Problems & confusion with the Multiverse

[gnostic]

One of the problems that I have with the Multiverse is that it is so theoretical, it is impossible to test them.

Is Multiverse “possible”?

The answer would be “yes”, but only theoretically. There have been no evidence, so it hasn’t been demonstrated to be “probable”.

Being “possible” doesn’t mean it would be “probable”.

Science only accept what is “probable”, because there are evidence available to show concept agree with natural reality.

And yet, Multiverse is very popular, especially among sci-fi novelists, comic book authors and sci-fi filmmakers or tv series producers.

AND THERE LIES MY REAL PROBLEM with the Multiverse.

The problem is where people can confuse the actual Multiverse models with sci-fi stories.

And among the confusions Sci-Fi authors and film or tv makers cause, is that they mixed Multiverse with fictional alternate reality or parallel universe.

The Multiverse plus alternate reality, will have people believing that it is possible to reach the other universe through some sorts of portals like mirrors or the even more popular, wormholes.

Like Multiverse, wormhole is still only hypothetical and theoretical concepts; there are still no evidence for the existence of wormhole. But in comics and sci-fi, wormholes do exist, but these are fictions, not reality.

By mixing parallel universe with Multiverse, comic book and sci-fi creators will have people believing in the entertaining but unrealistic stories that there are infinite numbers of the “other” you in the other -verses. This is pure fiction.

The problem with these fictions, fascinating as they are, it would make naive people believing in the fiction, and not understanding what the Multiverse models actually say.

 

[Jimmy]

My gut tell’s me this is the only universe and beyond that is just empty space.

 

[gnostic]

My gut tell’s me this is the only universe and beyond that is just empty space.

Perhaps...perhaps not.

We currently don’t have the technology to observe beyond the Observable Universe and so far mostly right up to the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

So really, we KNOW of this universe.

The Universe may be even larger than the Observable Universe, and we may not see other galaxies beyond the Observable Universe, because the light have not yet reach our most powerful telescopes.

Despite the remarkable discoveries the Hubble, WMAP, Planck & JWST, there are still limitations as to what can be viewed.

 

[Jimmy]

Perhaps...perhaps not.

We currently don’t have the technology to observe beyond the Observable Universe and so far mostly right up to the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation.

So really, we KNOW of this universe.

The Universe may be even larger than the Observable Universe, and we may not see other galaxies beyond the Observable Universe, because the light have not yet reach our most powerful telescopes.

Despite the remarkable discoveries the Hubble, WMAP, Planck & JWST, there are still limitations as to what can be viewed.

I think the mind is more powerful than a machine.

 

[gnostic]

I think the mind is more powerful than a machine.

The mind also have limitations.

 

[sayak83]

One of the problems that I have with the Multiverse is that it is so theoretical, it is impossible to test them.

Is Multiverse “possible”?

The answer would be “yes”, but only theoretically. There have been no evidence, so it hasn’t been demonstrated to be “probable”.

Being “possible” doesn’t mean it would be “probable”.

Science only accept what is “probable”, because there are evidence available to show concept agree with natural reality.

And yet, Multiverse is very popular, especially among sci-fi novelists, comic book authors and sci-fi filmmakers or tv series producers.

AND THERE LIES MY REAL PROBLEM with the Multiverse.

The problem is where people can confuse the actual Multiverse models with sci-fi stories.

And among the confusions Sci-Fi authors and film or tv makers cause, is that they mixed Multiverse with fictional alternate reality or parallel universe.

The Multiverse plus alternate reality, will have people believing that it is possible to reach the other universe through some sorts of portals like mirrors or the even more popular, wormholes.

Like Multiverse, wormhole is still only hypothetical and theoretical concepts; there are still no evidence for the existence of wormhole. But in comics and sci-fi, wormholes do exist, but these are fictions, not reality.

By mixing parallel universe with Multiverse, comic book and sci-fi creators will have people believing in the entertaining but unrealistic stories that there are infinite numbers of the “other” you in the other -verses. This is pure fiction.

