How does your believes/views relate to Multiverse theory?

[Yadon]

It doesn't to me because it's not a scientific theory (just a hypothesis) and because it has no evidence nor do we have any way to observe or test such a prediction as of yet.

Actually since we can't test it, it's conjecture at best. Not even a hypothesis.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It doesn't to me because it's not a scientific theory (just a hypothesis)

And how do you precisely distinguish the two?

and because it has no evidence nor do we have any way to observe or test such a prediction as of yet.

Hall, L. J., & Nomura, Y. (2008). Evidence for the Multiverse in the Standard Model and Beyond. Physical Review D, 78(3).

Kleban, M., Levi, T. S., & Sigurdson, K. (2013). Observing the multiverse with cosmic wakes. Physical Review D, 87(4).


Actually since we can't test it, it's conjecture at best. Not even a hypothesis.[/quote]
A hypothesis is a conjecture. In fact, that's at the very root of the idea (although today, the differences between models, theories, hypotheses, etc., is murky at best). Although it isn't true to say we can't test multiverse theories, even were it true the only way this would prevent us from calling such models "hypotheses" would be if the entire theoretical framework behind cosmology and theoretical physics precluded the possibility of ever being able to develop tests.

In QM, for example, theory puts before our knowledge of quantum systems an insurmountable barrier. It is not simply that we lack the technology, nor that we are unsure of how to design an experiment that would allows to know precisely the relationship between what we represent (mathematically) as being the state of some quantum system and what that state "actually is". It's that QM itself tells us we can never know this with the arbitrary degree of precision postulated in classical physics.

 

[Yadon]

And how do you precisely distinguish the two?



Hall, L. J., & Nomura, Y. (2008). Evidence for the Multiverse in the Standard Model and Beyond. Physical Review D, 78(3).

Kleban, M., Levi, T. S., & Sigurdson, K. (2013). Observing the multiverse with cosmic wakes. Physical Review D, 87(4).

A hypothesis is a conjecture. In fact, that's at the very root of the idea (although today, the differences between models, theories, hypotheses, etc., is murky at best). Although it isn't true to say we can't test multiverse theories, even were it true the only way this would prevent us from calling such models "hypotheses" would be if the entire theoretical framework behind cosmology and theoretical physics precluded the possibility of ever being able to develop tests.

In QM, for example, theory puts before our knowledge of quantum systems an insurmountable barrier. It is not simply that we lack the technology, nor that we are unsure of how to design an experiment that would allows to know precisely the relationship between what we represent (mathematically) as being the state of some quantum system and what that state "actually is". It's that QM itself tells us we can never know this with the arbitrary degree of precision postulated in classical physics.

I use the scientific definitions. A theory is a well-supported (via experiments or observation) explanation of why things work. A hypothesis is an explanation that hasn't been tested yet nor have observations been made that fit the model. To make it a theory tests would have to be done or observations made that fit the predictions that the hypothesis would make. A theory is in other words a well supported hypothesis.

Conjecture is more of a guess or pondering. I suppose one could define a hypothesis as conjecture that can be falsified, which I don't see too much trouble with.

As for the sources you gave while people have claimed to have found evidence, nothing has been conclusive. It's mostly just people thinking they found it, nothing has actually been hard or clear evidence for the idea. It just lacks any testability or observability.

To quote a cosmologist:

For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith.

— Paul Davies, A Brief History of the Multiverse​

 

[crazedrat]

I did?

And all along I was simply of the position that extraordinary claims deserve extraordinarily testable evidences as validation.

If you care to engage valid debate...we remain at your service and disposal.

Some potentials are simply beyond your willingness to consider.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I use the scientific definitions. A theory is a well-supported (via experiments or observation) explanation of why things work.

