Is the Multiverse Theory Changing Our Understanding of Cosmology?

[Otherkin]

I really know nothing whatsoever about cosmology although I find it very interesting. It seems that a lot of physicists nowadays reckon there's a multiverse. I don't particularly want there to be a multiverse. WHAT DO YOU FOLKS THINK. Also, if there was a multiverse, would the laws of physics be the same for all of the universes? And would every single possibility be actually occurring in some universe out there? Like, in one universe am I being cut into bits from the toes up without anaesthetic and then having my body regenerated by some piece of advanced technology and then being cut up again OVER AND OVER FOREVER? All the while having faeces smeared in my face?

 

[Chronos]

The problem with multiverses is we cannot observe them. So yes, you may be getting run through a wood chipper, resurrected and recycled in another universe. Fortunately, you can never observe this happening to yourself in this universe.

 

[Chalnoth]

I don't particularly want there to be a multiverse.

Well, the universe doesn't much care what you or I or anybody else wants.

Three points:
1. The universe is big, much bigger than what we can observe. It is very likely absurdly, unbelievably larger. We know it has to be much bigger than the part of it we can observe because the universe we observe is very, very uniform: if the universe weren't much bigger than what we can see, then we should see some sort of change in the universe as it approaches this boundary. But we don't, so we expect it must be vastly larger.

2. Our understanding of high-energy physics indicates that at least part of the laws of physics which we are familiar with isn't fundamental, but was rather determined at random early in our region of the universe. If this is the case, which seems very likely today (and is something which the LHC may provide further insights into), then it stands to reason that regions of the universe far away from our own will have different laws of physics in operation at low energies.

Note that in this scenario everything would still be based upon the same underlying laws of physics. But the behavior of objects at low energies (such as we experience) would be very, very different, due to these different events in these regions' pasts.

3. I see no reason to expect that the laws of the universe should be such that life must be possible. So it is philosophically appealing, to me, that the universe is big and variable and mostly devoid of life. We know this is true within our own universe. It seems natural to expect that this is also likely the case between widely-disconnected regions of the universe as well: some parts will be capable of supporting life. Most won't. Unfortunately this particular argument is very weak, much weaker than the above two, because we don't actually know what laws of physics are possible, let alone their relative probabilities, so we can't actually say with any certainty exactly how likely life is.

And would every single possibility be actually occurring in some universe out there? Like, in one universe am I being cut into bits from the toes up without anaesthetic and then having my body regenerated by some piece of advanced technology and then being cut up again OVER AND OVER FOREVER? All the while having faeces smeared in my face?

This is a somewhat different idea, that of the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, an interpretation that is almost certainly accurate. However, it appears you are misunderstanding its implications somewhat. The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics does not say, "anything and everything happens," it rather says, "lots of stuff happens." That's a big difference. First, the impossible never happens. It isn't necessarily the case that everything we can imagine actually turns out to be possible. Second, the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is a fully-deterministic theory: everything is a component of the same wavefunction that is just evolving through time.

The world we observe is one component of said wave function, and there are other components that represent other worlds, some similar, some very different. It is difficult to say a priori what is or is not happening in those other worlds, so we can't say, for instance, whether or not there's a world out there where it turns out that I am having sex multiple times a day every day and loving every minute of it. That's certainly not my life in this world. And even if there is a world out there where something like that is happening, would that person's life be so different from mine that they could even count as being "me" at all?

 

[edgepflow]

Just to add a little bit to the many things happening in a multiverse.

The number of things that may happen in the multiverse may be infinite but still not include "everything that can happen." Consider an infinite sequence of odd numbers:
1, 3, 5, 7... to infinity. This sequence is infinite but not every number is included.

 

[Chalnoth]

Just to add a little bit to the many things happening in a multiverse.

The number of things that may happen in the multiverse may be infinite but still not include "everything that can happen." Consider an infinite sequence of odd numbers:
1, 3, 5, 7... to infinity. This sequence is infinite but not every number is included.

Yup. And "everything that we might possibly imagine" also doesn't even constitute everything that can possibly happen. There are lots of things that we can imagine that are quite impossible.

