[Ahalim Hamada (OP)]

If we do live in a multiverse, does this mean the other infinite universes are in the same time period as us and is time the same speed for the other universes?It could not be true because time isnt constant
And is there a way for us to access and be in the other universes?

[IAMREALITY]

Time could not possibly be the same, since it would be bound to the universe it's in, it would not be multiversally multiversal.  And though if it's one thing our Universe has taught me it's that nothing is impossible, I would render it to be highly unlikely, bordering on impossibility as much as something could, that we could ever have access to an external universe. 

[Ahalim Hamada (OP)]

but why would be impossible because we may not work it out now but mankind will eventually find a way dont you think

[IAMREALITY]

No, I don't believe humanity ever will, and most physicists I believe agree. Because we are bound to our spacetime, and cannot possibly escape it, as we are products of it, and anything we do or measure is within it.  To escape our spacetime boundary would be to escape time itself.  You would literally cease to exist. 

[Ahalim Hamada (OP)]

i get what you mean good point  []
it sucks that we cant get out of our own universe

[IAMREALITY]

i get what you mean good point  []
it sucks that we cant get out of our own universe

Hahaha do you really hate it here that much?? lol

Just teasin  []

[Ahalim Hamada (OP)]

HAHAHAHA NAH MAN IM GRATEFUL:)
its the curiosity and the adventure that haunts me

[kasparovitch]

As the multiverse is infinite, many universes will be at the same time period. Some are now at the WWII and in some they are in Ancient Greece or Stone Age. In others, too, Hitler dies during WWI when his tent was hit by a bomb. In our universe he had insomnia that night and left the tent for a while and escaped the bomb...

Sure most of the universes are completely different from ours, including our evolution and history. Most don't even have any kind of life.

If you flip a coin 1 million times, it's almost impossible to get 100 faces in a row.

But, if [you flip] the coin [...] forever, then you'll get 100 faces [in a row] many times. And also 99, 101, 80, 200, whatever you imagine as far as it is not physically impossible.

Outside each universe, there is nothingness. So, outside it there is no time, no dimension, no matter. Everything that exists is within each universe only. I don't think it's physically possible to leave a universe. But that's not logically impossible, I think, and so if there's life after death, perhaps we can visit as many universes as we wish...

[]=edited

[evan_au]

does this mean the other infinite universes are in the same time period as us?

There are many speculations about a multiverse. The main thing they have in common is that there is very little evidence for any of them.

This thread seems to assume that other universes would be something like this one.

String Theory speculates on another possible dimension (or 6) to a multiverse: there is currently no obvious reason why the parameters for basic constants are the way they are. These basic parameters may be different between different multiverses. So you could end up with universes where:

• Hydrogen fusion yields so little energy that stars are just huge balls of hydrogen that glow for a while from their gravitational heat of their formation, or collapse into black holes (if they are large enough)
  
• Nuclear fusion yields so much energy that any colliding atoms rapidly combine to form stable atoms beyond Uranium
  
• Protons are unstable
  
• There are none of the familiar protons, neutrons, electrons or light
  
• Gravity is as strong as the electric field (or the electric field is as weak as gravity)
  

In all these cases, we would not have familiar stars and planets, let alone Hitler in a tent.

[kasparovitch]

Even if there is no evidence at all for a multiverse, and I don't argue there is one, even if that's only an operation of the soul, as Hume would put, it is at least logically possible and the question is placed within that logic.

So, both my answer and evan's are correct within that logic.

Thus, you'll end up with universes without familiar stars and planets and universes with familiar ones, a few of wich, within infinity, are just like ours, and some of which might contain copies of yourself either right now reading this thread, or having done that centuries or billions of years before or whenever you like in the future.

[IAMREALITY]

Wanted to make two quick points.

The first, is that time is embedded within spacetime, and that will always be unique to its host universe, making 'similar time' within other universes as an impossibility.  It doesn't matter how many multiverses there are, their time will each be unique to themselves.

