumably, in a multiverse, we have to accept that time is created along with every other universe.  Each universe, therefore, exists with its own time as an integral part of its structure, but, outside the universes there is no time. 

It follows, therefore, that if time does not exist outside the universes, it makes no sense to differentiate between a succession of universes, on the one hand, and a collection of co-existing universes, on the other.  If no time exists between, or anywhere outside them, there is no perceivable difference. 

If there is no space outside a single universe, it makes no sense to talk about where it exists.  Similarly, if no time exists outside a single universe, it is nonsense to talk about when it exists.  It seems reasonable to argue that what holds good for one universe must hold good for every universe in a multiverse.  If we cannot say when each universe exists, we cannot distinguish between a sequence and a contemporaneous collection, because there is no discernable difference.

 There has to be a "but" at this point.  The eternal inflation theory avoids this problem by having innumerable universes constantly "bubbling" into existence, like a cosmic pan of boiling water.  However, this does imply that time is not confined to each universe.  Time must exist between the universes, and so presumably, must space.  Either time was not created with this Universe or with any universe in a multiverse, or we run into some dubious areas in a multiple universe situation.

I’m not even going to mention eternity. :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: Multiverse Vs Universe
« Reply #12 on: 11/02/2015 01:02:00 »
You can possibly define it to rules, defining a universe Bill. You need a mathematical set of points, then you need what connects them. If you are able to define how they connect you also should be able to see a topology describing it. All of it follows from accepting us being 'inside', experiencing this arrow to measure in. That means that the topology you define is a result of the communication(s). There's where constants come in, they guarantee us all to locally finding the same set of rules. As seen from a inside this universe exist, and is ruled by 'universal laws'. But the way you get to that ideal description is through local measurements. So what is true from a inside should have little relevance to some imaginary outsides description. It's even possible that to this 'outside' we don't exist :) What connects us is local constants and rules. And there I would call 'c' the one that creates the geometry, the 'time' (local arrow), as well as its original definition of a constant (local) ruler and clock measuring a 'speed' of light in a vacuum.

So I would say that 'time' ('c') is what creates us. Without it? If you then want to add to it by defining more possible universes, 'materializing' in each event you can see it two ways possibly. One I would call a continuing of a Newtonian world view, that's what I call a container model. In this case it assumes that all possible bifurcations (possibilities) added up for one event becomes just such a perfect container, and there I think you will need to use dimensions very cleverly to describe that 'container'. What one need to notice with that idea though is that it presumes a finiteness, so many probabilities to an event, but no more. The other is similar to Mach ideas of a universe in where everything connects to everything, in such an idea-world I don't think you can define a event as something singular containing probabilities. Instead the event becomes a representation of a existing pattern, which makes each new universe created unique, resulting in new unique patterns for each 'probable outcome'. There you won't find anything 'finite', and that's the one I'm thinking of. It becomes too complicated for my taste, and my first description doesn't fit the way I look at it.
=

I don't mean that the last one makes it wrong to assign probabilities to a 'isolated event', I just say that what this event generates is not one alternative singular description from our reality and outcome. Instead it will generate a whole universe built on that alternative outcome, becoming a new unique pattern, which in its turn then should generate new unique 'events', in their turn creating new unique universes, those patterns adding new events creating new... ad infinitum. And that one do hurt my head.

If it is a symmetry break, then the break should be the arrow. That makes any definition of what exists outside meaningless, because we're already there. The arrow becomes the 'illusion' making us see it otherwise, and define it by measuring. On the other hand, there is no better way to define this universe (than measuring on it), never liked gurus :) myself. A honest universe is one where we do as good as we can, use what logic we can find, and correct it if we find ourselves wrong. And that's science to me.