 

[Chronos]

Consider, however, our universe is so vast that just about everything physically possible has probably occurred at some point in its history. This is not to say that other universes could not have different laws of physics. I doubt, however, such universes are viable. Tweak a few properties of this universe and it either flash fries almost immediately after forming, or never burns at all.

 

[Austin0]

=Chalnoth;2308696]Well, the universe doesn't much care what you or I or anybody else wants

.

A hearty second on that viewpoint.

Three points:
1. The universe is big, much bigger than what we can observe. It is very likely absurdly, unbelievably larger. We know it has to be much bigger than the part of it we can observe because the universe we observe is very, very uniform: if the universe weren't much bigger than what we can see, then we should see some sort of change in the universe as it approaches this boundary. But we don't, so we expect it must be vastly larger.

How is it that cosmologists have come out with various quantitative calculations of the overall mass? And decided that a universe which may be absurdly bigger still doesn't have enough in it and needs a transfusion of hypothetical invisible mass??
I thought the current view was that we don't see a difference because the space itself was dimensionally convoluted [i should say inconceivably convoluted] and without any boundary?


The world we observe is one component of said wave function, and there are other components that represent other worlds, some similar, some very different. It is difficult to say a priori what is or is not happening in those other worlds, so we can't say, for instance, whether or not there's a world out there where it turns out that I am having sex multiple times a day every day and loving every minute of it. That's certainly not my life in this world. And even if there is a world out there where something like that is happening, would that person's life be so different from mine that they could even count as being "me" at all?[/QUOTE]

Well you might be missing some good sex but at least you won't be getting stuck with their bills.

 

[Chalnoth]

How is it that cosmologists have come out with various quantitative calculations of the overall mass? And decided that a universe which may be absurdly bigger still doesn't have enough in it and needs a transfusion of hypothetical invisible mass??

The two ideas have nothing to do with one another. The invisible mass comes from the fact that we see lots of mass out there (from the orbits of stars in galaxies, from the orbits of galaxies in galaxy clusters, from the deflection of light, from the behavior of matter early in the universe, and from the relationship between structures in the early universe and those in the late universe). In short, dark matter comes about because we see copious amounts of evidence for it.

And by the way, invisible mass isn't such a strange thing in physics. Neutrinos have mass and are quite invisible (they don't interact electromagnetically). They can't make up the dark matter, because they don't have enough mass. But all we need is another neutrino-like particle with more mass, and the dark matter is explained.

I thought the current view was that we don't see a difference because the space itself was dimensionally convoluted [i should say inconceivably convoluted] and without any boundary?

I have no idea what you're talking about here. Dimensionally convoluted? What do you mean by that?

As for a boundary, we don't know. Certainly there is no boundary nearby.

 

[zapher134]

I believe both the multiverse and that everything and anything must happen are not real but artificial problems that arise due to the nature of our symbol systems. *For example, in phyisics, we often can arrive at the correct answer in at least two ways, however we throw out the nonsensical answer, having a negative mass at a negative speed for example, though we can imagine it, we understand it may not exist in actuality. In the same way our minds can imagine the infinate producing infinate occurances and think nihilistically that nothing matters as everything must occur. *However, nothing could be further from the truth. *Though we can imagine anything, even impossibilities, evolution will rule them out in actuality. *Further, as our imaginary Universe expands, the possible variations expand even faster, meaning that though some things may indeed occur repeatedly, an exponetially larger number will not. *Finally, since Actuality destroys the past to make the future, what actually is is always much smaller than what has already occurred, only preserved though in our symbol systems. So, anything can exist, but only in your mind, and in actuality many things may repeat, hopefully they are the good things. Let's make it so.*What we do does make a difference.

 

[Tanelorn]

I agree with a Multiverse of observable universes if that is the right word. I have trouble with them having different laws of Physics, I would like to learn more about that. We could also argue that the universes of the past present and future are so different as to be different universes where different things are possible.

I don't think it is worth stating that the Universe cares about anything any more than the stone at the bottom of the my garden caring or the 2nd law of thermodynamics giving a toss. I suppose it might not be obvious to some though.

