Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Signs of a multiverse?

  1. Sep 9, 2004 #1
    I love the multi world theory and its limitless possibilities. Ive given a lot of thought on it with some unnatural things that occur from time to time. How’s this for a brainstorming session of ideas?

    I feel we have a lot of signs that can perhaps help prove the multiple world theory. Maybe not, but lets think with an open mind for a moment. When I was young ive always had strange experiences. Most of which in form of Déjà vu’s. As a teenager i got them often and still get them today, just not quite as much as when I was young. From the age up until I was around 19-20 years old I use to get them pretty much on a weekly basis. Now I get them about once every month or two.

    Perhaps the deja 'vu feelings people commonly can somehow relate to moving from one universe to another, without really knowing it but on a subconscious level being somewhat in tune to pick up the feeling.

    What are they, why do we have them? There is something strange with these. One thing I think we can all at least agree on is that there is something here that we don’t fully understand. Its possible that multiple world theory goes hand in hand with these experiences. Not just with Déjà vu’s but with dreams, paranormal activity etc..

    Could it possibly be a connection of thought from all the you’s out there that are in a similar world timeline. Lets look at some possibilities of what it could be.

    You have a Déjà vu:
    -A you in another multiverse world/timeline that you have had a connection with has had a divergence in decision or experience causing your two timelines to become slightly more different.
    -You in your (this) multiverse world/timeline has had a divergence in decision or experience causing your timeline to differ from another you in another timeline.

    -You in this timeline has made the same decision of a you in another timeline making a sort of connection that may feel like you’ve done this before.
    -Or another time line you has made the same decision or had an experienced that you in this timeline has experienced creating this feeling of Déjà vu.

    -For each divergence in either a decision or experience or even a thought that makes a world line different from another there are also an infinite number created making it the same? But if you have infinite already can you create infinite more?
    -Is a soul a collection of the infinite you’s out there? -Is there a master you out there?
    -you die in one timeline, that timeline immediately collapses and you are placed in another timeline giving you a sort of déjà vu that you’ve experienced this before and perhaps make a different decision.

    You dream:

    -Are you having a connection with another time line you in some way? Perhaps experiencing something from his consciousness or sub-cons.
    -The infinite you’s are sharing dreams, that’s why dreams are usually so odd and cant be explained or even understood.

    I would like to post some more thoughts and but must get back to work. I dont have time to proof read this and typed it up quickly in like a min so it may not be in the best structure. Anyway... discuss.
  2. jcsd
  3. Sep 9, 2004 #2
    OK, I"ll bite:
    You have a Déjà vu: as it is nothing more than a previous 'unaware' memory matching the current input.
    You dream: Dreaming is long-term processing without short-term awareness. If it didn't happen you would be dead.
    Time: Is a natural occurring perception as memory is less intense, ie: smaller in value the more it is processed. It sets up the concept that 'time' moves ahead and the 'past' in 'back there'.
    The concept of 'many worlds' is an emergent quality of replacing misunderstanding and lack of knowledge with mysticism.
  4. Sep 9, 2004 #3


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    well id leave out the paranormal from this discussion.

    as far as de ja vus are concerned.. i used to think just like you said it up until i took a class on quantum mechanics. now im thinking.. it is probable that the human mind which is made up of neurons and their interactions, might in fact be subject to superposition and/or spooky interaction with other human minds

    example. you kno when someone calls you and you think that someone is about to call you.. and then the phone rings? perhaps some of your neurons were interchanged with that person before and you can subconsciously 'feel' each other over vast distances. it does happen, but i doubt anybody ever conducted studies of this nature.

    perhaps there is an experiment you can do.. im thinking somewhere along the lines of stimulating the brain with 'unpleasant' waves on one individual, and observing the other's individual's brain waves suddenly spike. other individual wont necessarily feel unpleasant, or feel anything out of the normal, but brain activity might increase.

    nonetheless all of this is based on old theories of manyworlds/manyminds. im not sure exactly where the modern quantum mechanics/physics stands regarding this issue and the issue of the observer. but it would be an interesting experiment
  5. Sep 9, 2004 #4
    There's a curious theory called "Many minds interpretation" that assigns an infinite quantity of minds to each observer. AFAIK there are two variants of this theory, one developed by Loewer and Albert in 1988, and the other developed by Lockwood in 1996. Don't know if these deja-vu moments that you speak can be caused by one mind replacing other. In fact I don't know very much about many minds interpretation
  6. Sep 9, 2004 #5
    I start by saying I'm no scientist so I'm humble about my thoughts.
    I would also leave aside deja vus and dreams, they might of course have something to do about it but we don't need them to reach anyway your wondering questions, and they could also be explained in less speculative ways.

    Just sticking to hard science it's clear enough that we miss a satisfactory interpretation of the knowledge we have (in particular quantum physics).
    Just knowing that an equation describes accurately how nature beahves, without having any idea of why (the underlying principles), is just half the way. I believe we aim not just to know but to understand.

    One one hand we have the interpretations which involve the concept of consciousness or 'observers' (copenhagen, john wheeler ....). These may have some metaphysical appeal for us humans, as they give us a prominent role, but they pose serious problems such as the question: then, until consciousness developed the universe did not actually exist in any definite state?! or, when several conscious entities have evolved, which is the one that collapses the reality and why not the others?

    Then we have other theories such as John Cramer's transactional interpretation, Bohm's hidden variables, Stein's ontology, Renselle's heuristics etc. I'm not able to go into much details but I understand all of them suffer some unsolved problems.

    Another key issue from our point of view is the issue of freewill. I guess unless we will find extremely strong evidence pointing that the future is determined, we will always favour the theories that allow for freewill, not only because it's nicer to think so, but it's actually the perception we seem to get from our interaction with our environment (although it could be just an illusion).

    Many-worlds (multiverse) is a very neat way out to all these difficulties we have in finding a satisfactory interpretation of our scientifical knowledge. Everything which can happen does actually happen somewhere in the multiverse ...... easy no?
    so automatically we can explain nearly anything we may observe: we don't need to worry anymore about why the universe behaves in such and such way, just the possibility that it might behave in such a way is enough.

    And it can also give some better account to puzzles involving the double slit experiment, decoherence....

    But sure, it takes a very high price!! having to assume that a miriad of parallel universe versions exist!!, and most of all, the apparent impossibility to test or falsify the theory. Somehow it seems just taking the easy way out...

    For these reasons I'm not really happy with many-worlds, but I reckon it's the one which currently better copes with most of the puzzles we face. I would like to see it either confirmed or beaten by a better one!
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 9, 2004
  7. Sep 10, 2004 #6
    I've always wondered in a multiverse scenario where our universe is positioned in relation to others...

    Are we the first generation universe that causes variations which due to slight difference in conditions as time moves forward creates universe so similar yet slightly different ???

    or are we say the 23rd echo of the intial disturbance that could allow for memories of future events which although might seem exact when we experience them as deja vu's will have slight possibly unnoticeable differences???

    I'd thought that deja vu's were our subconscious projections/extrapolations of current trends in our lives pointing to a future we will exist in and that unknown to us we work towards realizing that particular vision. That might not account for people we see in our dreams not known at the time but manifesting themselves as future acquaintances

    so does time transcend the multiverse and stay regular across the board or does it run slower/faster in alternate universes???... that could allow for intersecting individual variations of me at different ages transferring memories in the time it vibrates thru our universe ???

    or how about "string" memories asserting themselves into our awareness from a dimension of "consciousness" that is wrapped up and hidden in point particle "real" spacetime providing inklings of future recombinations of those very same strings

    ...food for thought, but I'm still hungry
  8. Sep 11, 2004 #7
    :shy: What I think is possible is that there are multiple universes for every choice and every chance that a person can choose, and we move in and out of multiple universes based on our choices and chances. Each universe is the same as the others except for a minor difference based on an indivitual choice. What we percieve as moving in time is us moving through universes. To go back in time is to go back to a previous universe and perhaps make a different choice which causes you to move through a different set and order of universes than the previous set or order. We only experience one universe at a time consciously. Sometimes things happen that alters our movements through the universes and we some how rexperience the same universe twice, that's where de ja vu comes in and dreams. :smile:
  9. Sep 12, 2004 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I (like to think) that I am a scientist and so I'm humble about my thoughts!

