Multiverse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - View original article

 
Jump to: navigation, search

The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of infinite or finite possible universes (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists and can exist: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them. The term was coined in 1895 by the American philosopher and psychologist William James.[1] The various universes within the multiverse are sometimes called parallel universes.

The structure of the multiverse, the nature of each universe within it and the relationship between the various constituent universes, depend on the specific multiverse hypothesis considered. Multiple universes have been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, religion, philosophy, transpersonal psychology and fiction, particularly in science fiction and fantasy. In these contexts, parallel universes are also called "alternative universes", "quantum universes", "interpenetrating dimensions", "parallel dimensions", "parallel worlds", "alternative realities", "alternative timelines", and "dimensional planes," among others.

Multiverse hypotheses in physics[edit]

Categories[edit]

Max Tegmark and Brian Greene have devised classification schemes that categorize the various theoretical types of multiverse, or types of universe that might theoretically comprise a multiverse ensemble.

Max Tegmark's four levels[edit]

Cosmologist Max Tegmark has provided a taxonomy of universes beyond the familiar observable universe. The levels according to Tegmark's classification are arranged such that subsequent levels can be understood to encompass and expand upon previous levels, and they are briefly described below.[2][3]

Level I: Beyond our cosmological horizon[edit]

A generic prediction of chaotic inflation is an infinite ergodic universe, which, being infinite, must contain Hubble volumes realizing all initial conditions.

Accordingly, an infinite universe will contain an infinite number of Hubble volumes, all having the same physical laws and physical constants. In regard to configurations such as the distribution of matter, almost all will differ from our Hubble volume. However, because there are infinitely many, far beyond the cosmological horizon, there will eventually be Hubble volumes with similar, and even identical, configurations. Tegmark estimates that an identical volume to ours should be about 210118 meters away from us.[4] Given infinite space, there would, in fact, be an infinite number of Hubble volumes identical to ours in the universe.[5] This follows directly from the cosmological principle, wherein it is assumed our Hubble volume is not special or unique.

Level II: Universes with different physical constants[edit]
"Bubble universes": every disk is a bubble universe (Universe 1 to Universe 6 are different bubbles; they have physical constants that are different from our universe); our universe is just one of the bubbles.

In the chaotic inflation theory, a variant of the cosmic inflation theory, the multiverse as a whole is stretching and will continue doing so forever, but some regions of space stop stretching and form distinct bubbles, like gas pockets in a loaf of rising bread. Such bubbles are embryonic level I multiverses. Linde and Vanchurin calculated the number of these universes to be on the scale of 101010,000,000.[6]

Different bubbles may experience different spontaneous symmetry breaking resulting in different properties such as different physical constants.[5]

This level also includes John Archibald Wheeler's oscillatory universe theory and Lee Smolin's fecund universes theory.

Level III: Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics[edit]

Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation (MWI) is one of several mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics. In brief, one aspect of quantum mechanics is that certain observations cannot be predicted absolutely. Instead, there is a range of possible observations, each with a different probability. According to the MWI, each of these possible observations corresponds to a different universe. Suppose a die is thrown that contains six sides and that the numeric result of the throw corresponds to a quantum mechanics observable. All six possible ways the die can fall correspond to six different universes. (More correctly, in MWI there is only a single universe but after the "split" into "many worlds" these cannot in general interact.)[7][not in citation given (See discussion.)] Tegmark argues that a level III multiverse does not contain more possibilities in the Hubble volume than a level I-II multiverse. In effect, all the different "worlds" created by "splits" in a level III multiverse with the same physical constants can be found in some Hubble volume in a level I multiverse. Tegmark writes that "The only difference between Level I and Level III is where your doppelgängers reside. In Level I they live elsewhere in good old three-dimensional space. In Level III they live on another quantum branch in infinite-dimensional Hilbert space." Similarly, all level II bubble universes with different physical constants can in effect be found as "worlds" created by "splits" at the moment of spontaneous symmetry breaking in a level III multiverse.[5]

Related to the many-worlds idea are Richard Feynman's multiple histories interpretation and H. Dieter Zeh's many-minds interpretation.

