The forum discussion centers on the various types of multiverses as explored in a Scientific American article. Participants express skepticism regarding the concept of infinite parallel universes, arguing that the lack of observable interaction between these universes renders the idea largely speculative. Key points include the assertion that an infinite universe would necessitate infinite energy and matter, which contradicts current understanding. Additionally, the discussion touches on Everett's theory, highlighting its philosophical implications while noting its limitations in observable results.
PREREQUISITESPhysicists, cosmologists, philosophy students, and anyone interested in the theoretical implications of multiverse theories and quantum mechanics.
Originally posted by Adam
It seems very silly to me. The idea that there is another me (a horror in itself) simply because of the presumption that "in an infinite universe there are infinite possibilities" really requires, also, an infinite amount of matter/energy to make use of possibloy infinite variation. Since there is not infinite mass/energy, the whole thing is meaningless. Or so it seems to me.
No, at least for what the article terms level 3. From my understanding of Everett's theory, the key feature of the many worlds is that after the event that created it, all the universes are self-contained and non-interacting. While the theory allows anything possible - however unlikely - to exist, it does not allow the impossible to be done. The usefulness of Everett's theory is that it allows for a philosophically more consistent replacement to the Copenhagen interpretation in solving the "Schrödinger's cat paradox". The weakness of it is that it is too similar to in terms of observable results, so little reason is given to switch to it.Originally posted by jammieg
If there were infinite parallel universes right in our vicinity with infinite you's and me's next door then one of them would eventually find a way to break through to my universe, the fact that this hasn't happened leads me to the conclusion that it is irrelevant to consider since it can't be done or that this is science fiction sensationalism.
Originally posted by Eh
An infinite universe would have an infinite amount of energy and matter.
Originally posted by FZ+
No, at least for what the article terms level 3. From my understanding of Everett's theory, the key feature of the many worlds is that after the event that created it, all the universes are self-contained and non-interacting. While the theory allows anything possible - however unlikely - to exist, it does not allow the impossible to be done. The usefulness of Everett's theory is that it allows for a philosophically more consistent replacement to the Copenhagen interpretation in solving the "Schrödinger's cat paradox". The weakness of it is that it is too similar to in terms of observable results, so little reason is given to switch to it.
Originally posted by Adam
This is no doubt based on my lack of reading in this field, but:
1) Why should there be any limit to the area of the universe?
2) Why should matter be evenly distributed? We know it isn't, simply by waving a hand around or looking up into the sky.
Originally posted by LURCH
But the theory described in the article does not appear to be Everett at all. The separate universes are proposed as extensions of a single continuum, separated merely by incredibly large distance, rather than overlapping universes separated by their different eigenstates.
Indeed. Imo its as silly as thinking that because set of integers is infinite, every integer must repeat.Originally posted by Adam
It seems very silly to me. The idea that there is another me (a horror in itself) simply because of the presumption that "in an infinite universe there are infinite possibilities" really requires, also, an infinite amount of matter/energy to make use of possibloy infinite variation.
I wonder, by equivalence principle, isn't expanding universe equivalent to shrinking matter?Originally posted by Eh
That's a common misconception. The universe is not a ball of matter expanding into infinite empty space. The space itself expands.
Originally posted by Eh
The article covered 4 different kinds of multiverses, did it not?