    As far as these multiverses are concerned - show me one.
  10. Sep 12, 2004 #9
    i agree with notwithstanding

    imo though, i think we are always in the same universe..i dont agree that one universe of the same time can exist on top of or inside of another universe..although maybe in another dimension in a different time then ours,,i dont know im not sure,,interesting nonetheless..

    since i was a teen ive had experiences where, id think of something and it would happen directly after id thought of it -ie"i knew that was going to happen",or id think of a phrase-and someone would say it before me exactly how i was going to say it-ie"i was just going to say that"-or-"they say, great minds think alike"-..id rather learn about this and how remote viewers can do wht they do and why i sometimes i can predict major events that could never have bin intuition or insinct..i know these things happen to other people but i dunno,,
  11. Sep 14, 2004 #10
    Very interesting, However this would mean that you have multiple predetermined courses, or pathes which in turn would cancel out freewill nosions!? I like your concept. :wink:
  12. Sep 15, 2004 #11
    Any place in space can be named using three coordinates, usually called x y and z. Memory supplies us with a fouth continuity, which we usually call time, t. Most people like to believe that there is only one verifiable history, but that there are many possible futures. We have free will, and can choose, to some degree of freedom, which future we will inhabit.

    The laws of classical physics suggest to a very high degree of accuracy that a ball fired from a cannon will land in a place that can be predicted if you know certain things such as the size of the charge, the mass of the ball, the strength of the gravitational field, the weather conditions and so on. There are many minor considerations that are normally neglected, such as dust particles in the air that might affect the course of the ball, but we have developed ballistics to a point where we can apparently, if you are willing to suspend disbelief in the news media, land a six-wheeler in a crater on Mars, hole in one. The laws of physics that we use to do this state that the direction you fire the cannon doesn't matter, north or south, the ball will behave the same way.

    Newtonian physics therefore was used by some to support the idea that there really is only one time, and the future is predetermined based on the amount of knowlege you can have of the past and present conditions. No free will, clockwork universe, just enjoy the illusion and try not to think too much. However, about the turn of the last century, we got around to messing with electrons and other really really small stuff, and it became apparent that there really is a limit to how much you can know about past and present conditions. In fact, just knowing about the conditions changes the flight of the ball! This was very inconvenient for those who want to believe in a God as a sort of master timekeeper. Free will came back into fashion and ballistics and predictability got rather squirmey, at least for the small stuff.

    Then Dr. Einstein said space and time are really two different views of the same thing, and lots of people began to wonder why, then, they couldn't just hop in a car and drive back in time as easily as they can drive back and forth across town. Why can't we fire a cannon ball back in time and so on? All sorts of paradox sprang up and it's been a field of dragon teeth ever since. If you want to be taken seriously in science, it is best not to be caught dueling with skeletons.

    However, in a philosophical sort of way, one is inclined to wonder why time is not symetrical. If there is only one past, should there not be only one future? Or maybe, if the uncertainty principle does allow us a free will future, does this mean that the past is not so unified after all? Is a single photon really reflected from every part of the mirror, as in Feynman's QED? THis is a rather disturbing idea. If we are headed into several possible futures, is it not possible that we come from several possible pasts? If so, how do we verify the truth about anything? The truth about who killed cock robbin may depend upon where you were on the night of the 13th! This is most unsatisfactory and has serious implications for jurispridence.

    No, we are certain there is only one glove and if it doesn't fit, that is that. No way can the guy with the bad knees be both guilty and not guilty. Whatever it was that happened, it can only have happened one way. And in fact this is good enough for the macroscopic world of statistics, probability, and things like the laws of humans.

