PDA

View Full Version : Ep. 166: Multiverses



Fraser
2009-Dec-16, 11:50 PM
What if our universe was just one in an infinite number of parallel universes; a possible outcome from the specific predictions of quantum mechanics. The idea of multiple universes is common in science fiction, but is there any actual science to back this theory up?http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/astronomycast/~4/2_C7ZqxtQEc

More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/astronomycast/~3/2_C7ZqxtQEc/)

VARUN
2009-Dec-24, 07:48 PM
For me what makes more sense is our Universe being formed by the collision of 2 higher dimensional p branes and leading to the formation our hypertoroid shaped d brane universe....the big bang might not be a point where all our universe was concentrated but it was just the first meeting point of those two p branes and everything we see now started from there....just expanding out rather than exploding out....if this is the thing this same branes can collide at other points leading to the formation of other universes and then these branes retracting back leading to the end of that universe and colliding again...there can be other branes like these in other dimensions and they might also be colliding....strings being atached to the surface of these branes and everything wee see around are just the part of these branes and we cannot see these branes because they are `hiding` in other dimensions ....i just want to know is there any support for this idea.... ?

DrRocket
2009-Dec-25, 06:57 PM
What if our universe was just one in an infinite number of parallel universes; a possible outcome from the specific predictions of quantum mechanics. The idea of multiple universes is common in science fiction, but is there any actual science to back this theory up?http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/astronomycast/~4/2_C7ZqxtQEc

More... (http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/astronomycast/~3/2_C7ZqxtQEc/)

No, nor can there be.

The miltiverse is an interpretation of quantum mechanics due to Hugh Everett III. It makes precisely the same predictions as does quantum mechanics under the Copehagen interpretation. The two are not experimentally differentiable even in principle. There is zero communication and interaction among "multiverses".

The multiverse of Everett is not the same thing as the parallel universes of science fiction. Everett's version is not conducive to a good story and the Sci Fi version is not consistent with science.

creid
2010-Jan-18, 03:51 PM
No, nor can there be.

The miltiverse is an interpretation of quantum mechanics due to Hugh Everett III. It makes precisely the same predictions as does quantum mechanics under the Copehagen interpretation. The two are not experimentally differentiable even in principle. There is zero communication and interaction among "multiverses".

The multiverse of Everett is not the same thing as the parallel universes of science fiction. Everett's version is not conducive to a good story and the Sci Fi version is not consistent with science.

took the words right out of my mouth :lol:

ASEI
2010-Mar-12, 12:18 PM
The miltiverse is an interpretation of quantum mechanics due to Hugh Everett III. It makes precisely the same predictions as does quantum mechanics under the Copehagen interpretation. The two are not experimentally differentiable even in principle. There is zero communication and interaction among "multiverses".

I keep wondering about this though. The main difference between the two is that Everett's interpretation proposes to provide a mechanism behind decoherence, where the Copenhagen interpretation simply interrupts the quantum system periodically to impose "wavefunction collapse" - something I've never seen adequately explained within the context of the theory, and which causes all sorts of problems with locality and simultaneity.

If Everett's interpretation is true, then shouldn't there be something observable about the process of decoherence/collapse which gives it the advantage?


PS - with real physics, who needs sci fi? That stuff is positively boring, especially these days.

RussT
2010-Mar-14, 11:29 AM
No, nor can there be.

The miltiverse is an interpretation of quantum mechanics due to Hugh Everett III. It makes precisely the same predictions as does quantum mechanics under the Copehagen interpretation. The two are not experimentally differentiable even in principle. There is zero communication and interaction among "multiverses".

The multiverse of Everett is not the same thing as the parallel universes of science fiction. Everett's version is not conducive to a good story and the Sci Fi version is not consistent with science.

Dr Rocket, I am with you on this.

I used to be in favor of String/"M", but had a different take on how the 'strings' applied. Multiverse being a 'Dimensional' theory with the parallel universes/many world concept is pure Sci-Fy.

However, this statement....There is zero communication and interaction among "multiverses". ...I am not so sure about.

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=648294&postcount=66



Orginally Posted by Tim Thompson

But there is one more point. It is not true that there is no evidence for multiple universes. Dark matter & dark energy are not observed, but are rather assumed to exist, as a consequence of observation. But how do we know that dark matter & dark energy are the most suitable interpretations? What if the other universes are not so "unobservable" after all? What if we have misinterpreted the observations, and the force we interpret as "dark matter" is really gravity leaking out of the other universes, and into ours? I can readily imagine a multi-universe theory, which includes such an effect, and therefore is not simply "consistent" with observation, but actually predicts the observed effects we call dark matter & dark energy, as consequences of the communication of information between universes.

I'm not here to make a case one way or the other, but I am here to make the case that observation should constrain theories, but not imaginations. And one should not be overly impressed by the concept of "truth", or even of "reality", as it applies to a scientific theory. The one and only constraint that should apply to science at all levels is consistency. Nothing else matters.

Now, just apply Lee Smolin's "Constant at the pit of Black Holes...SMBH's" and Einstein-Rosen Bridges...with NO singularity, no 'flipping' of time and space, and NO - repelling sign, because there is no singularity...

And those "Could Be" the Huge Voids (All of the Voids,,,each Void is an E-R Bridge) between the galaxy clusters, where Lere Smolin's Constant...IE Neutrinos/ZPE Field is coming through to make our universe.

Then, the SMBH's that mainstream has not been able to figure out, 'when they become part of a galaxies life'...are the Huge Gamma Radiation Events that are seen/detected about once a day (the Long Ones 2 seconds to 500 seconds)...that makes the HI for each galaxy, one at a time.

Since...'when they (Massive Black Holes) become part of a galaxies life' is such a burning question in Cosmology, at would appear that this would at least be worth considering, Don't you think