 

[cephron]

As for a boundary, we don't know. Certainly there is no boundary nearby.

Hey Chalnoth, I was under the impression (From the FAQ, and from recent discussion here) that according to current models, the universe would have no boundaries even if it were finite, but rather "wrap back in on itself" 3-sphere style (corresponding to "positive spatial curvature"). So, for clarity, is it certain that there are no boundaries, or do you mean it when you say, "we don't know", and would a bounded finite universe be consistent with current models? Thanks!

 

[Cosmo Novice]

Hey Chalnoth, I was under the impression (From the FAQ, and from recent discussion here) that according to current models, the universe would have no boundaries even if it were finite, but rather "wrap back in on itself" 3-sphere style (corresponding to "positive spatial curvature"). So, for clarity, is it certain that there are no boundaries, or do you mean it when you say, "we don't know", and would a bounded finite universe be consistent with current models? Thanks!

From my understanding it is pretty clear there are no physical boundaries even given a finite model. A boundary would also need to include a center and this would invalidate the key principles of isotropy and homogeneity.

There is an edge to the universe in a sense: a temporal edge, and this is wherever you stand you are at the temporal edge (the furthest time away from the BB).

You are quite correct in assuming no spatial edge and that finite models are structured in such a topological way to not invalidate this core principle.

 

[Chalnoth]

Hey Chalnoth, I was under the impression (From the FAQ, and from recent discussion here) that according to current models, the universe would have no boundaries even if it were finite, but rather "wrap back in on itself" 3-sphere style (corresponding to "positive spatial curvature"). So, for clarity, is it certain that there are no boundaries, or do you mean it when you say, "we don't know", and would a bounded finite universe be consistent with current models? Thanks!

Well, I don't know of a way to completely rule out the concept of some sort of boundary, especially if we are rather vague as to what we mean by the boundary. It is certainly true that we don't observe any boundary. And it is also true that it isn't something that we can describe in our equations just yet (so far as I am aware). But just because we can't describe it mathematically just yet doesn't necessarily mean it can't exist. How likely it is, then, just depends upon what you think, "have a hard time describing it in the mathematics," means.

Finally, as to Cosmo Novice's statement about homogeneity and isotropy, the fact of the matter is that these assumptions are known to be not completely accurate. They are approximations to the true behavior, and we know that these assumptions break down on small scales. It is entirely conceivable that they also break down on scales much larger than the cosmological horizon.

 

[Cosmo Novice]

Finally, as to Cosmo Novice's statement about homogeneity and isotropy, the fact of the matter is that these assumptions are known to be not completely accurate. They are approximations to the true behavior, and we know that these assumptions break down on small scales. It is entirely conceivable that they also break down on scales much larger than the cosmological horizon.

I can concede that they are assumptions, the difficulty is obtaining a burden of proof. If we proved space was anisotropic then job done, while the sizeable chunk we see is isotropic there will likely always be more to see and so the concept of isotropy can never be fully established.

That being said I think the empirical evidence and the sizeable chunk of homogenous U we can see gives a good indication of this being a cornerstone cosmological principle.

Chalnoth I am interested so can you please give further information on how "we know that these assumptions break down on small scales"?

Cosmo

 

[Chalnoth]

Chalnoth I am interested so can you please give further information on how "we know that these assumptions break down on small scales"?

The Earth itself is proof of this. Things look differently when we look in the direction of the Sun, and when we look away from it (because the Sun is pretty darned bright). And the Earth is a heck of a lot more dense than the space that surrounds it. So clearly both homogeneity and isotropy break down at small scales.

 

[Cosmo Novice]

The Earth itself is proof of this. Things look differently when we look in the direction of the Sun, and when we look away from it (because the Sun is pretty darned bright). And the Earth is a heck of a lot more dense than the space that surrounds it. So clearly both homogeneity and isotropy break down at small scales.

I thought you were reffering to things smaller than this!