Level IV: Ultimate Ensemble[edit]

The ultimate ensemble or mathematical universe hypothesis is the hypothesis of Tegmark himself. This level considers equally real all universes that can be described by different mathematical structures. Tegmark writes that "abstract mathematics is so general that any Theory Of Everything (TOE) that is definable in purely formal terms (independent of vague human terminology) is also a mathematical structure. For instance, a TOE involving a set of different types of entities (denoted by words, say) and relations between them (denoted by additional words) is nothing but what mathematicians call a set-theoretical model, and one can generally find a formal system that it is a model of." He argues this "implies that any conceivable parallel universe theory can be described at Level IV" and "subsumes all other ensembles, therefore brings closure to the hierarchy of multiverses, and there cannot be say a Level V."[8]

Jürgen Schmidhuber, however, says the "set of mathematical structures" is not even well-defined, and admits only universe representations describable by constructive mathematics, that is, computer programs. He explicitly includes universe representations describable by non-halting programs whose output bits converge after finite time, although the convergence time itself may not be predictable by a halting program, due to Kurt Gödel's limitations.[9][10][11] He also explicitly discusses the more restricted ensemble of quickly computable universes.[12]

Brian Greene's nine types[edit]

American theoretical physicist and string theorist Brian Greene discussed nine types of parallel universes:[13]

Quilted
The quilted multiverse works only in an infinite universe. With an infinite amount of space, every possible event will occur an infinite number of times. However, the speed of light prevents us from being aware of these other identical areas.
Inflationary
The inflationary multiverse is composed of various pockets where inflation fields collapse and form new universes.
Brane
The brane multiverse follows from M-theory and states that each universe is a 3-dimensional brane that exists with many others. Particles are bound to their respective branes except for gravity.
Cyclic
The cyclic multiverse has multiple branes (each a universe) that collided, causing Big Bangs. The universes bounce back and pass through time, until they are pulled back together and again collide, destroying the old contents and creating them anew.
Landscape
The landscape multiverse relies on string theory's Calabi–Yau shapes. Quantum fluctuations drop the shapes to a lower energy level, creating a pocket with a different set of laws from the surrounding space.
Quantum
The quantum multiverse creates a new universe when a diversion in events occurs, as in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Holographic
The holographic multiverse is derived from the theory that the surface area of a space can simulate the volume of the region.
Simulated
The simulated multiverse exists on complex computer systems that simulate entire universes.
Ultimate
The ultimate multiverse contains every mathematically possible universe under different laws of physics.

Cyclic theories[edit]

In several theories there is a series of infinite, self-sustaining cycles (for example: an eternity of Big Bang-Big crunches).

M-theory[edit]

A multiverse of a somewhat different kind has been envisaged within string theory and its higher-dimensional extension, M-theory.[14] These theories require the presence of 10 or 11 spacetime dimensions respectively. The extra 6 or 7 dimensions may either be compactified on a very small scale, or our universe may simply be localized on a dynamical (3+1)-dimensional object, a D-brane. This opens up the possibility that there are other branes which could support "other universes".[15][16] This is unlike the universes in the "quantum multiverse", but both concepts can operate at the same time.[citation needed]

Some scenarios postulate that our big bang was created, along with our universe, by the collision of two branes.[15][16]

Matryoshkaverse[edit]

A Matryoshkaverse refers to any universe that is both locked inside and encompasses a number of other universes, like a set of Russian wooden dolls, with one or more dolls each nested inside another.[17]

Black-hole cosmology[edit]

A black-hole cosmology is a cosmological model in which the observable universe is the interior of a black hole existing as one of possibly many inside a larger universe.

Anthropic principle[edit]

The concept of other universes has been proposed to explain how our Universe appears to be fine-tuned for conscious life as we experience it. If there were a large (possibly infinite) number of universes, each with possibly different physical laws (or different fundamental physical constants), some of these universes, even if very few, would have the combination of laws and fundamental parameters that are suitable for the development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, stars, and planets that can exist long enough for life to emerge and evolve. The weak anthropic principle could then be applied to conclude that we (as conscious beings) would only exist in one of those few universes that happened to be finely tuned, permitting the existence of life with developed consciousness. Thus, while the probability might be extremely small that any particular universe would have the requisite conditions for life (as we understand life) to emerge and evolve, this does not require intelligent design per the teleological argument as the only explanation for the conditions in the Universe that promote our existence in it.

