The Multiverse and 'No boundary' conditions approach in cosmology

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Multiverse hypothesis and the 'No boundary' conditions approach proposed by James Hartle and Stephen Hawking. It examines whether their model, which posits multiple histories without specified boundary conditions, could yield universes governed by various mathematical structures as suggested by Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis. The consensus is that while Hartle and Hawking's approach allows for diverse histories, it is still rooted in a specific mathematical framework and does not support the existence of all mathematical structures as independent universes, unlike Tegmark's hypothesis.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the 'No boundary' proposal by Hartle and Hawking
  • Familiarity with Max Tegmark's Mathematical Universe Hypothesis
  • Basic knowledge of quantum mechanics and General Relativity
  • Concepts of multiverse theories in cosmology
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Hartle and Hawking's 'No boundary' conditions in cosmology
  • Explore the Mathematical Universe Hypothesis by Max Tegmark
  • Investigate the relationship between quantum mechanics and General Relativity
  • Study various multiverse theories and their foundational principles
USEFUL FOR

Cosmologists, theoretical physicists, and students of advanced physics interested in the implications of multiverse theories and the foundational aspects of cosmological models.

Suekdccia
Messages
352
Reaction score
30
TL;DR
Questions about the Multiverse hypothesis and the 'No boundary' conditions approach in cosmology
Summary: Questions about the Multiverse hypothesis and the 'No boundary' conditions approach in cosmology

I have some questions about James Hartle and Stephen Hawking's 'No-boundary' proposal:

- In their approach multiple histories would exist. These histories could yield universes with different constants or laws. But would these histories yield radically fundamental constants and laws?

- In Max Tegmark's hypothesis of Mathematical Universe Hypothesis he says that there are no initial/boundary conditions and because of that, there is a vast multiverse where each universe is governed by at least one different mathematical structure. This hypothesis proposes that every mathematical structure exists as a universe.
Since Hartle and Hawking's proposal also says that there are no specified boundary/initial conditions, then, could it yield histories corresponding to the universes proposed by Tegmark? Could their proposal yield universes governed by all mathematical structures?

- If the answer to #2 is basically 'yes', then, couldn't we find histories of universes governed by different fundamental theories in their approach? For example, we could find universes governed by the standard model, by quantum mechanics, by classical mechanics, by M-theory or string theory, by inflation, by causal networks...etc, correct?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Moderator's note: Moved to cosmology forum.
 
The problem with allowing yourself to confuse the symbology with the reality as Tegmark does is that you can create absurd entities and concepts that are in truth impossible. Mathematics is just a system that manipulates symbols according to rule sets, it's not the precedent, but the descriptor. The Universe is not made up of numbers anymore than a blackboard is the numbers written on it.
 
Suekdccia said:
Since Hartle and Hawking's proposal also says that there are no specified boundary/initial conditions, then, could it yield histories corresponding to the universes proposed by Tegmark?

No, because Hartle and Hawking's proposal still assumes a particular mathematical structure, a particular quantum extension of General Relativity. They do not claim that other mathematical structures also exist, as Tegmark does.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K