The problem with these fictions, fascinating as they are, it would make naive people believing in the fiction, and not understanding what the Multiverse models actually say.

Science fiction has been with us for centuries. Many people find them very interesting and often high quality literature exists in them (like Isac Asimov, Arthur C Clarke, Dune etc). It is neither the responsibility of the writers or the scientists if some people mistake clearly labeled fiction as science.

 

[Sedim Haba]

One of the problems that I have with the Multiverse is that it is so theoretical, it is impossible to test them.

Is Multiverse “possible”?

The answer would be “yes”, but only theoretically. There have been no evidence, so it hasn’t been demonstrated to be “probable”.

Being “possible” doesn’t mean it would be “probable”.

Science only accept what is “probable”, because there are evidence available to show concept agree with natural reality.

And yet, Multiverse is very popular, especially among sci-fi novelists, comic book authors and sci-fi filmmakers or tv series producers.

AND THERE LIES MY REAL PROBLEM with the Multiverse.

The problem is where people can confuse the actual Multiverse models with sci-fi stories.

And among the confusions Sci-Fi authors and film or tv makers cause, is that they mixed Multiverse with fictional alternate reality or parallel universe.

The Multiverse plus alternate reality, will have people believing that it is possible to reach the other universe through some sorts of portals like mirrors or the even more popular, wormholes.

Like Multiverse, wormhole is still only hypothetical and theoretical concepts; there are still no evidence for the existence of wormhole. But in comics and sci-fi, wormholes do exist, but these are fictions, not reality.

By mixing parallel universe with Multiverse, comic book and sci-fi creators will have people believing in the entertaining but unrealistic stories that there are infinite numbers of the “other” you in the other -verses. This is pure fiction.

The problem with these fictions, fascinating as they are, it would make naive people believing in the fiction, and not understanding what the Multiverse models actually say.

My belief in and experience with the Multiverse has nothing to with any Sci-Fi story. I used to read a book a night, before internet.
I can't remember any such plot line actually. It would have made a great one, I'm sure I'd remember it.
( well, ...There was one short story about a fog that changed the world, but that was more fantasy and supernatural themed)

No, I found out about the Multiverse when I started wondering why things... weird, seemingly random things... weren't right in the world.
Is that scientific proof? Of course not, but it is personal experience. And that beats theories and Sci-Fi any day. I'm convinced.

 

[ChristineM]

There have been no evidence, so it hasn’t been demonstrated to be “probable”.

Actually there is evidence, how valid it is is another question.

A paragraph from the article linked below

Even if there are multiple universes, their entanglement with us is so tiny that they are nearly impossible to detect. However, the Planck satellite has found concrete scientific evidence of changes in energy due to other universes. According to Dr. Mersini-Houghton, atypical observations made about galaxies moving in the wrong direction and the unexplained “Cold Spot” in the cosmic microwave background are effects are due to the presence of neighboring universes.​

​

What Came Before the Big Bang? - Research Blog

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think the multivere theory was to address the law of thermodynamics suggesting the universe is a closed system next to other closed systems.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

One of the problems that I have with the Multiverse is that it is so theoretical, it is impossible to test them.
Is Multiverse “possible”?

First of, I'm far from being a physicist and won't even pretend to understand the technical aspects of this...
But I do enjoy reading and hearing about it from lectures etc where actual physicists try to "dumb it down" so that an average joe like myself can "somewhat" understand it.

From what I understand (which thus is quite limited), it is said that the multiverse can NOT be tested directly, nor that it is a hypothesis / theory that exists by itself.
At no point did someone "invent" the multi-verse out of thin air to "solve" some kind of physics problem.

Instead, the multi-verse is a prediction that naturally flows from theories / hypothesis that deal with phenomenon in THIS universe.
Apparently, Inflation Theory (which deals with the initial phase of rapid expansion of the universe) predicts a multi-verse.
The math model that tries to model inflation apparently spits out a multi-verse model.

Lawrence Krauss during a lecture once said (paraphrasing):

Nobody suggested the multi-verse out of the blue. It's the science that has been pushing us towards the multi-verse. Some of us kicking and screaming, much like myself... because I don't even like the multi-verse... I think it's ugly and not elegant. But my opinions don't matter... If you have a theory that explains this universe really well and matches all the evidence and if that model happens to predict a multi-verse... you can't accept the model and not accept its predictions.

On another occasion, he described it like this (when talking about if the multi-verse idea could be tested):

No, it can not be tested directly because we are confined to this universe and it doesn't seem like, even in principle, we can reach "outside" of it to see what's there.
However, say you have a solid theory that makes 100 predictions, 1 of which untestable and a multi-verse, while the other 99 can be tested and check out...
Then it's quite reasonable to assume that that 100th prediction is likely accurate also.

The answer would be “yes”, but only theoretically. There have been no evidence, so it hasn’t been demonstrated to be “probable”.

Well, that doesn't seem to be entirely true.
If you indeed have a theory that by and large can be tested and has been tested successfully, while it also predicts a multi-verse, then by extension that untestable multi-verse prediction becomes quite probable by association.

Consider black holes before we found them.
Purely theoretical concepts. Predicted by Einstein's relativity theory.
His theory was rock solid and all predictions that could be tested, checked out.
Nevertheless, Einstein was convinced he had to have made a mistake somewhere because he considered the idea of a black hole to be inconceivable.

So it's kind of the same situation....
A theory which can be tested in a multi-tude of ways, which makes all kinds of testable predictions and then also has this one prediction that can't be tested.

The more solid the theory becomes by testing the testable predictions, the more probable the untestable predictions become.
You could say that all the successful testing of the testable predictions, serve as indirect evidence of the one untestable prediction.

Being “possible” doesn’t mean it would be “probable”.

Science only accept what is “probable”, because there are evidence available to show concept agree with natural reality.

And yet, Multiverse is very popular, especially among sci-fi novelists, comic book authors and sci-fi filmmakers or tv series producers.

AND THERE LIES MY REAL PROBLEM with the Multiverse.

The problem is where people can confuse the actual Multiverse models with sci-fi stories.

And among the confusions Sci-Fi authors and film or tv makers cause, is that they mixed Multiverse with fictional alternate reality or parallel universe.

The Multiverse plus alternate reality, will have people believing that it is possible to reach the other universe through some sorts of portals like mirrors or the even more popular, wormholes.

Like Multiverse, wormhole is still only hypothetical and theoretical concepts; there are still no evidence for the existence of wormhole. But in comics and sci-fi, wormholes do exist, but these are fictions, not reality.

By mixing parallel universe with Multiverse, comic book and sci-fi creators will have people believing in the entertaining but unrealistic stories that there are infinite numbers of the “other” you in the other -verses. This is pure fiction.

The problem with these fictions, fascinating as they are, it would make naive people believing in the fiction, and not understanding what the Multiverse models actually say.

I think you are kind of mixing things up here.
The multi-verse talked about in physics, is not what they talk about in sci-fi.

I don't think it's productive to a science conversation to look at what is being said in sci-fi.
Let's stick to science only when discussing science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My gut tell’s me this is the only universe and beyond that is just empty space.

Space is part of the universe.

So insofar as there even is a "beyond" - there certainly is no space there.

 

[gnostic]

I think you are kind of mixing things up here.
The multi-verse talked about in physics, is not what they talk about in sci-fi.

I don't think it's productive to a science conversation to look at what is being said in sci-fi.
Let's stick to science only when discussing science.

All I am saying that sci-fi creators tends to exaggerate the Multiverse concept, so that the readers & viewers might have wrong views of what Multiverse is really about.

For example, the abilities to travel one universe to another. We don't even have a manned spacecraft that can travel to Jupiter. It is ridiculous to think there are some portals to the other -verses.

 

[metis]

One of the problems that I have with the Multiverse is that it is so theoretical, it is impossible to test them.

Is Multiverse “possible”?

The answer would be “yes”, but only theoretically. There have been no evidence, so it hasn’t been demonstrated to be “probable”.