Search for evidence[edit]

Physicists are currently searching for disk-like patterns in cosmic microwave background radiation which could provide evidence of collisions between other universes and ours. So far, analysis of data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has not revealed any evidence of a bubble universe collision. However, the WMAP is limited in the scale of bubble collisions it is capable of detecting. Future data from the Planck satellite, which has a resolution 3 times higher than WMAP and an order of magnitude greater sensitivity, can be used to more definitively test the bubble collision hypothesis.[18][19] Recent research has indicated the possibility of the gravitational pull of other universes on ours.[20]

Claims of first evidence found[edit]

Scientists say that they have found evidence that our universe collided with other (parallel) universes in the distant past. This claim emerged after studying patterns in the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), the after-effects of the Big Bang, made by Planck space observatory operated by the European Space Agency (ESA), and designed to observe anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) at microwave and infra-red frequencies, with high sensitivity and small angular resolution, in which they may have found evidence that four circular patterns recognized in the CMB are "cosmic bruises" where our universe has crashed into other universe(s) at least four times.[21][22][23][24]

A collision induces a temperature change in the CMB temperature map. The 'blob' associated with the collision is identified by a large needlet response, and the presence of an edge is determined by a large response from the edge detection algorithm. The findings are based on the complex theory of eternal inflation for our universe. This theory holds that our universe is only one bubble in a larger cosmos and that other universes, which will have different physics to our own, all exist at the same time.[21][25]

Criticism[edit]

Non-scientific claims[edit]

In his 2003 NY Times opinion piece, A Brief History of the Multiverse, author and cosmologist, Paul Davies, offers a variety of arguments that multiverse theories are non-scientific :[26]

For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith.

— Paul Davies, A Brief History of the Multiverse

Taking cosmic inflation as a popular case in point, George Ellis, writing in August 2011, provides a balanced criticism of not only the science, but as he suggests, the scientific philosophy, by which multiverse theories are generally substantiated. He, like most cosmologists, accepts Tegmark's level I "domains", even though they lie far beyond the cosmological horizon. Likewise, the multiverse of cosmic inflation is said to exist very far away. It would be so far away, however, that it's very unlikely any evidence of an early interaction will be found. He argues that for many theorists, the lack of empirical testability or falsifiability is not a major concern. “Many physicists who talk about the multiverse, especially advocates of the string landscape, do not care much about parallel universes per se. For them, objections to the multiverse as a concept are unimportant. Their theories live or die based on internal consistency and, one hopes, eventual laboratory testing.” Although he believes there's little hope that will ever be possible, he grants that the theories on which the speculation is based, are not without scientific merit. He concludes that multiverse theory is a “productive research program”:[27]

As skeptical as I am, I think the contemplation of the multiverse is an excellent opportunity to reflect on the nature of science and on the ultimate nature of existence: why we are here… In looking at this concept, we need an open mind, though not too open. It is a delicate path to tread. Parallel universes may or may not exist; the case is unproved. We are going to have to live with that uncertainty. Nothing is wrong with scientifically based philosophical speculation, which is what multiverse proposals are. But we should name it for what it is.

— George Ellis, Scientific American, Does the Multiverse Really Exist?

On the other hand, as regards the criticism of lack of empirical testability or falsifiability, claims[citation needed] have been made that Laura Mersini-Houghton, a theoretical physicist, has developed (together with collaborators) a theory for the birth of the universe from the landscape multiverse that included four predictions proposed in 2006,[citation needed] two of which have since been observed: the Cold Spot (2007) and the deviation of the CMB Amplitude (2010).[citation needed] In 2007, Mersini-Houghton proposed that the observed CMB cold spot was "the unmistakable imprint of another universe beyond the edge of our own",[28] just as she and her collaborators had predicted in their theory 8 months earlier.[29] The validity and significance of these claims remains disputed, with several other possible causes being suggested for the Southern Cold Spot, and doubts being expressed about the existence of a Northern Cold Spot,[30] and about the existence and velocity of Dark Flow,[31] and so on.