If you want a definition, then you have to explain the various categories of theories we have:

1) Theories from classical physics we know are wrong
2) Theories like number theory which is a branch of mathematics
3) Theories like "the theory of unintended consequences" which is as scientific as Murphy's law
4) Theories like evolution which somehow sprout entire scientific fields which rely on a theory to test a hypothesis which becomes...evolution 2.0?

most of the reference materials, handbooks, and other research literature only address "theory" or "models" in the title (or define various theoretical approaches within, but do not define hypothesis, theory, laws, etc.) :

Bayesian Item Response Modeling: Theory and Applications
Data Clustering: Theory, Algorithms, and Applications
Fundamentals of Item Response Theory
Generalized Latent Variable Modeling: Multilevel, Longitudinal, and Structural Equation Models
Learning from Data: Concepts, Theory and Methods
Modern Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications
Multidimensional Item Response Theory
Network Information Theory
Pattern Theory: The Stochastic Analysis of Real-World Signals
Sampling Theory and Methods
Spatial Data Analysis: Theory and Methods
Ab Initio Molecular Dynamics: Basic Theory and Advanced Methods
General Systems Theory
Nonlinearity, Bifurcation, and Chaos- Theory and Applications
Geometric Theory of Discrete Nonautonomous Dynamical Systems
Information Theory and Evolution
Computability Theory: An Introduction to Recursion Theory
Fractal Image Compression: Theory and Applications
Modern Cryptography Theory and Practice
Automata Theory with Modern Applications
Handbook of Political Theory
Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory, and Practice
Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory
Optimality Theory
The Bounds of Reason: Game Theory and the Unification of the Behavioral Sciences
150 Years of Quantum Many-Body Theory
A First Course in String Theory
Advances in the Theory of Atomic and Molecular Systems: Dynamics, Spectroscopy, Clusters, and Nanostructures (Progress in Theoretical Chemistry and Physics)
Challenges to the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Theory and Experiment
Ontological Aspects of Quantum Field Theory
Quantum Computation and Information: From Theory to Experiments
Theory of Epistemic Justification
Making Things Happen: A Theory of Causal Explanation
Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge

and I'm seriously bored finding which of my books have the word "theory" in their title

To the contrary, every field has standard textbooks...which explain all of these terms as they are used in a particular field.

...
I've got them spread out all over my floor, but most on shelves. Yet very few have any such definitions.

Modeling Complexity in Economic and Social Systems
Nope

Methods in Social Neuroscience
Nope

Survey Methodology
Nope

Classification as a Tool for Research
Nope.

Clinical Trials in the Neurosciences
nope

Combinatorics of Experiments
nope

Computational Intelligence in Archaeology
nope
Measurements in the Social Sciences
nope
Methods in Cognitive Linguistics
nope

A hypothesis is an explanation

I've actually never used a dictionary specific to science. But out of curiosity I went to the Credo Reference database and the Sage database and looked at various definitions in dictionaries of science for the word hypothesis. The first interesting thing was that some dictionaries didn't have an entry for hypothesis, such as the following:

The Dictionary of Microbiology and Molecular Biology
Dictionary of Developmental Biology and Embryology
A Dictionary of Sociolinguistics
Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics
Dictionary of Optometry and Visual Science (this one actually did have an entry: "See significance")
Dictionary of Computing
Hargrave's Communications Dictionary

that hasn't been tested yet nor have observations been made that fit the model

A model can be predictive.

A theory is in other words a well supported hypothesis.

So what's the theory of hypothesis testing?

As for the sources you gave while people have claimed to have found evidence, nothing has been conclusive

And your familiarity with the specialist literature in cosmology and theoretical physics is sufficient to determine that, as you said, "no evidence nor do we have any way to observe or test such a prediction as of yet"?

It just lacks any testability or observability.

I cited two peer-reviewed studies for you. What about them leads you to believe that they are incorrect?

 

[Yadon]

I don't know why those books wouldn't define hypothesis and theory in the way that I did. I was stating what I have heard scientists say themselves and what I was taught. Perhaps the informal nature of modern language has corrupted the meanings.