I thought this was the point though - isotropy and homogoneity exclude local variance - so yes individual galaxies may look different, clusters and superclusters etc. Overall as a whole though the OU complies with the principle of isotropy and the geometric expansion due to the scale factor being the mechanism that moderates said isotropy. As long as the scale factor is uniform which we know it is, then I am failing to see how larger scales will be anisotropic, in fact I would expect the MORE Universe we take into consideration then the more isotropic U would be. Evidence from this is seen in the 1/1000 uniformity of the CMB?

As always anything I have misunderstood I am welcome to correction.

Cosmo

 

[cephron]

Well, I don't know of a way to completely rule out the concept of some sort of boundary, especially if we are rather vague as to what we mean by the boundary. It is certainly true that we don't observe any boundary. And it is also true that it isn't something that we can describe in our equations just yet (so far as I am aware). But just because we can't describe it mathematically just yet doesn't necessarily mean it can't exist. How likely it is, then, just depends upon what you think, "have a hard time describing it in the mathematics," means.

@Chalnoth: thanks, that's helpful to know.

Perhaps slightly more on-topic; here's something I've been wondering. Do any of the multiverse models propose ways in which any other universes are actually observable? Do any of the multiverse models make falsifiable predictions? Because I haven't heard of any of these yet, I have always thought that the multiverse hypothesis was just a god-of-the-gaps sort of explanation for the "fine-tuning" of the cosmological constants in this universe. Am I wrong?

 

[Chalnoth]

@Chalnoth: thanks, that's helpful to know.

Perhaps slightly more on-topic; here's something I've been wondering. Do any of the multiverse models propose ways in which any other universes are actually observable? Do any of the multiverse models make falsifiable predictions? Because I haven't heard of any of these yet, I have always thought that the multiverse hypothesis was just a god-of-the-gaps sort of explanation for the "fine-tuning" of the cosmological constants in this universe. Am I wrong?

Yes. See here, for example: http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0007

Basically, in eternal inflation, there are "bubbles" of universes with different physical laws produced all the time, and collisions between these regions could potentially be observable in the CMB.

 

[Chalnoth]

I thought you were reffering to things smaller than this!

I thought this was the point though - isotropy and homogoneity exclude local variance - so yes individual galaxies may look different, clusters and superclusters etc. Overall as a whole though the OU complies with the principle of isotropy and the geometric expansion due to the scale factor being the mechanism that moderates said isotropy. As long as the scale factor is uniform which we know it is, then I am failing to see how larger scales will be anisotropic, in fact I would expect the MORE Universe we take into consideration then the more isotropic U would be. Evidence from this is seen in the 1/1000 uniformity of the CMB?

As always anything I have misunderstood I am welcome to correction.

Cosmo

Bear in mind that the differences from homogeneity and isotropy exist on all scales. The statement that our universe is homogeneous and isotropic is a statistical statement, which is another way of saying it's an approximation.

But just fyi, once you remove the dipole of the CMB (which is mostly due to our motion), the CMB is uniform to about one part in 100,000.

 

[Mind Bender]

I have always found Multiverse theories to be fascinating! Personally I think there is some truth to the many-worlds interpretation...every event has an infinite number of probable outcomes. Each of these outcomes really do manifest...just not in a single Universe. For example, suppose the Nazis had developed nuclear weapons before the United States did? In an alternate/parallel Universe the Nazis, did in fact, develop nuclear weapons first and conquered most of the world.

 

[Chronos]

There is no compelling observational evidence of other 'universes'. Most rational theories that propose such a thing admit the idea is inherently unprovable.

 

[skydivephil]

Its important to distinguish the mulitverse that follows from eternal inflation and the many worlds interpretation of Qm. These are generally considered (apart from some recent talk of a link through holography) separate ideas.
The multiverse of eternal inflation arises from the idea that the universe found itself in a state that exponentially expands , as it does so it decays creating a "pocket universe". But the remaining material is exponentially expanding, so that in the next half life there is not less of the original material as in a normal decay process. Hence the process is eternal conitnually creating "pocket universes". As has been pointed there has been the possibility of testing this idea with observations of the CMB. Read here for a laymans guide to how this might be done:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2010/12/22/observing-the-multiverse-guest-post/

Im not aware of any suggestion of how one might test the many worlds interpretation of QM.