Again regarding the criticism of lack of empirical testability or falsifiability, speaking on BBC TV's Science series Horizon's 'How Big is the Universe?' program (first broadcast 27 August 2012), Professor Anthony Aguirre of University of California, Santa Cruz, stated that collisions between universes (which he described as 'bubbles') in the eternal inflation version of the multiverse could leave behind evidence in the cosmic microwave background which should be detectable by the next generation of satellites.[32]

Occam's razor[edit]

Critics argue that to postulate a practically infinite number of unobservable universes just to explain our own seems contrary to Occam's razor.[33]

Max Tegmark answers:

"A skeptic worries about all the information necessary to specify all those unseen worlds. But an entire ensemble is often much simpler than one of its members. This principle can be stated more formally using the notion of algorithmic information content. The algorithmic information content in a number is, roughly speaking, the length of the shortest computer program that will produce that number as output. For example, consider the set of all integers. Which is simpler, the whole set or just one number? Naively, you might think that a single number is simpler, but the entire set can be generated by quite a trivial computer program, whereas a single number can be hugely long. Therefore, the whole set is actually simpler. Similarly, the set of all solutions to Einstein's field equations is simpler than a specific solution. The former is described by a few equations, whereas the latter requires the specification of vast amounts of initial data on some hypersurface. The lesson is that complexity increases when we restrict our attention to one particular element in an ensemble, thereby losing the symmetry and simplicity that were inherent in the totality of all the elements taken together. In this sense, the higher-level multiverses are simpler. Going from our universe to the Level I multiverse eliminates the need to specify initial conditions, upgrading to Level II eliminates the need to specify physical constants, and the Level IV multiverse eliminates the need to specify anything at all."

He continues:

"A common feature of all four multiverse levels is that the simplest and arguably most elegant theory involves parallel universes by default. To deny the existence of those universes, one needs to complicate the theory by adding experimentally unsupported processes and ad hoc postulates: finite space, wave function collapse and ontological asymmetry. Our judgment therefore comes down to which we find more wasteful and inelegant: many worlds or many words. Perhaps we will gradually get used to the weird ways of our cosmos and find its strangeness to be part of its charm."[5]

Multiverse hypotheses in philosophy and logic[edit]

Modal realism[edit]

Possible worlds are a way of explaining probability, hypothetical statements and the like, and some philosophers such as David Lewis believe that all possible worlds exist, and are just as real as the actual world (a position known as modal realism).[34]

Trans-world identity[edit]

A metaphysical issue that crops up in multiverse schema that posit infinite identical copies of any given universe is that of the notion that there can be identical objects in different possible worlds. According to the counterpart theory of David Lewis, the objects should be regarded as similar rather than identical.[35][36]

Fictional realism[edit]

The view that because fictions exist, fictional characters exist as well. There are fictional entities, in the same sense in which, setting aside philosophical disputes, there are people, Mondays, numbers and planets.[37][38]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ James, William, The Will to Believe, 1895; and earlier in 1895, as cited in OED's new 2003 entry for "multiverse": James, William (October, 1895), " "Is Life Worth Living?", Internat. Jrnl. Ethics 6: 10, "Visible nature is all plasticity and indifference, a multiverse, as one might call it, and not a universe." 
  2. ^ Tegmark, Max (May 2003). "Parallel Universes". Scientific American. 
  3. ^ Tegmark, Max (23 January 2003). Parallel Universes (PDF). Retrieved 7 February 2006. 
  4. ^ Max Tegmark (2003). "Parallel Universes". In "Science and Ultimate Reality: from Quantum to Cosmos", honoring John Wheeler's 90th birthday. J. D. Barrow, P.C.W. Davies, & C.L. Harper eds. Cambridge University Press (2003). arXiv:astro-ph/0302131. Bibcode:2003astro.ph..2131T. 
  5. ^ a b c d "Parallel universes. Not just a staple of science fiction, other universes are a direct implication of cosmological observations.", Tegmark M., Sci Am. 2003 May;288(5):40–51.
  6. ^ Zyga, Lisa "Physicists Calculate Number of Parallel Universes", PhysOrg, 16 October 2009.
  7. ^ Tegmark, Max, The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Many Worlds or Many Words?, 1998. Deutsch, David, David Deutsch's Many Worlds, Frontiers, 1998.
  8. ^ Tegmark, Max (23 January 2003). Parallel Universes (PDF). Retrieved 7 February 2006.  [dead link] (PDF).
  9. ^ J. Schmidhuber (1997): A Computer Scientist's View of Life, the Universe, and Everything. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 201–208, Springer: IDSIA – Dalle Molle Institute for Artificial Intelligence
  10. ^ J. Schmidhuber (2000): Algorithmic Theories of Everything arXiv.org e-Print archive
  11. ^ J. Schmidhuber (2002): Hierarchies of generalized Kolmogorov complexities and nonenumerable universal measures computable in the limit. International Journal of Foundations of Computer Science 13(4):587–612 IDSIA – Dalle Molle Institute for Artificial Intelligence
  12. ^ J. Schmidhuber (2002): The Speed Prior: A New Simplicity Measure Yielding Near-Optimal Computable Predictions. Proc. 15th Annual Conference on Computational Learning Theory (COLT 2002), Sydney, Australia, Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, pp. 216–228. Springer: IDSIA – Dalle Molle Institute for Artificial Intelligence
  13. ^ In The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos, 2011
  14. ^ Steven Weinberg(2005)"Living in the Multiverse"
  15. ^ a b Richard J Szabo, An introduction to string theory and D-brane dynamics (2004)
  16. ^ a b Maurizio Gasperini, Elements of String Cosmology (2007)
  17. ^ Solomon, Mark. On Computer Simulated Universes. Hillsborough, NC: Lithp Preth Publishing, 2013, print.
  18. ^ Feeney et al (2011). "First observational tests of eternal inflation: Analysis methods and WMAP 7-year results". Physical Review D 84 (4). 
  19. ^ Feeney et al (2011). "First observational tests of eternal inflation". Physical review letters 107 (7). 
  20. ^ "[1303.5090] Planck intermediate results. XIII. Constraints on peculiar velocities". Arxiv.org. 2013-03-20. Retrieved 2013-06-30. 
  21. ^ a b Lisa Zyga (Decembre 17, 2010). "Scientists find first evidence that many universes exist". PhysOrg.com (in Eng.). phys.org. Retrieved 12 October 2013. 
  22. ^ "Astronomers Find First Evidence Of Other Universe". arXiv (in Eng.). technologyreview.com. December 13, 2010. Retrieved 12 October 2013. 
  23. ^ Max Tegmark; Alexander Vilenkin (July 19, 2011). "The Case for Parallel Universes" (in Eng.). Retrieved 12 October 2013. 
  24. ^ "Is Our Universe Inside a Bubble? First Observational Test of the 'Multiverse'". Science Daily (in Eng.). sciencedaily.com. Aug 3, 2011. Retrieved 12 October 2013. 
  25. ^ "Solid Scientific Evidence Of Multiple Universes -- Complete - See more at: http://humansarefree.com/2013/05/solid-scientific-evidence-of-multiple.html#sthash.bIYVJBvj.dpuf". humansarefree.com (in Eng.). humansarefree.com. 2013. Retrieved 12 October 2013. 
  26. ^ Davies, Paul (12 April 2003). "A Brief History of the Multiverse". New York Times. Retrieved 16 August 2011. 
  27. ^ George Ellis (2011). "Does the Multiverse Really Exist?". Scientific American 305 (2): 38–43. Retrieved 16 August 2011. 
  28. ^ Marcus Chown, The void: Imprint of another universe?, New Scientist, 2007-11-24
  29. ^ arxiv:hep-th/0612142
  30. ^ Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 000, 1{13 (2009) Printed 20 May 2009 Non-Gaussian Signatures in the five-year WMAP data as identified with isotropic scaling indices G. Rossmanith1?, C. Rath1, A. J. Banday2;3 and G. Morfill1
  31. ^ Mann, Adam (2011-12-16). "Supernova research challenges cosmic "dark flow" mystery". Arstechnica.com. Retrieved 2012-11-11. 
  32. ^ Horizon, 'How Big is the Universe?' BBC Horizon, Season 49, Episode 4, 'How Big is the Universe?', (first broadcast 27 August 2012)
  33. ^ Trinh, Xuan Thuan (2006). Staune, Jean, ed. Science & the Search for Meaning: Perspectives from International Scientists. West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation. p. 186. ISBN 1-59947-102-7. 
  34. ^ Lewis, David (1986). On the Plurality of Worlds. Basil Blackwell. ISBN 0-631-22426-2. 
  35. ^ Deutsch, Harry, "Relative Identity", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer '02), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
  36. ^ Paul B. Kantor "The Interpretation of Cultures and Possible Worlds", 1 October 2002
  37. ^ IngentaConnect Home
  38. ^ Thomasson, Amie L. (2009), "Fictional Entities" (PDF), in Kim, Jaegwon; Sosa, Ernest; Rosenkrantz, Gary, A Companion to Metaphysics (2nd ed.), Blackwell, pp. 10–18 

Bibliography[edit]

External links[edit]