Multiverse theory

[The Geoff]

Presume the universe is infinite. Not just the 90-odd-billion light year bubble we can see, presume it continues beyond that, for ever. Oh, and presume it has the same physical laws and matter distribution that we see here in our own little bubble.

 

It's not an outrageous suggestion, in fact it's generally thought that the universe is bigger than our bubble, because otherwise we'd be at the centre of the universe and that's just arrogant and weird.

 

That means that simply by the laws of statistics there's an identical volume of space out there, complete with you, me, our computers and so on. There's another one somewhere else which is, again, identical, except for a single photon.

 

And another, where the atom bomb was never developed because the experiments never worked.

 

Yes, of course they should work, but when you're dealing with subatomic stuff there's always a chance, a tiny, tiny chance, that atom A won't absorb a neutron, and won't set off atoms B and C, and so on. A chain-non-reaction.

 

If the multiverse (type 1) is real then everything that isn't against the laws of the universe must happen.

[PurpleMonkey]

 

If the multiverse (type 1) is real then everything that isn't against the laws of the universe must happen.

 

 

I was sitting here scratching my a*se thinking exactly the same thing:rolleyes:

[The Geoff]

And yet, in another part of the universe, there was another version thinking "oh god, what's Geoff on about now, he must have got into the catnip again..."

 

Weird, huh?!

 

(And I'm not taking geek-based-sarcasm from anyone with an xkcd sig! )

[kinny]

*like*

[PurpleMonkey]

 

(And I'm not taking geek-based-sarcasm from anyone with an xkcd sig! )

 

Oh i am so not a geek, maybe i am in another universe, but deffo not in this one

[Cyprino]

Oh i am so not a geek, maybe i am in another universe, but deffo not in this one

 

Do you read xkcd though?

 

(I'm unashamedly a geek, and xkcd is awesome)

[PurpleMonkey]

Do you read xkcd though?

 

(I'm unashamedly a geek, and xkcd is awesome)

 

on occasion, i do.

[RedSky]

Presume the universe is infinite. Not just the 90-odd-billion light year bubble we can see, presume it continues beyond that, for ever. Oh, and presume it has the same physical laws and matter distribution that we see here in our own little bubble.

 

It's not an outrageous suggestion, in fact it's generally thought that the universe is bigger than our bubble, because otherwise we'd be at the centre of the universe and that's just arrogant and weird.

 

That means that simply by the laws of statistics there's an identical volume of space out there, complete with you, me, our computers and so on. There's another one somewhere else which is, again, identical, except for a single photon.

 

And another, where the atom bomb was never developed because the experiments never worked.

 

Yes, of course they should work, but when you're dealing with subatomic stuff there's always a chance, a tiny, tiny chance, that atom A won't absorb a neutron, and won't set off atoms B and C, and so on. A chain-non-reaction.

 

If the multiverse (type 1) is real then everything that isn't against the laws of the universe must happen.

 

Intuitively I find all that stuff kind of hard to believe. I feel it goes against nature.

I have a theory, nobody wants to hear it but I have one.

 

OK here goes. I reckon that the universe is infinite in both directions. infinitely big and also infinitely small.

I think that if it were possible to zoom away from Earth, zoom out of the galaxy, zoom out beyond the known universe, way way beyond, eventually you'll be looking at a gigantic atomic partical whizzing around other particals, although on the human scale they'd seem never move.

 

Keep zooming out and clumps of atoms appear. Keep going and eventually you'll see objects and maybe even something you'll regonize like a chicken or a banana or a toilet, I don't know but I hope you get my drift.

Same thing if you travel the other way into the infinitely small, although you'll be coming in from the other end.

 

Geoff, can you answer me this ? If we can see 90-odd billion light years then how come they tell us that the universe is only 13.7 billion years old ? I've seen documentaries where they show computer simulations of the size of the universe to be many trillions of light years across and still talk about the big bang 13.7 billion years in the same program. I'm confused!

 

If they believe that their computer simulations and theories are correct then doesn't that make the big bang as we know it, to be wrong ?

Edited August 7, 2011 by redskyhorizon

[Bigmp]

If we can see 90-odd billion light years then how come they tell us that the universe is only 13.7 billion years old ? I've seen documentaries where they show computer simulations of the size of the universe to be many trillions of light years across and still talk about the big bang 13.7 billion years in the same program. I'm confused!

 

Simply put: A light year is a unit of measurement of length i.e. The distance that light can travel in one year.

A lightyear is close to 10 trillion kilometers so when we can see "90- odd billion light years"... (10^13)(9*10^9) gives you 9*10^22 kilometers...

To put a little perspective on it,... 56 sextillion miles or the lengthy 56,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles

 

The universe is 13.7 billion, (13,700,000,000) years old and we can see only so much of it.

 

Simple

Edited August 7, 2011 by Bigmp

[beth1974uk]

Presume the universe is infinite. Not just the 90-odd-billion light year bubble we can see, presume it continues beyond that, for ever. Oh, and presume it has the same physical laws and matter distribution that we see here in our own little bubble.

 

It's not an outrageous suggestion, in fact it's generally thought that the universe is bigger than our bubble, because otherwise we'd be at the centre of the universe and that's just arrogant and weird.

 

That means that simply by the laws of statistics there's an identical volume of space out there, complete with you, me, our computers and so on. There's another one somewhere else which is, again, identical, except for a single photon.

 

And another, where the atom bomb was never developed because the experiments never worked.

 

Yes, of course they should work, but when you're dealing with subatomic stuff there's always a chance, a tiny, tiny chance, that atom A won't absorb a neutron, and won't set off atoms B and C, and so on. A chain-non-reaction.

 

If the multiverse (type 1) is real then everything that isn't against the laws of the universe must happen.

 

Eh????

[Benbarden]

So das that mean in some part of the universe geoff is dum

I love reading you stuff allways makes u think

[high.as.a.kite]

They've recently found what might be evidence of bubbles in the Cosmic Microwave Background!

BBC News - 'Multiverse' theory suggested by microwave background

[high.as.a.kite]

OK here goes. I reckon that the universe is infinite in both directions. infinitely big and also infinitely small.

I think that if it were possible to zoom away from Earth, zoom out of the galaxy, zoom out beyond the known universe, way way beyond, eventually you'll be looking at a gigantic atomic partical whizzing around other particals, although on the human scale they'd seem never move.

 

I believe that when you go zooming in to the infinitely small you run into a problem when you bounce off of Plancks Constant. Though it is always possible that Geoff may just correct a misconception on my part.

 

The other reason I'd have a problem is that yours is a "it's turtles all the way" type of theory.

[coupey]

What Geoff talked about here is not a multiverse but instead an infinite universe. In an infinite universe, infinite in both time and space all events possible according to the laws of physics will have happened, will also be happening now, and will also happen in the future (whatever that is). Not only that but all possible events would happen an infinite number of times and at an infinite number of locations all at the same time. What this means for the concept of moving through events, through time, is difficult to grasp.

 

A multiverse is different. The multiverse theory seeks to answer the question as to why the balance of nuclear forces in our universe is set in just such a way as to allow the fusion of hydrogen into helium and subsequent heavier elements in the centre of stars, and why gravity is constructed in such a way as to allow expansion of the universe. One answer is that a pre-existing intelligence designed the universe to be like this. However, this merely replaces a complex conundrum (the universe) with a more complex conundrum (a being intelligent enough to design and create a universe). This is a non-scientific answer as it fails occam's razor.

 

The multiverse theory states that our universe is one among many (an infinite number of?) universes that all have DIFFERENT laws of physics. We are in the one that allows heavy elements precisely because these are necessary for our existence. There are other universes next door that have different laws of physics where other states of matter are possible, but we didn't wake up in those, because those laws of physics didn't allow us to. The question of where these universes come from is another matter. One theory is that a process of natural selection occurs where universes that are 'successful' at expansion and therefore do not immediately collapse in on themselves as a slightly stronger force of gravity overcomes the expansion of the early universe, therefore survive longer. In surviving longer, they are better able to 'spawn' daughter universes that share some of the physical properties of their parent. Therefore through time, expanding universes will come to dominate the multiverse.

 

Amazing stuff.

[colin54]

I have similar conversations with a guy at my work how was at a Catholic school doesn't believe that anything existed be for god made everything, so all dinosaur's are fake some time i think I'm wrong lol

[The Geoff]

Geoff, can you answer me this ? If we can see 90-odd billion light years then how come they tell us that the universe is only 13.7 billion years old ? I've seen documentaries where they show computer simulations of the size of the universe to be many trillions of light years across and still talk about the big bang 13.7 billion years in the same program. I'm confused!

 

If they believe that their computer simulations and theories are correct then doesn't that make the big bang as we know it, to be wrong ?

 

The difference is there because the universe is expanding. The Big Bang happened 13.75 billion years ago, so the furthest we can see is 13.75 billion light years.

 

However, space has expanded since then, so while the light that we see at the edge of our bubble is 13.7 billion years old, it's also about 45 billion light years away. This doesn't violate the speed of light limit because that only applies to things moving in spacetime, not the stretching of spacetime itself. It's easier to explain with a balloon, marker pen and a lot of hand waving. Wibbly wobbly, timey wimey.

 

I believe that when you go zooming in to the infinitely small you run into a problem when you bounce off of Plancks Constant. Though it is always possible that Geoff may just correct a misconception on my part.

 

The other reason I'd have a problem is that yours is a "it's turtles all the way" type of theory.

 

As far as anyone knows, yes, there's a sort-of-limit on how small you can go and still have things make sense. At first glance it looks like we just need better measuring tools, but as far as anyone can tell it's more like a resolution limit to reality.

[kinny]

It's easier to explain with a balloon, marker pen and a lot of hand waving. Wibbly wobbly, timey wimey.

 

Yoinked.

 

considered a role as the next Dr Who Geoff? - That's who's voice i read the above in.

[high.as.a.kite]

Coupey you're right. I read it wrong. It was a Sunday morning, what can I say.

 

I get the concept that if the universe is infinite then our 'local' situation must be repeated many times within that universe.

I would use the argument that there are many more ways for those copies to diverge than there are for those copies to stay the same. In which case in a very short period of of time (against the life of the universe) it would not be possible to recognise them as copies any longer.

 

I know that you're gonna say that in an infinite universe there will always be a copy but statistically that copy is always going to diverge from your copy. Which means that you would need a large quantity of exact copies so that after a period you would still have at least one exact copy. Then you would need another large quantity of copies to get through the next period of time.

 

Roughly the same argument about entropy and the arrow of time.

[high.as.a.kite]

As far as anyone knows, yes, there's a sort-of-limit on how small you can go and still have things make sense. At first glance it looks like we just need better measuring tools, but as far as anyone can tell it's more like a resolution limit to reality.

 

So when you hit Plancks Constant with regards to distance then that is like a pixel?

And hitting Plancks Constant for time is the clock cycle of the processor?

And Plancks Constant for energy is the accuracy of the mantissa exponent combination used?

Does this mean we're living in the Matrix?

[Spock]

so in one universe, somewhere, the chance of the mulitverse theory being right is less than zero?

[papalazaro]

Welcome to the real world.. Mind bending stuff a bit much for my brain on a sunday

[Spock]

Mind bending stuff a bit much for my brain on a sunday

 

i find that amusing considering that a lot of people will be going to church today.

[The Geoff]

So when you hit Plancks Constant with regards to distance then that is like a pixel?

And hitting Plancks Constant for time is the clock cycle of the processor?

And Plancks Constant for energy is the accuracy of the mantissa exponent combination used?

Does this mean we're living in the Matrix?

 

That's one interpretation, there are a few well respected scientists working on the idea, the UK Astronomer Royal being one of them:

Edge: IN THE MATRIX (there's a "next" link at the bottom of the page that isn't hugely obvious)

 

One theory goes thus:

We're constantly developing better, faster, more complicated computers.

We use those computers to simulate things.

In a few hundred years we may well have (quantum?) computers that can simulate a whole universe, maybe lots of them.

Now, what are the odds that we are in the one original universe and not a subsequent simulation?

 

There are also theories that the human brain is a quantum computer - we can imagine things that don't exist, or see things from a different angle because our brains work in many different universes at once, and there's a leakage of information between them. Consciousness, imagination and free will are a result of the brain working in multiple realities.

 

That last theory is a particularly wacky one, but it is fun.

[The Geoff]

Yoinked.

 

considered a role as the next Dr Who Geoff? - That's who's voice i read the above in.

 

No acting talent whatsoever - I wouldn't mind writing for it though (Oh, and it's "The Doctor", "Dr Who" is Peter Cushing's character from the Dalek films and he's a different kettle of monkeys altogether. It's all rather precious and highly strung...)

 

so in one universe, somewhere, the chance of the mulitverse theory being right is less than zero?

No, not if multiverse theory is correct. The laws of the uni/multiverse have to be obeyed. "Whatever is not expressly forbidden is compulsory" is a good way of putting it - in an infinite universe, or a multiverse, everything that could happen, however unlikely, must happen.

[The Geoff]

Oh, and here's a link to Tegmark's paper on parallel universes: http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.pdf

 

He suggests there's four kinds of multiverse:

• One universe that's infinitely big (my original post)
  
• Multiple "post-inflation bubbles" - basically lots of different Big Bangs.
  
• Quantum theory's "many worlds" interpretation (invented by the dad of the lead singer of eels)
  
• Different mathematics. This one is really, really weird.