Another important point, the multiverse of eternal inflation arose as a consequence of normal inflation. Normal inflation according to Guth was a consequence of trying to solve the monopole problem. So ,no, it was not created as a way of solving any issue with fine tuning of various constants. Although ironically inflation was immediatlely shown to solve the fine tuning of one constant, Omega, but not via creating a multiverse, this wasnt realized until later. Most of the supporters of inflation: Guth, Vilnekin, Linde etc and its detractors Turok, Steindhart etc agree that inflation produces a multiverse. In this sense the mutliverse is not a theory its a proposed consequecne of a theory: inflation. I would highly reccomend this article:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0702178
or reading Guths book for a historical account of how the theory came about .
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0201328402/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[Cosmo Novice]

Bear in mind that the differences from homogeneity and isotropy exist on all scales. The statement that our universe is homogeneous and isotropic is a statistical statement, which is another way of saying it's an approximation.

But just fyi, once you remove the dipole of the CMB (which is mostly due to our motion), the CMB is uniform to about one part in 100,000.

Ok I see what you are saying.

Thanks for the information Chalnoth.

 

[Chalnoth]

A model which, at the expense of some of our inherited anthropocentric conceits, conforms to the principle of parsimony and also circumvents the notions of "intelligent design" which derive from the hearsay of superstitious mythology.

Such a model would be neat, but there is no evidence whatsoever that any such model exists. Until we have good evidence in support of such a model, the default assumption should absolutely be a model which predicts a proliferation of universes.

 

[PeterKinnon]

Such a model would be neat, but there is no evidence whatsoever that any such model exists. Until we have good evidence in support of such a model, the default assumption should absolutely be a model which predicts a proliferation of universes.

Before affirming that no such model exists you should perhaps take the trouble to read the book that presents it. Or are you saying the book does not exist?

The model, and its evidential basis is outlined therein. It exists.

Whether it corresponds to a plausible interpretation of reality is a different matter.

That is for the reader to form his/her own conclusions.

It does not, by the way, preclude a multiverse scenario. Indeed, I happen to intuitively favour a particular version. But like all the others, it is pure speculation

 

[Chalnoth]

Before affirming that no such model exists you should perhaps take the trouble to read the book that presents it. Or are you saying the book does not exist?

The model, and its evidential basis is outlined therein. It exists.

Books are not where scientific results are published.

 

[PeterKinnon]

The multiverse concept and dark energy/matter are certainly NOT scientific results.

Along with the model presented in my book they are interpretations.

Except that, for my model , I use well-established principles from fields such biology and chemistry rather than the more tenuous observations of cosmology.

 

[Chalnoth]

The multiverse concept and dark energy/matter are certainly NOT scientific results.

Along with the model presented in my book they are interpretations.

*sigh*

Every result in science is an interpretation. We accept a model, such as the electron, as likely to be true when it matches with a wide body of diverse evidence.

Except that, for my model , I use well-established principles from fields such biology and chemistry rather than the more tenuous observations of cosmology.

That's just sad.

 

[marcus]

I glanced at this thread just briefly, not enough to join discussion. But want to make a comment.
Skydivephil makes a lot of good points in his cosmology forum posts but I think he is only partially right in something here.

He says "multiverse is a logical consequence of inflation". That's not true for inflation itself, but for a lame idea of an inflation mechanism.

Inflation happens normally in Loop cosmology without assuming any "quantum fluctuations" or other leaps of faith that are then hard to turn off or get rid of.

In that context there is no reason for inflation to be eternal or chaotic or happen repeatedly. It is just something that happens (under fairly mild assumptions) in connection with a particular quantum relativistic collapse and rebound.

It can be treated as a one-time process that is part of a one-time bounce. No need to go beyond that into grandiose realms of untestable fantasy. In Loop context, adequate one-time inflation is mundane and robust. The physics of the bounce itself sets it up and triggers it.

It's when you don't have a simple straightforward explanation for adequate inflation at the start of expansion, that you have to invoke leap-of-faith explanations that then will not stop producing universes. This then becomes an embarrassment, as in the Sorcerer's Apprentice story where the magic keeps on fetching water far beyond what is wanted or relevant to the problem.

 

[Chronos]

I prefer models that model observation . . . Such as this universe. That is not speculative, it is observationally supported.

 

[skydivephil]

Just to clarify what I said was :

"In this sense the mutliverse is not a theory its a proposed consequecne of a theory: inflation. I would highly reccomend this article:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0702178
or reading Guths book for a historical account of how the theory came about .
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0201328402/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I also said eternal inflation arises from normal inflation. I didnt mean to imply this was the only the logical cosequence of inflation and if I gave that impression I apologise. Thast why I like the phrase "a proposed consequecne of a theory". What I meant was the idea of a mutlvierse arises from a certain approach to analysing what inflation implies. Its not something that was simply invented to get rid of fine tuning problems which was what was being claimed. That approach is outlined by Guth in the links above. Whether he's right, I have no opinion.

As fas as LQC being incompatible with eternal inflation. I didnt find any papers on this. I did write to Martin Bojowald (for those that don't know, he wrote one of the first papers on the LQC bounce and the popular article that made the front cover of Scientific American )about it and you may find his reply ineteresting.
He said "LQC is consistent with eternal infaltion...combining eternal inflation with LQC has not been done in detail yet becuase it is technically complicated, but conceptually you would get a picture in which there is a bounce leading from collapse to expansion, followed by several phases of inflation in the expanding branch".

Of course that's just one man's opinion. So if you could link to anything that opposes that view, I would welcome any material you may have.

 

[marcus]

Phil, I have trouble with some of the language. So I will quote some of the language in your post and try to sort out and respond.

Just to clarify what I said was :

"In this sense the mutliverse is not a theory its a proposed consequecne of a theory: inflation...
I also said eternal inflation arises from normal inflation. I didnt mean to imply this was the only the logical cosequence of inflation ...What I meant was the idea of a mutlvierse arises from a certain approach to analysing what inflation implies...

As fas as LQC being incompatible with eternal inflation. ...
He said "LQC is consistent with eternal infaltion...
...

I hope you realize I did not say LQC was incompatible with some inflation scenario.

We have to distinguish carefully between being consistent with and implying.

If the LQC bounce implies some X as a consequence then if have the bounce then you have to have X.

If LQC bounce is merely consistent with some Z it merely means it doesn't rule out the possi bility. If you have the bounce it doesn't prevent the possibility that, under whatever additional assumptions are necessary, Z might happen. In other words it is not incompatible with Z. That does not mean that LQC implies Z.

 

[George Jones]

Please keep religious discussion, either pro or con, out of all posts in this thread, and out of all posts in the science forums at Physics Forums.

 

[Tanelorn]

Please keep religious discussion, either pro or con, out of all posts in this thread, and out of all posts in the science forums at Physics Forums.

George, sorry I will comply with the rules. In haste I was trying to recall Hawking's arguments with reference to reasons why a Multiverse might be a possibility.
Just to be clear does this also include terms like "creator"? etc.

I think you might have to delete a lot more posts though - about 118!
https://www.physicsforums.com/search.php?searchid=2986718

 

[skydivephil]

Phil, I have trouble with some of the language. So I will quote some of the language in your post and try to sort out and respond.


I hope you realize I did not say LQC was incompatible with some inflation scenario.

We have to distinguish carefully between being consistent with and implying."
-----------
Yes that's make a lot of sense. I relaise that being compatible with and implying are not the same, very good point as always.
My personal worry would be that if eternal inflation and LQC are both true, and I recognise this is a big if, that might remove the bounce from detectability. Do you agree this is correct or have I misunderstood?

 

[marcus]

...
My personal worry would be that if eternal inflation and LQC are both true, and I recognise this is a big if, that might remove the bounce from detectability. Do you agree this is correct or have I misunderstood?

I think you are right about that. Can't speak with much confidence about the such inflation scenarios so I have to emphasize that I just suspect that's right, without feeling sure.

In practical research community terms the main issue is what was the immediate cause of the big bang or as I prefer to say the immediate cause of the start of expansion.

Regarding that question "a random quantum fluctuation in some unknown physics" and "LQG bounce" are two competing answers. In a practical, immediate problem sense, I mean.

LQG is comparatively mundane unexotic and I expect in the near/medium term they'll be looking for signs of it having happened. If they see signs then research time and money will go more into studying that, with less interest in eternal inflation.

On the other hand if they don't see signs of bounce having happened then I would expect interest in Loop cosmology and perhaps LQG as a whole to wane. With more active interest in some random quantum fluctuation as a trigger for expansion.

 

[marcus]

If you accept what Ashtekar says about the enhanced liklihood of sufficient ordinary inflation in the Loop case then the usual support for "Eternal Inflation" is flawed. There is much less reason to be interested in it, beyond inherent fantasy-appeal of the the grandiose vision.

Specifically, sufficient means 60 e-folds--to produce the observed uniformity. The usual argument is basically one of desperation: "we can't think of any normal physics mechanism for inflation to get started, and then continue 60 e-folds, and then stop!" But Ashtekar can. (Loop is comparatively mundane, you quantize and go with established cosmology. I might say it is no more than a "hop" of faith.)

Once you posit some exotic leap-of-faith mechanisms you see stuff happening like eternal inflation. Support for eternal inflation depends on not being able to think of any other way that an adequate inflation episode could have started and then turned off.

It looks to me like some of these guys with exotic brane-clash and multiverse ideas have vested interest in ignoring simple answers--which threaten the raison d'être for some unnecessarily elaborate pet constructs.

You saw what happened at the end of Neil Turok's talk---we discussed this earlier. I'll get the link in case anyone else wants to check it out. It was the opening talk at a Perimeter conference he and some other people organized on "Challenges for Early Universe Cosmology"
http://pirsa.org/11070044/
Overview of the Challenges
Neil Turok
12/07/2011 - 9:00 am

The video lasts 1 hour 10 minutes and Elena's comment about the Ashtekar Sloan work starts right about 1 hour 7 minutes. You can of course drag the button to just hear the last 3 minutes. But the talk is interesting overall--especially the comments from the audience---Leonard Susskind, Sean Carroll etc etc. IIRC this starts around minute 55.

At this point Turok has his summary slide up. The challenges he identifies are:
Singularity
Tuning [in particular to get inflation which continues long enough and then turns off]
Reliance on anthropics
Measure
Several audience comments stressed challenges related to entropy: "2nd law" paradoxes.

I'm not suggesting one should take this talk as actually authoritative/representative about early universe cosmology. Neil, Lenny, Sean, Lindei, Vilenkin...etc are vocal but they are not currently writing a lot of papers or getting cited very much. I think it is a subcommunity which may be feeling a bit on the defensive at present. The interesting part is to see what arguments they have organized to justify this collection of ideas.

 

[eloheim]

Aren't there some Anthropic Principle-related suggestions for the Multiverse? Like one would expect the values of any natural "constants" vital to intelligent life to be only barely deviant from typical. Basically, assuming that a universe fit for life will need to be more picky about them than otherwise, finding we live in a "1-in-a-trillion" universe when there are a "million-in-a-trillion" other ways (universes) that allow for life would make our theories on such things seem very unlikely to be true.

Does anyone have a good understanding of if we have any indications on this for our values (universe), or even any notions of what kind of values we should be looking at?

 

[Deuterium2H]

Please keep religious discussion, either pro or con, out of all posts in this thread, and out of all posts in the science forums at Physics Forums.

Hi George,

Not saying you don't...but I hope you are just as strong in your advice when it comes to the opposite scenario. For example, Hawking's fervent insistence that our Universe does not need or require a "Creator", is just as much a metaphysical and philosophical position (and as such, is outside the bounds of "Science) as those who posit some sort of Intelligent Creator behind it all.

In either case, we are stepping outside "Science", and what can be tested and potentially falsified. If Religion has no place in the discussion of the origin of the Universe, neither does the speculative metaphysics of a "cyclic" universe, or even a "multiverse" for that matter, IMHO.

 

[jdm1001]

Sorry everyone, I had not intention to create a discussion on determining the what the un-caused, cause is. It is absolutely imperative that faith in science must be supported by observations and known facts. All I wanted to do is show how the study of the un-caused cause and the study of the unknown are rapidly merging into the one in the same.