    It may be true that we cannot test the idea of many worlds, but then again, maybe not. There are some interesting mysteries about. There is the transit of Mercury, with the curious teardrop effect that makes it so hard to tell when, exactly, the planet crosses the solar arc. Could it be that the exact moment is obscured because there isn't one? And there is the 60 degree "soccer ball" shape of the universe according to results of cosmic microwave background studies. Why is the universe shaped like a soccer ball? Or could that shape be an octahedron? Kepler space is octahedral. Is the universe of spacetime made up of densely packed spheres?

    My friends, I admire your courage in trying to think about these strange things. As always, I think we may have more luck finding better questions than better answers.

    THanks, as always

  13. Sep 15, 2004 #12
    Fully right, multiverse (many-worlds) is somehow a deterministic theory anyway. The possible outcomes "are already existing", even if maybe we can not determine which one our ego will follow (although I believe there are some variations in which not ALL the possible universes actually "exist", but only neighbour universes with similar outcomes exist as "shadow" or "phantom" universes "for a while ahead in our future" to provide a choice of possibilities, but once discarded they fade away).

    Can someone sort all the different interpretation of QM in 2 groups: deterministic ones (in this sense) and truly undeterministic?

    What's the 60 degree soccer ball shape?

    TX !
  14. Sep 16, 2004 #13


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    The WMAP data of the spectrum of depth of fluctuations in the Cosmic Microwave Background, plotted against the angular size of those fluctuations, indicates the universe is flat, which indicates that it is infinite in size. However the largest angular size fluctuations seem to be missing, this indicates there was not enough space for the largest fluctuations to form in the early universe, and hence the universe wasn't infinite. One attempt to resolve this contradiction was the suggestion that, 'like a football', the universe is made up of a number of flat octagonal sheets 'sewn together' to make a larger but finite surface. This idea has now fallen from favour as it doesn't work but it has been useful in getting all those football (soccer) fans interested in cosmology!

    Of course the above deductions from the raw WMAP data are dependent on them being interpreted by GR, the contradiction could simply be telling us that it is that theory that needs revising!
  15. Sep 16, 2004 #14
    That's very interesting. I don't think the past is set, the past is subject to change just like the future. The past can be changed & altered through time travel & premonitions.
  16. Sep 16, 2004 #15
    Why would they have to be predetermined? :smile: Each universe is the choice and free will. We are the ones who make the choices that will lead us through the other deminsions. :smile: We create our own universe or deminsions based on our choices.

    Last edited: Sep 16, 2004
  17. Sep 16, 2004 #16
  18. Sep 16, 2004 #17

    Ok, if one is enough, there is the one you are in. But really I think you may want another, so I offer you the one I am in. We are separated by some distance, and moving in different directions, so our universes are not the same. I mean really, there are places you could go that I can never reach, and vice versa. Not to be trivial. Do you know about light cones? There are places in your universe that DO NOT EXIST in my universe.

    But this is the simple case, and it gets much better.


  19. Sep 16, 2004 #18


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    There are places in my universe that do not exist in my universe - like the reservoir of odd socks!
  20. Sep 16, 2004 #19

    Other realities exist. I been in a few of them if only for a few seconds each time. They are as real and objective as this universe. How they relate dimensionally and causually to our universe I do not know.

  21. Sep 17, 2004 #20
    I'm not expert enough myself either, but I think for example Cramer's Transactional interpretation could also be considered somehow deterministic ?

    In Cramer's interpretation, when a particle emits a force carrier (let's say a photon), it's because some particle in its future has made the agreement to absorb it. So at the moment the partice is emmited, the future is already determined.
    Follow the chain, and the result is that since the first particle ever existed, the complete history of the universe became determined. Isn't it?

    mmmmm ..... I know I miss something, if the above was correct, I don't get how it could then deal with the uncertainty principle .............
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook