Jump to content

Multiverse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 96.241.54.85 (talk) at 03:28, 13 January 2012 (→Indirect evidence: this is irrelevant). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

For other uses, see Multiverse (disambiguation).
Part of a series on
Physical cosmology
Full-sky image derived from nine years' WMAP data
Early universe
Backgrounds
Expansion · Future
Components · Structure
Components
Structure
Experiments
Scientists
Subject history

The multiverse (or meta-universe, metaverse) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them. The term was coined in 1895 by the American philosopher and psychologist William James.[1] The various universes within the multiverse are sometimes called parallel universes.

The structure of the multiverse, the nature of each universe within it and the relationship between the various constituent universes, depend on the specific multiverse hypothesis considered. Multiverses have been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, religion, philosophy, transpersonal psychology and fiction, particularly in science fiction and fantasy. In these contexts, parallel universes are also called "alternative universes", "quantum universes", "interpenetrating dimensions", "parallel dimensions", "parallel worlds", "alternative realities", "alternative timelines", and "dimensional planes," among others.

Multiverse hypotheses in physics

Artistic impression of a level 2 multiverse

Tegmark's classification

Cosmologist Max Tegmark has provided a taxonomy of universes beyond the familiar observable universe. The levels according to Tegmark's classification are arranged such that subsequent levels can be understood to encompass and expand upon previous levels, and they are briefly described below. [2][3]

Level I: Beyond our cosmological horizon

A generic prediction of chaotic inflation is an infinite ergodic universe, which, being infinite, must contain Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions.

Accordingly, an infinite universe will contain an infinite number of Hubble volumes, all having the same physical laws and physical constants. In regard to configurations such as the distribution of matter, almost all will differ from our Hubble volume. However, because there are infinitely many, far beyond the cosmological horizon, there will eventually be Hubble volumes with similar, and even identical, configurations. Tegmark estimates that an identical volume to ours should be about 1010115 meters away from us.[4][5] This estimate implies use of the cosmological principle, wherein one assumes our Hubble volume is not special or unique. By extension of the same reasoning, there would, in fact, be an infinite number of Hubble volumes identical to ours in the universe.

Level II: Universes with different physical constants

"Bubble universes": every disk is a bubble universe (Universe 1 to Universe 6 are different bubbles; they have physical constants that are different from our universe); our universe is just one of the bubbles.

In the chaotic inflation theory, a variant of the cosmic inflation theory, the multiverse as a whole is stretching and will continue doing so forever, but some regions of space stop stretching and form distinct bubbles, like gas pockets in a loaf of rising bread. Such bubbles are embryonic level I multiverses. Linde and Vanchurin calculated the number of these universes to be on the scale of 101010,000,000.[6]

Different bubbles may experience different spontaneous symmetry breaking resulting in different properties such as different physical constants.[4]

This level also includes John Archibald Wheeler's oscillatory universe theory and Lee Smolin's fecund universes theory.

Level III: Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics

Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is one of several mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics. In brief, one aspect of quantum mechanics is that certain observations cannot be predicted absolutely. Instead, there is a range of possible observations, each with a different probability. According to the MWI, each of these possible observations corresponds to a different universe. Suppose a die is thrown that contains six sides and that the numeric result of the throw corresponds to a quantum mechanics observable. All six possible ways the die can fall correspond to six different universes. (More correctly, in MWI there is only a single universe but after the "split" into "many worlds" these cannot in general interact.)[7] Tegmark argues that a level III multiverse does not contain more possibilities in the Hubble volume than a level I-II multiverse. In effect, all the different "worlds" created by "splits" in a level III multiverse with the same physical constants can be found in some Hubble volume in a level I multiverse. Tegmark writes that "The only difference between Level I and Level III is where your doppelgängers reside. In Level I they live elsewhere in good old three-dimensional space. In Level III they live on another quantum branch in infinite-dimensional Hilbert space." Similarly, all level II bubble universes with different physical constants can in effect be found as "worlds" created by "splits" at the moment of spontaneous symmetry breaking in a level III multiverse.[4]

Related to the many-worlds idea are Richard Feynman's multiple histories interpretation and H. Dieter Zeh's many-minds interpretation.

Level IV: Ultimate Ensemble

The Ultimate Ensemble is the hypothesis of Tegmark himself. This level considers equally real all universes that can be described by different mathematical structures. Tegmark writes that "abstract mathematics is so general that any Theory Of Everything (TOE) that is definable in purely formal terms (independent of vague human terminology) is also a mathematical structure. For instance, a TOE involving a set of different types of entities (denoted by words, say) and relations between them (denoted by additional words) is nothing but what mathematicians call a set-theoretical model, and one can generally find a formal system that it is a model of." He argues this "implies that any conceivable parallel universe theory can be described at Level IV" and "subsumes all other ensembles, therefore brings closure to the hierarchy of multiverses, and there cannot be say a Level V."[8]

Jürgen Schmidhuber, however, says the "set of mathematical structures" is not even well-defined, and admits only universe representations describable by constructive mathematics, that is, computer programs. He explicitly includes universe representations describable by non-halting programs whose output bits converge after finite time, although the convergence time itself may not be predictable by a halting program, due to Kurt Gödel's limitations.[9][10][11] He also explicitly discusses the more restricted ensemble of quickly computable universes.[12]

Cyclic theories

Main article: Cyclic model

In several theories there is a series of infinite, self-sustaining cycles (for example: an eternity of Big Bang-Big crunches).

M-theory

See also: Introduction to M-theory, M-theory, Brane cosmology, and String theory landscape

A multiverse of a somewhat different kind has been envisaged within the multi-dimensional extension of string theory known as M-theory, also known as Membrane Theory.[13] In M-theory our universe and others are created by collisions between p-branes in a space with 11 and 26 dimensions (the number of dimensions depends on the chirality of the observer);[14][15] each universe takes the form of a D-brane.[14][15] Objects in each universe are essentially confined to the D-brane of their universe, but may be able to interact with other universes via gravity, a force which is not restricted to D-branes.[16] This is unlike the universes in the "quantum multiverse", but both concepts can operate at the same time.

Anthropic principle

Main article: Anthropic principle

The concept of other universes has been proposed to explain why our universe seems to be fine-tuned for conscious life as we experience it. If there were a large number (possibly infinite) of different physical laws (or fundamental constants) in as many universes, some of these would have laws that were suitable for stars, planets and life to exist. The weak anthropic principle could then be applied to conclude that we would only consciously exist in those universes which were finely tuned for our conscious existence. Thus, while the probability might be extremely small that there is life in most of the universes, this scarcity of life-supporting universes does not imply intelligent design as the only explanation of our existence.

Criticism

Naming

People have criticized the name "multiverse". In the July 5, 2010 episode of the Colbert Report (Episode 6088) Steven confronted his guest, Michio Kaku, on this issue. His logic was that the phrase "multiverse" is self-contradictory due to the definition of universe in the original "Greek". Colbert was slightly wrong on this: universe is a Latin term, but he was right overall as it means "entirety" [17] and it is impossible to have more than one entirety.

Non-scientific claims

In his book, A Brief History of the Multiverse, author and cosmologist, Paul Davies, offers a variety of non-scientific arguments against multiverse theories:[18]

For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith.

— Paul Davies, A Brief History of the Multiverse

Taking cosmic inflation as a popular case in point, George Ellis provides a balanced criticism of not only the science, but as he suggests, the scientific philosophy, by which multiverse theories are generally substantiated. He, himself, like most cosmologists, accept Tegmark's level I “domains”, even though they lie far beyond the cosmological horizon. Likewise, the multiverse of cosmic inflation is said to exist very far away. It would be so far away, however, that it's very unlikely any evidence of an early interaction will be found. He argues that for many theorists, the lack of empirical testability or falsifiability is not a major concern. “Many physicists who talk about the multiverse, especially advocates of the string landscape, do not care much about parallel universes per se. For them, objections to the multiverse as a concept are unimportant. Their theories live or die based on internal consistency and, one hopes, eventual laboratory testing.” Although he believes there's little hope that will ever be possible, he grants that the theories on which the speculation is based, are not without scientific merit. He concludes that multiverse theory is a “productive research program”:[19]

As skeptical as I am, I think the contemplation of the multiverse is an excellent opportunity to reflect on the nature of science and on the ultimate nature of existence: why we are here… In looking at this concept, we need an open mind, though not too open. It is a delicate path to tread. Parallel universes may or may not exist; the case is unproved. We are going to have to live with that uncertainty. Nothing is wrong with scientifically based philosophical speculation, which is what multiverse proposals are. But we should name it for what it is.

— George Ellis, Scientific American, Does the Multiverse Really Exist?

Occam's razor

See also: Kolmogorov complexity

Critics argue that to postulate a practically infinite number of unobservable universes just to explain our own seems contrary to Occam's razor.[20]

Max Tegmark answers:

"A skeptic worries about all the information necessary to specify all those unseen worlds. But an entire ensemble is often much simpler than one of its members. This principle can be stated more formally using the notion of algorithmic information content. The algorithmic information content in a number is, roughly speaking, the length of the shortest computer program that will produce that number as output. For example, consider the set of all integers. Which is simpler, the whole set or just one number? Naively, you might think that a single number is simpler, but the entire set can be generated by quite a trivial computer program, whereas a single number can be hugely long. Therefore, the whole set is actually simpler. Similarly, the set of all solutions to Einstein's field equations is simpler than a specific solution. The former is described by a few equations, whereas the latter requires the specification of vast amounts of initial data on some hypersurface. The lesson is that complexity increases when we restrict our attention to one particular element in an ensemble, thereby losing the symmetry and simplicity that were inherent in the totality of all the elements taken together. In this sense, the higher-level multiverses are simpler. Going from our universe to the Level I multiverse eliminates the need to specify initial conditions, upgrading to Level II eliminates the need to specify physical constants, and the Level IV multiverse eliminates the need to specify anything at all."

He continues:

"A common feature of all four multiverse levels is that the simplest and arguably most elegant theory involves parallel universes by default. To deny the existence of those universes, one needs to complicate the theory by adding experimentally unsupported processes and ad hoc postulates: finite space, wave function collapse and ontological asymmetry. Our judgment therefore comes down to which we find more wasteful and inelegant: many worlds or many words. Perhaps we will gradually get used to the weird ways of our cosmos and find its strangeness to be part of its charm."[4]

Multiverse hypotheses in philosophy and logic

Possible worlds are a way of explaining probability, hypothetical statements and the like, and some philosophers such as David Lewis believe that all possible worlds exist, and are just as real as the actual world (a position known as modal realism).[21]

Trans-world identity

A metaphysical issue that crops up in multiverse schema that posit infinite identical copies of any given universe is that of the notion that there can be identical objects in different possible worlds. According to the counterpart theory of David Lewis, the objects should be regarded as similar rather than identical.[22][23]

Fictional realism

The view that because fictions exist, fictional characters exist as well. There are fictional entities, in the same sense in which, setting aside philosophical disputes, there are people, Mondays, numbers and planets.[24][25]

Multiverse hypotheses in religion and spirituality

Main article: Multiverse (religion)

Cosmology in medieval Islam

Main article: Cosmology in medieval Islam

Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (1149–1209), in dealing with his conception of physics and the physical world in his Matalib al-'Aliya, criticizes the idea of the Earth's centrality within the universe and "explores the notion of the existence of a multiverse in the context of his commentary" on the Qur'anic verse, "All praise belongs to God, Lord of the Worlds." He raises the question of whether the term "worlds" in this verse refers to "multiple worlds within this single universe or cosmos, or to many other universes or a multiverse beyond this known universe."[26]

Hinduism

Main article: Hindu cosmology

The concept of multiple universes is mentioned many times in Hindu Puranic literature, such as in the Bhagavata Purana:

Because You are unlimited, neither the lords of heaven nor even You Yourself can ever reach the end of Your glories. The countless universes, each enveloped in its shell, are compelled by the wheel of time to wander within You, like particles of dust blowing about in the sky. The śrutis, following their method of eliminating everything separate from the Supreme, become successful by revealing You as their final conclusion (Bhagavata Purana 10.87.41)

Buddhism

The concept of infinite worlds is mentioned in the Apannaka Jataka:

"Disciples," the Buddha said "nowhere between the lowest of hells below and the highest heaven above, nowhere in all the infinite worlds that stretch right and left, is there the equal, much less the superior, of a Buddha. Incalculable is the excellence which springs from obeying the Precepts and from other virtuous conduct." - Apannaka Jataka

New Age

The philosopher and forerunner of the New Age movement P. D. Ouspensky stated in 1934:

"Our mind follows the development of possibilities always in one direction only. But in fact every moment contains a very large number of possibilities. And all of them are actualised, only we do not see it and do not know it. We always see only one of the actualisations, and in this lie the poverty and limitation of the human mind. But if we try to imagine the actualisation of all the possibilities of the present moment, then of the next moment, and so on, we shall feel the world growing infinitely, incessantly multiplying by itself and becoming immeasurably rich and utterly unlike the flat and limited world we have pictured to ourselves up to this moment." [27]

Planes of existence

Main article: Plane (esotericism)

Certain religions and esoteric cosmologies propound the idea of a whole series of subtle emanated planes or worlds.

Afterlife

Many religions include an afterlife existence in realms, such as heavens and hells, which may be very different from the observable universe.