 

[juanrga]

I really know nothing whatsoever about cosmology although I find it very interesting. It seems that a lot of physicists nowadays reckon there's a multiverse. I don't particularly want there to be a multiverse. WHAT DO YOU FOLKS THINK. Also, if there was a multiverse, would the laws of physics be the same for all of the universes? And would every single possibility be actually occurring in some universe out there? Like, in one universe am I being cut into bits from the toes up without anaesthetic and then having my body regenerated by some piece of advanced technology and then being cut up again OVER AND OVER FOREVER? All the while having faeces smeared in my face?

Multiverse is a non-scientific hypothesis.

 

[Chalnoth]

Multiverse is a non-scientific hypothesis.

Completely and utterly false. Try again.

 

[juanrga]

Completely and utterly false. Try again.

Multiverse is a non-scientific hypothesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Criticisms

 

[Chalnoth]

Multiverse is a non-scientific hypothesis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Criticisms

Noting that some people say that doesn't actually make it true. Back in here in reality, it is very much a scientific hypothesis. For example:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0007

 

[juanrga]

Noting that some people say that doesn't actually make it true. Back in here in reality, it is very much a scientific hypothesis. For example:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0007

My original statement remains unchanged

 

[otherme]

Hi, I'm new here and don't pretend to understand very much of what's being said but physics fascinates me. Multiverse theory fascinates me. And, as with all sciences, don't you start with a postulate then go about proving or disproving that postulate. Something like multverse and M theory would be, I would imagine, very difficult to prove one way or the other. From my understanding, universes are close to, connected and sometimes intertwine each other - or so the theory goes. I should say - a theory goes, as there are so many. Like I said, I don't understand much but find it all fascinating. I feel there is something more than what we see with our eyes.

 

[rbj]

I agree with a Multiverse of observable universes if that is the right word. I have trouble with them having different laws of Physics,

i think the idea is that they might have different fundamental constants than our universe.

in my opinion, the concept of the Multiverse was cooked up so that the (weak) Anthropic principle would be able to explain away any teleological argument about the existence of God. if there are many, many other universes, some might be life friendly and some not. and it's an example of selection bias that we find ourselves in a universe that is life friendly.

 

[rbj]

Completely and utterly false. Try again.

So when you show me an experiment that will test and falsify the existence of some other universe, I'll show you an experiment that will do the same regarding God. Wanna see my God-measuring device?

Chalnoth, your belief, and that is all it is, is unscientific.

 

[Chalnoth]

i think the idea is that they might have different fundamental constants than our universe.

in my opinion, the concept of the Multiverse was cooked up so that the (weak) Anthropic principle would be able to explain away any teleological argument about the existence of God. if there are many, many other universes, some might be life friendly and some not. and it's an example of selection bias that we find ourselves in a universe that is life friendly.

The only way you could possibly come to this conclusion would be through complete and utter ignorance of the scientific discussion surrounding the multiverse. Put simply, no god ever has or ever will come into it, because no scientist worth their salt considers a god as a reasonable hypothesis, or has done so for quite a long time. There are strong epistemological reasons for this which I won't go into, but suffice it to say that it is fundamentally impossible to make forward progress in science by using a god hypothesis (no matter which god you're talking about).

Instead, the argument has always been between two camps within the theoretical physics community. On the one side, we have physicists who think that the natural laws we observe must be derivable from some fundamental theory. This has, for much of the history of physics, been the majority view. However, recent work in developing grand-unified theories has put doubt on this view, to the point that high-energy theorists are becoming increasingly convinced that it is just not feasible. And so physicists are increasingly moving away from the idea of a fundamental theory from which everything we observe inevitably follows and towards a fundamental theory which is prolific. A prolific fundamental theory explains everything we observe by stating that many things happen, and life occurs where it can occur, with most of the universe being uninhabitable.

None of this has ever referenced any sort of god, either before or after.

 

[Chronos]

Science seeks a causal relationship between properties and evolution of the universe. God is a first principle proposition and neither science or mathematics is the right tool for dealing with first principles.