- #1
bluemoonKY
- 131
- 16
The multiverse is a theory that the are countless universes.
What is the evidence for the existence of the multiverse?
What is the evidence for the existence of the multiverse?
Mr.CROWLER said:There is no evidence that I'm aware of but, I believe that it's very likely that a multiverse exists because if it's possible for this universe to create itself than it's surely possible for countless others...that's just my personal opinion.
bluemoonKY said:The multiverse is a theory that the are countless universes.
What is the evidence for the existence of the multiverse?
mal4mac said:The observation that we exist provides some evidence for the existence of the multiverse, but is circumstantial evidence and open to doubt:
There is no reason to think that a unique universe should be the ontological default.bluemoonKY said:The multiverse is a theory that the are countless universes.
What is the evidence for the existence of the multiverse?
mal4mac said:There was a time when we couldn't observe atoms, but atomic theory produced good results before atoms were actually observed.
Damo ET said:There are a couple of flaws to your logic. Just because there is one doesn't mean there are any others at all, it depends on exactly how it came about, which we have no evidence of. Also, there is no evidence that the universe created itself, all we know that its creation was in a place and time that our current physics won't go.
Personal opinions are not allowed on the forum as they do not require any science to back the claims that that opinion suggests.
Damo
bluemoonKY said:The multiverse is a theory that the are countless universes.
What is the evidence for the existence of the multiverse?
anorlunda said:That's not true. We couldn't resolve individual atoms but we could observe that something was there.
marcus said:Occam's Razor says "don't make up unnecessary stuff". If it's irrelevant to our universe, don't bother with it.
If something is causally connected and interacts with us then it is part of our universe. This is one reason why the traditional idea of a single universe is the default.
In answer to your question, there is no evidence for the existence of "other universes". IMHO the idea is speculation on the part of a certain group, and strikes me as a bit funny. It gets more play in the media than it does in the scientific research literature.
Chronos said:Aside from rendering a creator irrelevant, this version of reality offers no real advantages.
It also invokes other annoyances, like the Fermi question - where are they? [visitors from other 'universes'].
I share marcus' inference it deserves rejection on the grounds of Occam's Razor, and inhibits motivation to seek explanation for fine tuning 'problems' in this universe.
Mr.CROWLER said:There is a flaw in your logic because creation didn't happen in a place it happened everywhere at the same time and btw why even comment at all if there isn't any science to back up any claims related to a multiverse in the first place.
anorlunda said:That's not true. We couldn't resolve individual atoms but we could observe that something was there.
Making an observation is quite a bit less than having knowledge and understanding of what the observation means. For things outside our universe, we can't even meet that minimal standard.
Now some people suggest that our universe could collide with another universe. If thst happened, we could make observations, and the two universes would become one.
Damo ET said:Mal4mac, I think what Chronos was getting at with the Fermi paradox is, if you believe in infinite universes where all the possible things do indeed happen...
Eternal inflation is as yet unknown. However, the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics has been demonstrated, and that alone guarantees a multiverse of sorts.Bandersnatch said:Let's leave the philosophising to philosophy forums, and focus on science.
What's the status of eternal inflation? Does anyone know? Because if one could establish its validity from observation within our observable universe, then all the implications it brings about would follow. The existence of other universes would be necessary, the inability to observe them notwithstanding.
bluemoonKY said:The multiverse is a theory that the are countless universes.
What is the evidence for the existence of the multiverse?
nick1o2 said:I remember reading an idea about universe bruising as a way in which we could proof multiverse. I believe the basic idea is that if another universe would collide with our own we should see some kind of effect or 'bruising' according to the source i was reading it from. I'll try and find it and post it along side my blabbering of nonsense.
Sorry if someone had already pointed this out, didn't see it.
Chalnoth said:However, the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics has been demonstrated
It gets more play in the media than it does in the scientific research literature.
I've always been exceedingly skeptical of anybody attempting to draw conclusions like this from the large-scale features of the CMB. The statistics of all of these "anomalies" are all too weak to produce something that clearly deviates from ##\Lambda##CDM, and there is zero possibility of ever reducing those error bars, as the large-scale errors of the CMB are dominated by cosmic variance, not measurement error.Chronos said:Laura Mersini-Houghton has proposed the CMB cold spot could be evidence of another universe interacting with our universe.
It is necessary to make additional assumptions for which there is zero evidence in order to get rid of MWI. Furthermore, quantum decoherence has been observed, and decoherence results in MWI.julcab12 said:... Mirages do occur in nature. Superposition 'might be an exemption' unless I'm missing something here. Well ill set aside that MWI idea for now.
Chalnoth said:It is necessary to make additional assumptions for which there is zero evidence in order to get rid of MWI. Furthermore, quantum decoherence has been observed, and decoherence results in MWI.
Time is a somewhat tricky concept in QM. Within QM, time is just a parameter. But we know from General Relativity that it doesn't make sense to treat time as just a parameter due to the curvature of space-time. This is at the root of the incompatibility between GR and QM, and it's not easy to resolve.julcab12 said:Point taken. I'm just curious though. Are we just stating the obvious and make interpretation. Or are there some corrections (Perhaps a correction on my behalf).
Part of my disconnected thought somehow tells me that time is unstable in the QM-Quantum world and could lead to a visual illusion of sort, showing all possible rough glimpses of post-universes waiting to happen -at a certain phase. In short. We have 1 universe that is transforming or evolving all the time or in phases/moment rather than usual Everettian world. I'll stop here since it is against the rule to stress my personal imagination any further.
bluemoonKY said:The multiverse is a theory that the are countless universes.
What is the evidence for the existence of the multiverse?
This is absurd. String theory landscape requires supersymmetry (supersymmetry was born out of string theory, and is required for the theory to not include tachyons). I have little confidence when he can't even get that basic of a fact correct.marcus said:On the general topic, Burton Richter (kind of an elder statesman in high energy physics) just posted a perspective piece with comment and outlook on a lot of topics
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1409.1196v1.pdf
Here's a quote:
== Richter, page 11, "some final thoughts" ==
...If you have seen the movie Particle Fever about the discovery of the Higgs boson, you have heard the theorists saying that the only choices today are between Super-symmetry and the Landscape.