Secondly, though it is pretty much impossible to find actual evidence for the multiverse concept, our most current physics and mathematical equations yield a very strong likelihood for its existence, to where many leading physicists believe that it's an almost unavoidable result from the calculations.  So there is not much evidence of course, but there is some very strong math and theory supporting the concept as one that has a lot of possibility, if not probability.  Unfortunately, that's as far as it'll probably ever go, as far as knowing one way or another.

[timey]

When the Higgs came in at LHC at 125GvE, this pretty much ruled out the possibility of Multiverse.  Don't ask me why, (chuckle) ...the actual reason is beyond my comprehension, but the Multiverse would require the Higgs to be around 140GvE.  It also pretty much ruled out the possibility of the Supersymmetry theory, or at least any recognisable rendition of such.  The Supersymmetry theory required the Higgs to be around 115GvE.

The fact that the Higgs came in at 125GvE is reported to be indicative of  an unstable universe, which is synonymous with the concept of a cyclic universe...

[IAMREALITY]

When the Higgs came in at LHC at 125GvE, this pretty much ruled out the possibility of Multiverse.  Don't ask me why, (chuckle) ...the actual reason is beyond my comprehension, but the Multiverse would require the Higgs to be around 140GvE.  It also pretty much ruled out the possibility of the Supersymmetry theory, or at least any recognisable rendition of such.  The Supersymmetry theory required the Higgs to be around 115GvE.

The fact that the Higgs came in at 125GvE is reported to be indicative of  an unstable universe, which is synonymous with the concept of a cyclic universe...

With all due respect, that's just inaccurate.  If anything, it strengthened the possibility of a multiverse.  It didn't need to be 140,it needed to be under 140,and it actually came in within perfectly reasonable estimates of what it would need to if there was indeed a multiverse. . But that 140 value was just one thrown out by a singular physicist anyway, and most do not take that number as relevant to anything. 

[timey]

Just repeating what was stated in the official CERN movie...  Seemed to me like the result was a blow to the maths of both hopeful theory's mentioned, and the theorists were quite obvious in their subsequent scratching of heads...with much talk of back to the drawing board.

But you know, perhaps you are correct and I just watched it wrongly...

[IAMREALITY]

Just repeating what was stated in the official CERN movie...  Seemed to me like the result was a blow to the maths of both hopeful theory's mentioned, and the theorists were quite obvious in their subsequent scratching of heads...with much talk of back to the drawing board.

But you know, perhaps you are correct and I just watched it wrongly...

Rest assured, the concept of a multiverse is alive and well, strong as ever  []

[timey]

And always will be in some respect, if only for the reason that irrefutably proving or disproving any type of Multiverse concept is an impossibility...

A situation that doesn't exactly lend itself to the 'scientific method' as a means to explaining any phenomenon in our universe!

[IAMREALITY]

And always will be in some respect, if only for the reason that irrefutably proving or disproving any type of Multiverse concept is an impossibility...

A situation that doesn't exactly lend itself to the 'scientific method' as a means to explaining any phenomenon in our universe!

Unfortunately that's in its very nature, as is the case with anything external of our own space and time.  But there is still very strong evidence in the numbers to infer its existence, and it is for that reason that the concept may always be alive.  It's not like it's just some wild suggestion thrown out there by fringe nuts, that can never be proven but which no one takes seriously.  Instead it is because there are so many things that point to it being real, so many ways in which it's inferred as existing, so many reasons it becomes the conclusion.  It is why so many leading physicists believe in it as a strong possibility, and until there are new discoveries or theories that become better explanations for those things, it likely will remain as strong a possibility as it is now. 

I agree however that as far as most things are concerned, it has very limited usefulness in explaining phenomenon within our universe.  If anything, its primary use would be in understanding where our big bang came from, as well as the concept of whether physics are absolute, or physics are merely the product of chance; our universe being the lucky one that got everything right etc.  But yeah, there's only so much that can be drawn from it, which is why most don't waste much time on it.  But it's still most definitely a fascinating concept to think about... that we may be one of an unlimited number of universe bubbles out there...  As if we didn't feel small enough within the scale of our own universe already!

[Alan McDougall]

In my opinion there is a strong case for the existence of the multiverse, simply because I cannot conceive of our universe being everything that exists.

Of course my opinion changes nothing about the truth of the matter!

Alan