Being “possible” doesn’t mean it would be “probable”.

Science only accept what is “probable”, because there are evidence available to show concept agree with natural reality.

And yet, Multiverse is very popular, especially among sci-fi novelists, comic book authors and sci-fi filmmakers or tv series producers.

AND THERE LIES MY REAL PROBLEM with the Multiverse.

The problem is where people can confuse the actual Multiverse models with sci-fi stories.

And among the confusions Sci-Fi authors and film or tv makers cause, is that they mixed Multiverse with fictional alternate reality or parallel universe.

The Multiverse plus alternate reality, will have people believing that it is possible to reach the other universe through some sorts of portals like mirrors or the even more popular, wormholes.

Like Multiverse, wormhole is still only hypothetical and theoretical concepts; there are still no evidence for the existence of wormhole. But in comics and sci-fi, wormholes do exist, but these are fictions, not reality.

By mixing parallel universe with Multiverse, comic book and sci-fi creators will have people believing in the entertaining but unrealistic stories that there are infinite numbers of the “other” you in the other -verses. This is pure fiction.

The problem with these fictions, fascinating as they are, it would make naive people believing in the fiction, and not understanding what the Multiverse models actually say.

It is likely that we will never have evidence for or against it, but most cosmologists now believe it is likely based on how quantum mechanics works.

 

[gnostic]

I think the multivere theory was to address the law of thermodynamics suggesting the universe is a closed system next to other closed systems.

If I remember correctly, the Multiverse was extension of the Inflationary model of the Big Bang theory.

The same astrophysicist who first proposed the Inflationary Epoch and the Inflationary model (Andrei Linde, as well as Alan Guth & Paul Steinhardt) in 1979-1983, Linde was one of the earlier proponent to proposed the Multiverse.

 

[ChristineM]

Linde was one of the earlier proponent to proposed the Multiverse.

He still is a strong proponent of the multiverse. He has recently calculated how many their might be... 10^10^16, that we could recognise as universes and more than twice that number that are so strange we could not recognise them.

All guesswork of course.

 

[gnostic]

Well, that doesn't seem to be entirely true.
If you indeed have a theory that by and large can be tested and has been tested successfully, while it also predicts a multi-verse, then by extension that untestable multi-verse prediction becomes quite probable by association.

Consider black holes before we found them.
Purely theoretical concepts. Predicted by Einstein's relativity theory.
His theory was rock solid and all predictions that could be tested, checked out.
Nevertheless, Einstein was convinced he had to have made a mistake somewhere because he considered the idea of a black hole to be inconceivable.

So it's kind of the same situation....
A theory which can be tested in a multi-tude of ways, which makes all kinds of testable predictions and then also has this one prediction that can't be tested.

The more solid the theory becomes by testing the testable predictions, the more probable the untestable predictions become.
You could say that all the successful testing of the testable predictions, serve as indirect evidence of the one untestable prediction.

I‘d understand what you are saying about being “probable by association” an all.

However, I would have to disagree.

Both Relativity and Quantum Physics do have predictions that are testable and tested, but other areas or other predictions that are still theoretical, untestable & untested.

Lik3 you said about Einstein’s prediction of the blackholes were untested then tested and accepted.

There are many predictions made in Relativity (as well as many in Quantum Physics), but not all of them are “probable”.

They (referring the predictions) should be treated as individual predictions, and hence treated on the “case-by-case basis”.

Meaning only individual prediction should be treated as “probable” only if this prediction has been tested and successfully verified & supported by the evidence & data.

No predictions should be treated as “probable” by-default, not even “by association”, while those predictions remained untested.

So while the blackhole prediction maybe tested and accepted with Relativity theory, another prediction, like that of “wormhole”, is still untested, so the wormhole prediction should remained as “improbable” (or in the undecided pile)...at least until there are evidence to support wormhole.

I don’t like the “probable by association” because it can get very messy.

For instance, String Theory and Superstring Theory are associated with both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (due to attempts of turning 2 separate theories into one), then should we say untested Superstring Theory or untested String Theory be “probable”, because of their associations with General Relativity and with Quantum Mechanics?