As for the studies, I don't know where to get them it's possible I might not even find them with search engines but I just assumed that they made the same claims of "bruises" in the cosmic background radiation or other such claims as some people make as evidnece for the multiverse for years now. If they provided anything new and conclusive to the scientific community I am sure I would of already heard about it because such news would spread extremely rapidly such as it did for example with the Higgs Boson. So I am willing to bet it is a safe assumption.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I don't know why those books wouldn't define hypothesis and theory in the way that I did.

Because the way you defined it is inconsistent with usage within the sciences. It's about a century outdated.

I was stating what I have heard scientists say themselves and what I was taught.

I've no doubt that you were taught this. It's a serious problem even at the undergrad level for those who intend to go onto research, as university textbooks continue to describe a 19th century scientific method. It is not how we actually go about designing experiments, forming experimental paradigms, interpreting results (or what they are confirmation of), producing research questions, or really meaningful at all. The best way to understand "theory" is as a framework which we are able to fine-tune through additional experiments, generate hypotheses to extend the breadth of the research area covered by that theory (framework), and lend credence to conflicting theories (or replace them with others) with some theoretical framework.

Perhaps the informal nature of modern language has corrupted the meanings.

If only. It's an issue of education. The Scientific Method that is taught even at the college level still runs as follows (or something akin to this):

1) Formulate a research question (hypothesis).
2) Test it (try to show it is wrong)
3) If it withstands rigorous testing, it's a theory.

That's 19th century positivism. Research questions are not independent of the theoretical framework which spawned them, interpretations of experimental results are laden with biases from the framework itself, there is no clear methodology for determining whether the results are correct or the methods/technology are inadequate, and every single study takes place within a methodological, theoretical, interpretative, and guiding (i.e., restrictive or potentially biasing) framework.

If they provided anything new and conclusive to the scientific community I am sure I would of already heard about it because such news would spread extremely rapidly such as it did for example with the Higgs Boson.

There were tens of thousands of studies, reviews, discussions, and other specialist literature on the higgs going back to the 70s (earlier, actually, but for our purposes it's a good starting point). There were around 20,000 in the first decade of the 21st century. Why would thousands and thousands of scientific publications concern themselves with something the public was largely unaware of?
Because that's not how popular science reporting works. The vast majority of research areas are never reported on. And of course I've yet to read a popular report on some study or research that didn't go beyond simplification into the realm of misleading or outright distortion. Reporters on science research ignore almost all of science research. They focus on a few hot topics and they twist these in ways that seldom resembles the field, let alone the actual study.

So I am willing to bet it is a safe assumption.

Let's put this to the test. Can you tell me why multiverse theories provide a possible solution to the nearly 100 year old problem of the measurement problem in quantum physics? What are your responses to the fact that the standard model necessarily entails a multiverse? Which problems with the standard model are untestable and why are multiverse theories believed by some to provide better explanations for empirical and theoretical components of the standard model than the standard model itself?

Over 2,000 technical studies on multiverse theories were published by and for specialists in the last year alone.

 

[Yadon]

All I can say is I am not aware of any hard evidence and that the majority of sources I read say that there isn't too much evidence for a multiverse yet.

I'm not an astrophysicist or cosmologist just a guy who really likes astronomy and physics so I don't feel qualified to entirely dissect both models. I just meant that I would of heard about it within what I read from scientific sources, not within the mainstream media.

I suppose a multiverse might explain dark mater and energy, but I've yet to see the link shown, just suspected.

 

[oldbadger]

Under these assumptions we may need to rethink what Pantheism is, though...if it proposes that universe is divine. Then, what is multiverse? Is it divine too? If so, why? Is it not divine? If so, why? XD

So many overhauls needed to be done.

Yes.... regular overhauls of our beliefs, ideas etc need to be regularly undertaken.

I am a kind o Deist.... I believe that everything, however big, has a reason for existing. I think that that reason, as well as the substance of all, is God. If that makes me something other than a Deist..... so be it.

 

[oldbadger]

Actually it isn't. I don't mean it isn't a theory in that some physicists view it as more akin to religion than science, I mean it literally isn't a theory. The multiverse theory I'm most familiar with is ..............................

 

[oldbadger]

An infinite number of universes?

