Is the Multiverse a Revolving Landscape of Universes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dkv
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Multiverse
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the concept of the multiverse and whether its universes revolve around each other. It highlights that the existence of a multiverse is largely speculative and not widely accepted among professional cosmologists. Some string theorists and those exploring inflation scenarios entertain the idea, but they do not typically describe these universes as orbiting one another. The conversation also touches on the notion of 3D branes interacting in a higher-dimensional space, as proposed by theorists like Steinhardt. Ultimately, while the multiverse is a fascinating topic for speculation, it lacks substantial observational evidence to support its claims.
dkv
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
If the multiverse exists as the scientists claim then do they revolve around each other?
Can we ask which universe is at the center ?
If not why ?
 
Space news on Phys.org
dkv said:
If the multiverse exists as the scientists claim then do they revolve around each other?

I'm not sure any scientist CLAIMS that a multiplicity of universes exists. It is a speculation (unsubstantiated fantasy), that some engage in.

Very few professional cosmologists spend much thought on it. It just doesn't work into regular day to day research. So it doesn't come up much in research articles published by the astronomy/cosmology people.

But some string theorists like the idea, and people who construct imaginative inflation scenarios. Some of them write about it.

So I can try to answer your question based on not on CLAIMS (which need some evidence) but on the fantasies or speculations of a few people mostly outside observational cosmology.
In fact, in all the speculations I've seen, different pieces of the imagined multiverse are NOT imagined as orbiting each other.

However Steinhardt (also inflation scenario inventor) has a picture of a 4 or 5 dimensional universe in which 3D branes BUMP against each other every trillion years or so. But he doesn't call the separate 3D branes "universes". The 3D sheets are part of the same universe because they can interact, that is bounce against each other. We are imagined to live on one of these.
Again this is pretty exotic and not something that a working cosmologist would normally be considering.

If you fancy the idea, however, you could read Steinhardt's new popular book about it called Endless Universe. Look it up on Amazon.
 
Last edited:
Many world interpretations of Quantum Observation also lead to Multiple Universes.
Which interpretation of Quantum theory is widely used and why ? Why so many interpretations are required ?
Intially I thought it was a good idea to imagine universe as baloon with 3D hypersurface.Can we extend this analogy to branes ?
Thanks
 
dkv said:
If the multiverse exists as the scientists claim then do they revolve around each other?
Can we ask which universe is at the center ?
If not why ?

2 manifolds could revolve around some sort of center (say center of energy) outside of the manifolds. Centers of energy can be outside manifolds, such as for a torus.
 
Define 'energy' "outside of the manifolds". :rolleyes:

Garth
 
The are a 'landscape' of possible ways the universe may have originated - and it's fun to speculate. Providing observational evidence is the hard part.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?
Back
Top