As I said, very messy.

No, each separate prediction should be tested first, before concluding that prediction as probable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

They (referring the predictions) should be treated as individual predictions, and hence treated on the “case-by-case basis”.

I disagree there.
They shouldn't be treated as "individual" predictions, because they aren't individual claims.
They all flow from the same model. It's like a house of cards. If one prediction fails, it puts the entire model into question.
And every successful test, serves as evidence for the model and as indirect evidence for the other predictions flowing from the same model.

Consider as an analogy the DNA of a family of four.
Mom, dad, son and daughter. The model is that they are a family. This makes predictions about the DNA of the parents in relation to the children and between the children.

These predictions are that DNA tests of both the children's DNA should show that the parents are the biological parents.
Another prediction is that the DNA of the children alone should show they are biological siblings.
Let's say we test the DNA of the parents and the son. It comes back successfully: it is the biological son.
No say we test the DNA of both children. It comes back successfully: they are full biological siblings with the same mom and dad.

Would you say that this doesn't tell us anything about the prediction of the daughter DNA in relation to the parents?
Should we treat that prediction as an "individual prediction"? After all, it hasn't been tested explicitly... on a case-by-case basis.

I would definitely say the success of the first two tests, makes the last untested prediction extremely probable by association in the model, due to the other tests being successful.

No predictions should be treated as “probable” by-default, not even “by association”, while those predictions remained untested.

I didn't say "by default".
I said that every successful test of the model, serves as indirect evidence for the untested predictions.
The more predictions are successfully tested, the more probable the untested predictions become.
Again, don't forget that they all flow from the same model.
If the model is correct, then so are the predictions. All of them.

So, the more supportive evidence (=successful tests of predictions) = the more solid the model = the more likely the still untested predictions are also correct.

So while the blackhole prediction maybe tested and accepted with Relativity theory, another prediction, like that of “wormhole”, is still untested, so the wormhole prediction should remained as “improbable” (or in the undecided pile)...at least until there are evidence to support wormhole.

That makes no sense to me. First, I don't know about any wormhole predictions.
But nevertheless........ Again, IF the model is correct, then the predictions of said model are correct.

So how could you say that any untested predictions remain just as "improbable" regardless, if and when test after test after test confirms the model?

I don’t like the “probable by association” because it can get very messy.

For instance, String Theory and Superstring Theory are associated with both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (due to attempts of turning 2 separate theories into one), then should we say untested Superstring Theory or untested String Theory be “probable”, because of their associations with General Relativity and with Quantum Mechanics?

That's a completely different beast. String theory is not predicted by GA or QM.
It's a stand-alone model. That's not what I mean by "association".
What I meant by "association" concerns only the collection of predictions that flow from a single model.

No, each separate prediction should be tested first, before concluding that prediction as probable.

So you feel like we should consider the daughter being the biological daughter of the mom and dad in my example to be "improbable" until we test her DNA?

 

[ratiocinator]

My gut tell’s me this is the only universe and beyond that is just empty space.

Space(-time) is part of the universe, saying that there is empty space beyond it is nonsensical. So much for your gut.

 

[ratiocinator]

It should be noted that there is more than one idea that leads to some sort of multiverse. It is not a single hypothesis. Just space being infinite leads to a sort of multiverse, and there are certainly reasonable indications that it might well be. Then there is the 'many worlds' interpretation of quantum mechanics. Then the 'eternal inflation' view and that's before we get to the more outlandish ideas...

 

[gnostic]

That makes no sense to me. First, I don't know about any wormhole predictions.
But nevertheless........ Again, IF the model is correct, then the predictions of said model are correct.

So how could you say that any untested predictions remain just as "improbable" regardless, if and when test after test after test confirms the model?

I am referring to Einstein-Rosen Bridge that was added to General Relativity in 1935.

Source: The Particle Problem In The General Theory Of Relativity, 1935, by Einstein Albert & Rosen Nathan (https://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.48.73).