Problems & confusion with the Multiverse

[blü 2]

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

As endless SF writers have suggested, let's hope they're not antimatter.

 

[shunyadragon]

We define the universe in terms of what we can see of it, but it is possible that there are other universes beyond what we can perceive. The MWI position regarding quantum mechanics is different in that it posits the existence of a near infinite number of alternative realities created by quantum entanglements. Those alternative realities do not exist beyond what we perceive, because our perception is subjectively defined by entanglement. They aren't in any sense "observable".

I believe in a greater physical existence based on what is possible beyond ours, based on Hawking's no boundary proposal. II do believe alternate realities(?) what ever they are are at present observable and possibly ever will be. I simply believe in the possibility of other universes are possible beyond ours in a greater multiverse for reasons previously described. At present and the immediate future it is unlikely we will have anything observable.

 

[shunyadragon]

Maybe but who cares

It is obvious you have no knowledge nor care about science.

 

[Jimmy]

It is obvious you have no knowledge nor care about science.

I like science but I’m smart and know that we’ll never know if there’s more universes so who cares.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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

Beyond which there is no space. Major faux-pas.

It is neither the responsibility of the writers or the scientists if some people mistake clearly labeled fiction as science.

Only the writers of the religious fiction claim it to be true.

 

[Jimmy]

Beyond which there is no space. Major faux-pas.

Universe prolly goes on forever. We’ll never find out so who cares really

 

[Aupmanyav]

What about non-existence? What about 'absolute nothing'? (Thinking about the post by @Copernicus)

 

[Copernicus]

What about non-existence? What about 'absolute nothing'? (Thinking about the post by @Copernicus)

This:

 

[shunyadragon]

I actually see no problems nor controversy concerning the possibility of a multiverse. The theories and hypothesis are obviously dealing with limited evidence and that is not likely to change in the near future,

There is hope that increased knowledge in Quantum Mechanics and Black oles will lead to more evidence.

 

[ChristineM]

As endless SF writers have suggested, let's hope they're not antimatter.

Its possible, some are, lets hope we don't collide with one. Actually.just had an idle thought, maybe that was the cause of the BB.

 

[blü 2]

Its possible, some are, lets hope we don't collide with one. Actually.just had an idle thought, maybe that was the cause of the BB.

That depends on the physics, I guess. There seem to be many nuances around the topic. For example, quickly checking on antimatter just now, I discovered that

Antimatter is all around us – for example bananas emit antimatter. This is because they contain a particular type of potassium (called potassium-40) which undergoes radioactive decay releasing a positron every 75 minutes. But this positron is very quickly annihilated by a passing electron.​

Which brings us to the idea of a universe with an antibanana, emitting an electron every 75 minutes.

Hmmmmm.

 

[ChristineM]

That depends on the physics, I guess. There seem to be many nuances around the topic. For example, quickly checking on antimatter just now, I discovered that

Antimatter is all around us – for example bananas emit antimatter. This is because they contain a particular type of potassium (called potassium-40) which undergoes radioactive decay releasing a positron every 75 minutes. But this positron is very quickly annihilated by a passing electron.​

Which brings us to the idea of a universe with an antibanana, emitting an electron every 75 minutes.

Hmmmmm.

INFORMATIVE

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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.

I've heard the same said about Deity ...

 

[metis]

I like science but I’m smart and know that we’ll never know if there’s more universes so who cares.

Simply put, a scientist "cares" about that which we do not know. We don't know for certain what caused the BB, but that has not stopped cosmologists and others trying to investigate and putting forth hypotheses.

 

[Jimmy]

Simply put, a scientist "cares" about that which we do not know. We don't know for certain what caused the BB, but that has not stopped cosmologists and others trying to investigate and putting forth hypotheses.

Whatever floats their boat

 

[metis]

Whatever floats their boat

I grew up in a church that had such a disregard for science, and I left it never to return.

 

[Jimmy]

I grew up in a church that had such a disregard for science, and I left it never to return.

I love science but I’m not stupid. Some things will never be known through science. Should scientists stop looking? No. That’s their passion. Like I said. Whatever floats their boat

 

[leroy]

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”.

You don’t have to test them directly (nor indirectly) all you have to do is find a phenomena that would be better explained by postulating a multiverse than any of their competing explanations.

(that would be enough to put the multiverse in “probable” territory)



As an analogy, you don’t have to test that life can come from none life in order to conclude that abiogenesis took place at some point tin the past.

It is a fact that life exist

And postulating abiogenesis is demonstrably a better alternative that say “life in this planet is eternal and has always existed” (implying that there was not a fisrt life)

In other words you don’t have to test and show that abiogenesis is possible, all you have to do is show that abiogenesis (natural or not) is a better explanation than “life has always existed”

So if you find something that would be better explained by postulating a multiverse than with any other alternative, then you would have a good solid and scientific case for a multiverse.

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.

The issue, I would say is that there is nothing known in the universe (to my knowledge) that would be explained better if we postulate the existence of a worm hole or a multiverse, than without them. But this is debatable I can imagine a debate with someone making the opposite point and I can imagine some good arguments worthy of consideration.

 

[shunyadragon]

You don’t have to test them directly (nor indirectly) all you have to do is find a phenomena that would be better explained by postulating a multiverse than any of their competing explanations.

(that would be enough to put the multiverse in “probable” territory)



As an analogy, you don’t have to test that life can come from none life in order to conclude that abiogenesis took place at some point tin the past.

It is a fact that life exist

And postulating abiogenesis is demonstrably a better alternative that say “life in this planet is eternal and has always existed” (implying that there was not a fisrt life)

In other words you don’t have to test and show that abiogenesis is possible, all you have to do is show that abiogenesis (natural or not) is a better explanation than “life has always existed”

So if you find something that would be better explained by postulating a multiverse than with any other alternative, then you would have a good solid and scientific case for a multiverse.


The issue, I would say is that there is nothing known in the universe (to my knowledge) that would be explained better if we postulate the existence of a worm hole or a multiverse, than without them. But this is debatable I can imagine a debate with someone making the opposite point and I can imagine some good arguments worthy of consideration.

Actually I sort of like this post, which is unusual considering our differences in the past.

 

[leroy]

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...

Yes perhaps that is the best argument in favor of a multiverse.

There is not specific multiverse hypothesis that by itself is likely to be true but we do have 4 or 5 hypothesis that are “not so bad” the probability that at least one of them is true doesn’t seems to be “very low”