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

Tegmark, Multiverse/Greene/Intelligent Design etc.

  1. Jul 19, 2005 #1

    Max Tegmark, Brian Green and others have written about the possibility of multiverses as a continuity from this Universe and the general field of creation. Any comments about that?

    If it is possible in theory to create a wormhole to another space-time and 'birth' a pre-designed universe one-day, or if such was already done and universes created by intelligent design came to dominate a finite number of universes through a process of natural selection perhaps better known as synthetic selection (because of the intelligence factor), how would those synthetically designed universe fit into the overall field on universes comprising the natural endowment of universes?

    Would synthetic universes displaces pre-exisiting universes potentially?

    On a derivative question...

    Is the Higgs Field underlying the Universe, or are the extra dimensions believede to form a contiguous substratum for it, the cause for the limit on light speed for mass that?

    Does mass accellerating to light speed completely detach from the extra dimensions and then become infinitely heavy by associating with the dimensions of this universes soley while temporarily severing ties with the extra dimensions, or vice versa?
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 19, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Welcome to Physics Forums Gary!

    I, for one, think multiverses are bunk, but there are times in QM when that approach can be heuristically useful, at least.

    There is absolutely no evidence for wormholes, and anyone can make up any theory they want. The theory it seems as if your grasping at "Cosmic Natural Selection" is not an intelligent design theory. Intelligent design has absolutely no scientific validity.

    We don't know if there is or is not a Higgs field, or if there are or are not extra dimensions. A Higgs field would be mathematically convenient in the current formulation of the standard model of particle physics. Extra dimensions are necessary if M-theory exists. The reason for the Higgs field is to establish inertial mass. The reason for the extra dimensions is primarily to explain why gravity is so weak. Neither have a necessary or obvious relationship to the Lorentz transformation of special relativity which put a speed limit on everything in the univerese.

    Mass does not and cannot accellerate to light speed, although it can come asymtoptically close.

    Not only does string theory/M-theory require extra dimensions, it also doesn't make any meaningful predictions right now, which has caused it to wane in popularity. Certainly, there is no established theory of which I am aware in which your last question is even meaningful.
  4. Jul 19, 2005 #3


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    hi Gary, welcome to the discussion forum here
    It sounds like you are well on your way to developing your own theory or theories about the universe, and more power to you in this.

    My impression is that Tegmark and Greene are each capable of two distinctly different kinds of writing:

    A. speculative pop-sci
    B. scientific articles

    If you want to get thoughtful comment from people on something of Tegmark/Greene that is online, as recent peer-review journal articles tend to be, then you could provide a link to it so people could have something definite to respond to.

    Regarding your own ideas, I might mention falsifiability. I believe the customary scientific process---the way science has progressed in the past 400 years or so---involves people coming up with testable theories. That means falsifiable theories: ones that make definite numerical predictions and can be rejected if observations do not confirm those predictions.

    That is a lot to ask. Today there are a bunch of still halfbake theories out there, unfinished theories still under construction, that nobody has yet squeezed an unequivocal hard prediction out of so that the thing can actually be tested. the predictions that popularizers TALK about some of these making are still kind of mushy. Like, it would be NICE if supersymmetry were observed at a certain definite energy but, hey, if it isnt we will still adapt and go merrily on.

    So it is setting pretty high standards for you to live up to, I realize, but you might be thinking, as you develop your theories about spacetime and things uncoupling from the extra dimensions and getting very massive and so on, you might be thinking HOW CAN I TEST THAT? What prediction can I derive as a consequence which, if it were not observed experimentally, would allow the theory to be discarded.

    Scientific theories may survive tests but are never ultimately proven true,
    they can only be proven false
    and therefore testability means falsifiability.
    To be considered a scientific theory, a model must be testable,
    and that means falsifiable.

    [EDIT, I just saw ohwilleke post] yeah I tend to agree with ohwilleke on several of his points, just didnt say it quite as crisply
    Last edited: Jul 19, 2005
  5. Jul 19, 2005 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Please be VERY careful about making over-speculative, "buzz-word" association, and especially about bringing in "intelligent design" in THIS part of the forum. This is the only warning you will get.

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook