The multiverse

[espiex]

Alrighty, here goes.

I've been considering the multiverse theory, which, for those who don't know, basically says there is an infinite number of universes 'out there', although 'out there' implies some sort of direction. Really, you have to consider each universe as its own self-contained bubble, which exists completely independently from any of the others.

Now, if there is an infinite number of other universes, the theory goes, then anything that can happen will happen in one of them. For example some universes might be all matter, others all energy, others a careful mix of both like ours. Our universe is a really, really fragile balance just able to support creatures like us who can look around it and go 'ooh, ahh'.

Okay, on to my point, such as it is. It's basically me getting my brain tied around infinity.

It seems to me, if indeed there is an infinite number of universes out there, then anything that can happen will happen not just in one universe, but in an infinite number of them. Infinity is just the sum of an infinite number of other inifinities!
For example, there's not just one universe for every possible arrangement of every atom in ours, because if there were, then you could put a number on them (just because we can't count to it, doesn't mean it's not there).

If there's a finite number of atoms, molecules and higher structures up through humans and into galaxies, then there's only a finite number of possible arrangements of those elements. As I say, it's a horrendously large number, but it's finite.

The infinite theory would imply not only that there is an infinite number of universes almost like ours, except for say maybe one pebble bouncing a different way when it fell off a cliff 30,000 years ago, but an infinite number where the pebble fell exactly the same way, humans eveolved exactly the same way etc etc etc. In other words, who says they all have to be different?

I think I'm rambling now, but hopefully you get what I'm after here... there's an inifinite number of versions of you that do understand what I just wrote in an infinite number of universes. An infinite number who don't. An infinite number who are smearing themselves with mayonnaise while they read this.

Go figure.

[koshiva]

Hmm. Now if you have infinite univereses, ok well lets say there is only one universe,and we call that an atom, just for this example...as it is, it just is, unto itself, and can be nothing else but that,no relativity of anything else but itself, energy existing in a specific way so as to have mass, and like our own solar system, within that atom are orbiting electrons which sort of balance it out and make it function in a specific way or form. Just as planets in the solar system exert gravity upon the other planets and sun etc and effect the movement of the entire system, but which is predictable upon certain parameters, not dice or random.

I guess what I am gonna say, is if there were just this one atom, as a universe, as itself it is but itself. But if there were two, together, in an abstract vissual way, just for the purpose of ease of conception,grasping this thought, well the two together would be two of X but also something esle, so they look different as one of 'something else'. So the first was represented as one dot, and the second two dots. And if thats progressed with many atoms, they can become all the matter we know exists. But sticking with geometry, those atoms can form squares(2D) cubes(3D) etc right into complex devices such as human brain, and mathmatical templates coinciding with the physical manifestations of existence. So every thought of trillions, exists in another dimention.
But if those atoms, as paralell univerese, if they are totally independant of one another,and time is something of an illusion, well one atom exists by itself as one universe, two atoms as another three as another, and finally many atoms, planets,stars,galaxi es, each point in time along the expansion existing as one paralell universe, trillions...from the beginning to the present, and every single possibility. So if there were paralell universes, and you could stop time, that moment in that time exists on many different levels(universes), trillions,but finite.

But what I am saying in relation to those atoms, as representatives/symbols of universes themselves, at the atomic level they can be predicted, and so theoretically there are a infinite universes which contain every possibily at every point in time(predictable) and we just experience one path at each point in time which was already there.And so, maybe it is so that 'free choice' does exist, but the choices made by humans say, just lead them down a path which is already there. So off in another paralell universe, your whole life exists, but at each point in time through your life, so if you could start at any point and then make different choices, you go into and out of all these paralell universe at every point in time but experience it all as if it unfolds anew. You'd never know you were bouncing in and out of them by the second.
So say, your on a hill about to roll a rock down a hill, which will effect the rest of your life and in fact the world, infinitly, perhaps there are infinite choices at that point in time though, or finite perhaps? A million ways to roll a rock? different out comes?
But you know how Uranium loses electrons(radiation) , well over those thousands of years it breaks down into lead, so the time aspect is actually morphing the structure of the very atoms...ah ok...black holes


Too trippy. But I did think the other day, in relation to relativity...if there were say one universe, if everything with in it had been perpetually growing, you'd never know it, so maybe, yeah. But maybe like atoms, if but universes themselves on one level, well lets just say atom X had a mass of 1 and it was the only atom in the universe. Well technically if you split it, you get two atoms of X minus a small portion of mass or the intial atom, and relasing much energy. But if these two new atoms were not together or relative of each other,as seperate universes seperate from one another,independant, their masses would have ceased to have changed at all from division and yet energy, and that process could go on infinity. Sort of like if our own universe as we know it, could have grown infinity. Blahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Hedons]

Originally posted by espiex
Alrighty, here goes.

I've been considering the multiverse theory, which, for those who don't know, basically says there is an infinite number of universes 'out there', although 'out there' implies some sort of direction. Really, you have to consider each universe as its own self-contained bubble, which exists completely independently from any of the others.

Now, if there is an infinite number of other universes, the theory goes, then anything that can happen will happen in one of them.

So far, so good....

For example some universes might be all matter, others all energy, others a careful mix of both like ours. Our universe is a really, really fragile balance just able to support creatures like us who can look around it and go 'ooh, ahh'.

If string theory is correct then there is almost no room for anthropic arguments in cosmology. The quark and lepton masses and interaction strengths are determined. In other words, it could not be any other way.

Okay, on to my point, such as it is. It's basically me getting my brain tied around infinity.

It seems to me, if indeed there is an infinite number of universes out there, then anything that can happen will happen not just in one universe, but in an infinite number of them. Infinity is just the sum of an infinite number of other inifinities!

For example, there's not just one universe for every possible arrangement of every atom in ours, because if there were, then you could put a number on them (just because we can't count to it, doesn't mean it's not there).

If there's a finite number of atoms, molecules and higher structures up through humans and into galaxies, then there's only a finite number of possible arrangements of those elements. As I say, it's a horrendously large number, but it's finite.

The infinite theory would imply not only that there is an infinite number of universes almost like ours, except for say maybe one pebble bouncing a different way when it fell off a cliff 30,000 years ago, but an infinite number where the pebble fell exactly the same way, humans eveolved exactly the same way etc etc etc. In other words, who says they all have to be different?

I think I'm rambling now, but hopefully you get what I'm after here... there's an inifinite number of versions of you that do understand what I just wrote in an infinite number of universes. An infinite number who don't. An infinite number who are smearing themselves with mayonnaise while they read this.

Go figure.

Mmmmmmmmm.......... Mayonnaise.


Right. All possible combinations of all possible finite universes.

So where does infinity come from?

In physics there is something called Omega. Omega represents the Total Relative Mass Density of the universe.

Basically, Omega tells us about the shape, expansion, and ultimate fate of the universe.

Time began with the big bang of our universe. All cosmological models, experiments, and observations are telling us that the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate. It will not collapse back into a singularity and bring space-time to a halt.

This model of an infinte future gives us the infinities you are talking about.

All possible combinations of the universe past, present, and future without end lead to the infinities of multiverse theory.

Keep in mind though that multiverse theory originated at an explanation for the peculiar properties of quantum mechanics.

My personal view is that multiverse theory adds unnecessary complication to the big picture by creating a complicated explanation for a fundamental property of the universe. (That is not to say that it isn't correct).

See "Occam's Razor" - one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything.

If you're really interested in the subject, read "In Search of Schrodinger's Cat: Quantum Physics And Reality" and the follow up book "Shrodinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality". Both by John Gribbin.


-Hedons

[snapshot]

I view the multiverse as an extension of our 4th dimension. The dimension that we can conceive known as time is not really a dimension in the sense that it is spacial. It is however if we perceive time as being not an entire dimension. In a dimension you can go back and forth, or up and down, or side to side. The fourth dimension, as we know it, only goes forward, in one direction.

That brings the conversation to the fifth dimension, but first a simpler way of explaining the forth dimension. The first dimension, a line, is just an infinitely small slice of the 2nd, a square, and a square is an infintely small slice of the third. Therefore, following that model, the 3rd dimension is just an infinitely small slice of the fourth. The word we use to describe this slice is "moment." The one you are living in right now, that not even time can measure.

Now, can you imagine the 4th dimension, time, being an infinitely small slice of the 5th? That's where the multiverse comes in. It gets very hard to explain after that, but I hope I layed some sort of foundation of where I'm coming from.

[SmokeSomeDoja]

Originally posted by Hedons

If string theory is correct then there is almost no room for anthropic arguments in cosmology. The quark and lepton masses and interaction strengths are determined. In other words, it could not be any other way.

correct me if im wrong, but couldnt other universes have different fundamental constants? i.e. different mass of an electron? or the strength of the em force? my understanding was that a universe may "evolve" and if all the constants dont really work there cant be a universe so it ceases to exist whereas others try different combinations, and our universe may be only one of those combinations, right?

[fun with drugs]

all reasoning points to the universe every expanding, however these are calculations, how can you calculate exactly how large a baby will be when it grows older? the answer is you cannot. there are too many inconsistencies, diet, sleeping habits etc. so what if we are just part of a much greater being? is the universe an animal of somekind in its own right and we are less less to it than bacteria is to us? what if space exploration is just the begining humanity the great universe virus?

just trippin makes sense to me anyway

[Hedons]

Originally posted by SmokeSomeDoja
correct me if im wrong, but couldnt other universes have different fundamental constants? i.e. different mass of an electron? or the strength of the em force? my understanding was that a universe may "evolve" and if all the constants dont really work there cant be a universe so it ceases to exist whereas others try different combinations, and our universe may be only one of those combinations, right?

In string theory, there could only be one set of constants. This is precisely why the anthropic priciple is growing out of favor with so many scientists and philosophers alike.

But that is string theory.

Lee Smolin, author of Loop Quantum Gravity Theory (LQG is on competition with String Theory) put forth a hypothesis that the cosmos replicates itself through the creation of black holes. In his theory, with each replication comes slight changes (mutations) to the fundamental constants. Sort of like a Darwinian evolutionary process.

Smolin's thoery is based on two hypotheses:

A. The formation of a black hole creates "baby universes," the final singularity of the black hole tunneling right on through to the initial "big bang" singularity of the new universe thanks to quantum effect.

B. Certain parameters of the baby universe are close to but different than those of the parent universe.

I think this is what you're referring to.


There are a few problems with this theory of self replication...

John von Neuman demonstrated in 1947 in a lecture entitled "On the General and Logical Theory of Automata", that ANY self-reproducing object - human, ameoba, bacteria, robot, baby universe, etc. - must contain four fundamental components:

1. A blueprint - to provide a plan of construction
2. A factory - to carry out the construction
3. A controller - to ensure that the factory follows the plan
4. A duplicating machine - to transmit a copy of the blueprint to
the offspring

Consider these four components as they would apply to Lee Smolin's self-replicating cosmos. #3 & #4 are there, however the first two are missing. There is no mechanism of heredity in his theory.

If you're interested in this subject I would highly recommend a book called "Biocosm" (2003) by James N. Gardner.

Gardner puts a new a scientific theory of evolution: Intelligent life is the architect of the universe. (sounds hokey at first)

The book has been widely endorsed. Eeven if you don't buy into his theory, which is the second half of the book, the first half is all about the whole concept about a self replicating cosmos. He talks about Smolin's theory as well as others, discusses evolutionary theory, M-Theory, cosmology, etc.. A fascinating informational read.

-Hedons

[Ego Tripping]

Originally posted by snapshot182
Therefore, following that model, the 3rd dimension is just an infinitely small slice of the fourth. The word we use to describe this slice is "moment." The one you are living in right now, that not even time can measure.

Now, can you imagine the 4th dimension, time, being an infinitely small slice of the 5th? That's where the multiverse comes in. It gets very hard to explain after that, but I hope I layed some sort of foundation of where I'm coming from.

I know exactly where you are coming from and where you are going. I'm obsessed with the idea of "the moment" and "right now." We all exist in it whether we choose to or not (physically), but it's so elusive we rarely exist in it (mentally or spiritually).

[espiex]

Hmm, some great ideas coming through here.

Hedons -
I know what you mean about String theory effectively saying our observed universe couldn't be any other way. I'm very slowly coming to grips with String theory, but I'm a writer and my mathematical skills are such that I tend to go for the dummy worded-out versions of theories over the much more elegant, powerful and above all accurate mathematical versions, because I just don't get formlulas.

But anyway, two points about that argument against the anthropic principle:
One: String and other quantum theories are still just theories, however well they seem to fit the observed facts (and the emerging predicted ones).
Life has always had that rather annoying tendency to wait until we're just about to slot the last piece of the great scientific jigsaw puzzle into place, then quietly produce another big funny-shaped piece and ruin everything.
Two: Maybe we've just worked really hard to get a theory that appears to work for our universe (talking more specifically about string theory here).
As SmokeSomeDoja points out, these 'other' universes might in fact have different fundamental constants, or indeed be constructed in an entirely different way to ours. If each little bubble universe truly is independent from all the rest in the multiverse, there's just no way you could ever prove or disprove that. Just because our universe couldn't have been any other way, doesn't mean another model well beyond our human comprehension might not work.

Myself, I tend to side more towards where our human science is going with Quantum theories, as you appear to, but I'm just musing on the whole multiverse idea because it never hurts to let the mind wander. I like the anthropic principle because it's one of the few ideas you could really call self-evident. Even if our universe could only be the way it is, the fact is if it was different we just wouldn't be here to know it in our present form. Hmm, I think I'm tripping over myself here, in all senses of the word.

Kosh -
I really wish I had some pot so I could get a little further into your post! That may be remedied shortly.
But I've had a similar thought about our bouncing between 'universes' if that's what you want to call them in that idea (if, in fact, I'm reading your idea correctly). Every moment we branch into another 'universe', with every breath and thought and decision.

Snapshot182 -
Nice... I like that slices idea. Again, I possibly will need some chemical help to muse much beyond our slicing into the 4th dimension though!

[Hedons]

Espiex,

Yes, string theory is just that, a theory. Some even argue that it is not a theory in the scientific sense; that it is more of a philosophy. But we have to start somewhere and it is pretty strong nonetheless.

And yes, we can’t probe what may or may not be outside of our universe or dimension of existence.

But it is interesting to think about and to consider the possibilities. :-) The universe sure is a strange place.

-Hedons

[Papercup]

Weird, I was just reading Egger's 'You Shall Know Our Velocity', and this multiverse theory was mentioned...

[espiex]

Originally posted by Hedons
The universe sure is a strange place.

You can say that again. Appears to get weirder and weirder the closer we look, too.
Just think... we are all part of the universe. Therefore, the universe has parts that are so complicated, they are actually self-aware and can look around at the other parts in wonder. Crazy.

[Ego Tripping]

Originally posted by espiex
You can say that again. Appears to get weirder and weirder the closer we look, too.
Just think... we are all part of the universe. Therefore, the universe has parts that are so complicated, they are actually self-aware and can look around at the other parts in wonder. Crazy.

I think about that all the time. Look how insignificant (at least in size comparisons) we are to the Universe. A bunch of Carbon-Based life forms sitting on a little blue Orb trying to figure something so much far beyond any comprehension we're capable of. We're pretty unique eh?

[Hedons]

John Wheeler wrote a bit about the self aware universe concept. I find it very interesting when we consider how the very act of observing the quantum superposition of a particle collapses its wave function and defines its reality. This has also been demonstrated at the atomic and molecular levels as well.

-Hedons

[Ego Tripping]

Reality is perception of the masses.

[ContinuousBeing]

According to quantum probability theory, or at least my understanding of it, mass does not intrinsically exist, it only has tendencies to exist in certain places and states. Therefore, no one can say that mass is real, only just perceptions of the energies that exists, and no one can define the difference between so called reality and constructs created in our minds.

FOr example, almost our entire understanding of quantum fields is tied to the way in which we test and observe it. This does not lead me to believe that this is the fundamental state of things because no one has any idea whether or not the same results would be produced if an entirely different system were used to observe it. Along these lines, our minds create reality, it doesnt just exist. Or at least thats how I look at it

[Ego Tripping]

Here's another way to think of it...

You more or less are speaking of realities being subject to perception. Well, the world itself is only constructed one way, the way we see it now. Obviously it's this way because it's being percieved this way. If that's the case, who's perceiving it so it maintains this construction and familiarity? Why does the world maintain this static shape and form even when you go to sleep?

The World, the universe, our very existance, has to be percieved but a governing Body, or 'force', God, 'the all seeing eye' if you will, whatever you want to call it. We're nothing more than "it's" perception of us. At least that's my theory.

[Hedons]

Originally posted by bongobongo
hedons - I have heard about that as well, whenever anyone would look at it the object would be in a constant state, then when nothing was observing it would go all over the place. my english teacher claimed it was "proof of god"

But you look away from an object, then back at it again and it is still there.

In quantum mechanics there is a lot of question as to what qualifies an observation. In this lies a lot of the mystery.

I don't wouldn't jump to the "proof of god" conclusion. It could just as easily be a Matrix-like reality of an interchangeable universe of matter and energy. Scientists still really don't have a clue as to what gives an object mass or what about its mass causes gravity.

Lots of mysteries to be solved still.

-Hedons