Eschatology

See also: End time

Eschatological scenarios may include a new different world after the end time of the current one. For example, Hindu cosmology includes the idea of an infinite cycle of births and deaths and an infinite number of universes with each cycle lasting 8.4 billion years.[28]

Similar eschatological scenarios appear in other religions, in the form of belief in there being a new and different world after the end time of the current one.

See also

References

Notes

  1. ^ James, William, The Will to Believe, 1895; and earlier in 1895, as cited in OED's new 2003 entry for "multiverse": "1895 W. JAMES in Internat. Jrnl. Ethics 6 10. Visible nature is all plasticity and indifference, a multiverse, as one might call it, and not a universe."
  2. ^ Tegmark, Max (2003). "Parallel Universes". Scientific American. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  3. ^ Tegmark, Max (2003). Parallel Universes (PDF). Retrieved 2006-02-07. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  4. ^ a b c d "Parallel universes. Not just a staple of science fiction, other universes are a direct implication of cosmological observations.", Tegmark M., Sci Am. 2003 May;288(5):40-51.
  5. ^ Max Tegmark (2003). "Parallel Universes". In "Science and Ultimate Reality: from Quantum to Cosmos", honoring John Wheeler's 90th birthday. J. D. Barrow, P.C.W. Davies, & C.L. Harper eds. Cambridge University Press (2003). arXiv:astro-ph/0302131. Bibcode:2003astro.ph..2131T.
  6. ^ Zyga, Lisa "Physicists Calculate Number of Parallel Universes", PhysOrg, 16 October 2009.
  7. ^ Tegmark, Max, The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Many Worlds or Many Words?, 1998. Deutsch, David, David Deutsch's Many Worlds, Frontiers, 1998.
  8. ^ Tegmark, Max (2003). Parallel Universes (PDF). Retrieved 2006-02-07. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) (PDF).
  9. ^ J. Schmidhuber (1997): A Computer Scientist's View of Life, the Universe, and Everything. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 201-208, Springer: IDSIA - Dalle Molle Institute for Artificial Intelligence
  10. ^ J. Schmidhuber (2000): Algorithmic Theories of Everything arXiv.org e-Print archive
  11. ^ J. Schmidhuber (2002): Hierarchies of generalized Kolmogorov complexities and nonenumerable universal measures computable in the limit. International Journal of Foundations of Computer Science 13(4):587-612 IDSIA - Dalle Molle Institute for Artificial Intelligence
  12. ^ J. Schmidhuber (2002): The Speed Prior: A New Simplicity Measure Yielding Near-Optimal Computable Predictions. Proc. 15th Annual Conference on Computational Learning Theory (COLT 2002), Sydney, Australia, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 216-228. Springer: IDSIA - Dalle Molle Institute for Artificial Intelligence
  13. ^ Steven Weinberg(2005)"Living in the Multiverse"
  14. ^ a b Richard J Szabo, An introduction to string theory and D-brane dynamics (2004)
  15. ^ a b Maurizio Gasperini, Elements of String Cosmology (2007)
  16. ^ Paul Halpern, The Great Beyond, 2005
  17. ^ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/universe
  18. ^ Paul Davies (12 April 2003). "A Brief History of the Multiverse". New York Times. Retrieved 16 August 2011.
  19. ^ George Ellis (2011). "Does the Multiverse Really Exist?". Scientific American. 305 (2): 38–43. Retrieved 16 August 2011.
  20. ^ Trinh, Xuan Thuan (2006). Staune, Jean (ed.). Science & the Search for Meaning: Perspectives from International Scientists. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation. p. 186. ISBN 1599471027.
  21. ^ Lewis, David (1986). On the Plurality of Worlds. Basil Blackwell. ISBN 0631224262.
  22. ^ Deutsch, Harry, "Relative Identity", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer '02), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
  23. ^ Paul B. Kantor "The Interpretation of Cultures and Possible Worlds", 1 October 2002
  24. ^ IngentaConnect Home
  25. ^ The Australian National University
  26. ^ Adi Setia (2004), "Fakhr Al-Din Al-Razi on Physics and the Nature of the Physical World: A Preliminary Survey", Islam & Science, 2, retrieved 2010-03-02
  27. ^ Ouspensky, P. D. (1934). A New Model of the Universe: Principles of the Psychological Method in Its Application to Problems of Science, Religion and Art (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
  28. ^ Carl Sagan, Placido P D'Souza (1980s). Hindu cosmology's time-scale for the universe is in consonance with modern science.; Dick Teresi (2002). Lost Discoveries: The Ancient Roots of Modern Science – from the Babylonians to the Maya.

Bibliography

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multiverse&oldid=471079479"