In this universe I just finished cleaning my pistol (target shooting with grandkids)
So an infinite number of times I cleaned it and put it in the safe
An infinite number of times I left it setting on table dirty
An infinite number of times I checked the forums
An infinite number of times I shot myself

And that's just me.

How much is infinity times infinity times infinity...?

There you go......... it's always a good time to meditate.

You can think about the hugeness of the infinite, or just wonder about the structure of a single atom. Wow.......

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

All I can say is I am not aware of any hard evidence and that the majority of sources I read say that there isn't too much evidence for a multiverse yet.

How much hard evidence have you read for string theory? Or for any particular understanding of what a quantum system is? Or, to go about this another way, you mentioned Davies:
"The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith."

I am pretty familiar with Davies, although I haven't read his popular work. However, the following is from a technical, peer-reviewed paper he wrote that was published in a reputable journal:
"Although direct confirmation of other universes, or regions of our universe, may be infeasible or even impossible in principle, nevertheless the multiverse theory does make some observable predictions and can be tested"
Davies, P. C. W. (2004). Multiverse cosmological models. Modern Physics Letters A, 19(10), 727-743.

Davies is among the most ardent critics of multiverse models, yet even he refers to these models as "theory" and acknowledges they can be tested.

I'm not an astrophysicist or cosmologist just a guy who really likes astronomy and physics so I don't feel qualified to entirely dissect both models.

I don't think anyone is, to be honest. Feynman's quip may have been more for effect than truth, but there is definitely truth to it.

I just meant that I would of heard about it within what I read from scientific sources, not within the mainstream media.

Scientific American, Popular Science, Discovery, etc., are usually pretty good at not totally distorting or misleading actual scientific research. However, they do not even come close to covering a minority of research fields. The scientific sources are thousands of papers published in technical journals, monograph series, conference proceedings, volumes with contributions by specialists and reviewed by an editorial team, and various books put out by specialty presses like Springer, Wiley, MIT press, World Scientific, Sage, Elsevier, etc.

Few if any of the journals considered to be scientific sources (rather than popular science media) are available at your local bookstore or library. The volumes and monographs aren't there either, and because they are intended to be purchased by research labs/university departments they are very expensive. Online databases exist which are filled with peer-reviewed journals, reference material, and other specialist literature. However, they require expensive subscriptions and are again designed for purchase by university departments.

It's an unfortunate fact that what most people consider to be their knowledge of the scientific sources actually constitutes a fraction of bad reporting on real research. The fault is mostly with the media, but were our education systems improved magazines like Scientific American could spend more time on accurate details and less on misleading hype.

I suppose a multiverse might explain dark mater and energy, but I've yet to see the link shown, just suspected.

Bousso and Susskind recently published a study in Physical Review D which used the work began mostly by Everett but continued and refined by DeWitt and Deutsch on the MWI of quantum mechanics to explain the subatomic realm in terms of the multiverse theory. At present, there is no generally accepted understanding of what quantum systems "are" or how the incredibly successful mechanics we use actually corresponds to reality. The equivalence of the MWI model of QM with a multiverse model is evidence.

 

[s2a]

Some potentials are simply beyond your willingness to consider.

That's me. Closed mind. Unwilling to consider other possibilities.

Btw. Welcome to the forums...

..I've been here since 2005...

...you were saying?

 

[adi2d]

I just finished watching "the one" with Jet Li. All the evidence anyone needs to know that there are 125 universes. Now I want to join the multiverse task force

 

[Sees]

I just finished watching "the one" with Jet Li. All the evidence anyone needs to know that there are 125 universes. Now I want to join the multiverse task force

Multiverse makes me think of that and Sliders.

 

[Leftimies]

There you go......... it's always a good time to meditate.

You can think about the hugeness of the infinite, or just wonder about the structure of a single atom. Wow.......

Well, often people mistakenly think about the Huge Scale of infinite. If world is infinite, everything is present in the smallest particle. Because there is no Bounds existent to give birth to any scale.

The totality of everything would then be found from the tip of wooden stick.