Well, there's one more thing defining a geometry. Gravity. Possibly you can split that in two though, where 'c' defines a geometry whereas 'c' and gravity defines the topology, as locally measured.
« Last Edit: 11/02/2015 02:00:35 by yor_on »
 

Offline mriver8

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Re: Multiverse Vs Universe
« Reply #13 on: 11/02/2015 17:56:22 »
You know I don't think it's hogwash and don't think the human brain is capable of grasping the existence of infinity. Because that's sort of what the theory of the multiverse is which is an attempt to explain that everything exists even if we can't see it. Like alternate worlds with different scientic laws governing them for example. Saying things occur with 100 percent probability doesn't disprove or prove that there is only one limited universe at all. If you think it does please explain because in my mind it doesn't. Here's something else mind bending to grasp if their were infinite variations of scientific laws in infinite realities how could someone in this reality grasp the laws that govern the next. Stephen Hawking mentioned different laws in different worlds once but just think about the fact that a person from this reality wouldn't be able to grasp them. And that's just looking at it very simply. I personally think there's a reason why we can conceive infinite worlds and I think it's because they exist. In fact the in all likelihood a human would not even be able to grasp it although the multiverse seems to make sense to me. I wonder why this topic of our limited ability to interpret things isn't touched upon more.

You are certainly right in saying that we have great trouble coming to terms with the notion of infinity, which your multiverse admirably demonstrates. The problem being that a multiverse introduces confinements where one universe ends and another begins. The universe is infinite, however many dimensions there may be within it, they are all infinite, therefore there can be no other universe.

I don't know bro infinite is limitless so the idea of infinite universes that are infinite themselves doesn't seem to cause conflict because there is no need to state the number of universes is finite. In other words infinite things may be finite, and infinite things may not be. This is the way I imagine it and I'm sure people who beleive in it's theoretical plausibility.
 

Offline FZM7

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Adding another idea to the discussion:

Theoretically speaking If I have the complete data of every entity in this universe corresponding to a particular moment then I have the complete history and future as well too since everything is following a specific pattern.

Taking it back to the Big Bang then it implies that the exact specification of that event determined the fate of all the universe to come?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
True but impossible.
You won't get all those data, except imaginary.
 

Offline FZM7

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Not necessary

For all we know the very initial conditions in Big Bang could be just a couple of simple values
 

Offline PmbPhy

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2760
  • Thanked: 38 times
    • View Profile
I was thinking that so far we have not been able to confirm anything as random. We have been able to put an equation behind nearly everything we have discovered, quantum physics is an exception at the moment but soon we will uncover it too.

If it is true that there is nothing random in the universe then all events that occur do so at 100% probability because when you factor in all the variables the outcome can be predicted surely. So we no longer need a multiverse to explain all the possible outcomes because technically there is only one outcome.

What do you think?
What do I think? I think you're quite wrong. There have been experiments that were done which demonstrated that nature is random on sub atomic levels. So your claim that this is wrong is quite invalid. And there is no basis for your claim that QM will be proven wrong. That's merely wishful speculation. We simply cannot tell which theories will eventually need to be modified but certainty not for the reasons you gave here. And there has never been a need for a multiverse to explain what you claim. That's merely your ignorance of physics. That is merely one physicists speculation.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 11978
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Yes the initial parameters for a big bang may be simple, although we don't know that. Even so, if you look at nature and universe today 13.? billions year later it's highly complicated, and non linear. That means that even if you had all those data, how I can't imagine myself, you would have a he** of a time trying to backtrack it. It would not be an easy task, possibly mathematically impossible as the the mathematics diffuse following it into history. It's non linear both ways.
=

expressed another way, it's about events both ways, doesn't matter if they go forward or backward in time (so called time symmetries). The probabilities are there just the same, so I think it should 'bifurcate' into 'possibilities of past histories' rather fast. It's a marvelous universe, isn't it :)
=

ouch 7 (over population) instead of 13 (age of a universe). Ah well, senility my middle name :)


« Last Edit: 13/02/2015 20:21:35 by yor_on »
 

Offline FZM7

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Now that you put it this way yeah :P
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums