Could Parallel Universes Really Collide?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the concept of parallel universes and the implications of their potential collisions, particularly through stable wormholes. It references the works of Steven Weinberg and David Piran, specifically their book "Quantum Cosmology and Baby Universes," to explore the complexities of energy conservation during inter-universal exchanges. The conversation concludes that the laws of conservation are uniform across universes, suggesting that any perceived collisions would not result in true loss of matter or energy, but rather a transformation within a homogenous multiverse framework.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of multiverse theory
  • Familiarity with wormhole physics
  • Knowledge of conservation laws in physics
  • Basic concepts of quantum cosmology
NEXT STEPS
  • Research "Quantum Cosmology and Baby Universes" by Weinberg and Piran
  • Study the implications of wormholes in theoretical physics
  • Explore the concept of energy conservation in multiverse scenarios
  • Investigate the nature of particle behavior in accelerators
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, cosmologists, and anyone interested in the theoretical implications of parallel universes and the nature of reality in the context of modern physics.

MathematicalPhysicist
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
4,662
Reaction score
372
If we were to take the multiverse paradigm, and there are multitude of universes which do not intersect and thus don't collide, to truly be parallel there shouldn't even be a wormhole between the universes.

Suppose that wormholes were a possibility, and they were stable, then also the possiblity of collision between parallel universes would be a possibility (like the alleged collision that should happen between the milky way and andromeda if I'm not mistaken), which makes me ponder, shouldn't we need a background also for this multiverse, what there is between these universes, are the universes dense such that the question is there something in between is meaningless?

Are there any textbooks which detail my specific connundrums, perhaps Weinberg's and Piran's: "Quantum Cosmology and baby universes"?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Another thing that popped into my head right now, is if there were other universes and there were wormholes between possible universes, then in this process objects foreign in one universe (i.e weren't detectable in it) would transfer from the foreign universe and vice versa, wouldn't this exchange violate conservation of energy, we might gain more energy in our universe in this exchange if the processes isn't symmetric, e.g we create a wormhole in the other universe in a place which has less mass from the place in our universe which we started the wormhole.
Ofcourse also particles can get lost when the link between the universes is destroyed, and then what'd be with them?
 
Parallel 'universe's colliding would be a topological change, which complicates a model; likewise for Linde's eternal chaotic universe, with budding of baby universes. Also the antithesis of quanta and manifold of our "universe', would be simply there absence; unless something ad hoc were added, like a 21th century ether.
 
But why does there need to be anything in the background for these universes to exist in? If there is a multiverse, couldn't all of them exist simultaneously? Note that in particle accelerators, when two particles are created, one disappears almost instantly. Where does it go? According to currently accepted universal laws of conservation, they can't simply have just ceased to exist, they need to exist somewhere. Also note, in these same accelerators, matter seems to pop into existence out of nowhere.

Now, take these two different events and combine them. It would appear that perhaps we are witnessing the same event from two different angles. When a particle disappears out of our universe, it appears, seamingly out of nothing, in the other universe.

The laws of conservation in the multiverse would be practically uniform across all of the various universes. In this case, no matter is truly lost, merely transported to a different area, and, being interlinked much the same way all systems on Earth are linked, there is no true loss in anyone area, since all areas are in fact, the same area. It would follow that it is our own flawed perceptions of the mechanics of the universe which leads to a perception of separate yet equal universes.
 
A parallel universe colliding with our universe would necessarily become part of our universe. This is a non starter. We live in an amazingly homogenous universe, which tends to refute the prospects of any 'collision' with parallel universes.
 
I always thought it was odd that we know dark energy expands our universe, and that we know it has been increasing over time, yet no one ever expressed a "true" size of the universe (not "observable" universe, the ENTIRE universe) by just reversing the process of expansion based on our understanding of its rate through history, to the point where everything would've been in an extremely small region. The more I've looked into it recently, I've come to find that it is due to that "inflation"...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K