The multiverse

Submitted by Manureofhistory t3_10brkii in space

I have a lot of trouble with this idea. It seems like multiple universes would require a near infinite amount of energy to maintain itself but not only that, isn’t the idea completely unfalsifiable? I get that it works as and is sort of derived from probabilistic models but I find it unconvincing. How would we access one to test it? Through the lens of wave form collapse wouldn’t accessing another universe just collapse one into the other or something? Meaning you could never know even if you stumbled upon one?

Side tangent: I’ve mostly heard Sean Carol talk about multiple universes but compared to his other science work his multiverse concepts feel super weak. And it doesn’t help that he’s on Disney’s payroll. . .It feels like he’s just shilling for the mouse so they can filter all possible stories through known characters and thus always have guaranteed ticket sales without ever having to create anything new. (And I recognize that my disdain for this possibility also paints my willingness to accept multiple universes as valid)

192

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Interesting_Owl_8248 t1_j4cns7o wrote

That depends on which kind of multiverse you're talking about. If we go with the quantum, then the multiverse comes about as a logical result of our observations of the behavior of subatomic particles and their ability to be in two or more different, contradictory states at the same time (such as being in two different places at the same time). Since the particles can occupy contradictory states at the same time, so too must the things they make up, like us and the universe. Since we don't see this constant variance in our observations of reality, one solution is the quantum multiverse hypothesis, allowing the variances by postulating divergent universes.

As for the infinite energy requirement, one of the possible solutions is that the calculated energy of our universe is zero. Everything balances out, so our universe's total energy is zero. And yes, you can get more zero states from a zero state.

True, as of right now the multiverse hypothesis is unfalsefiable, but that also used to apply to the theories of gravity, germs, electromagnetism, organic chemistry, cells, the speed of light, photons, evolution, all of them. As we develop that may change.

132

Manureofhistory OP t1_j4cpomz wrote

There tend to be measurable effects from those other ideas though. There is at least a measurable symptom of gravity and what else, even if there is no graviton or anything. The multiverse on the other hand seems to be something that is posited as a potential model but only to fill a void that could potentially be filled some other way.

With regard to quantum states, it’s difficult to measure how the day to day emerges from quantum weirdness and I think some researchers think that if a form of quantum weirdness exists it must also occur in some sense at larger scales, which is how people become spiritualist hucksters. And that concerns me

Also owls are interesting. True

13

Rich_Cartoonist8399 t1_j4drwz3 wrote

A less technical perspective is that we - as four dimensional beings only capable of perceiving or measuring three dimensional spacetime, it’s pretty much impossible to comprehend higher dimensions. Maybe it’s trite, but if you see our perspective of space time as a flat piece of paper and a higher dimensional construct as a pencil, when that pencil breaks the paper, paper-beings are only capable of measuring or observing the circular hole spontaneously emerging from the paper, they have no understanding of the object, no framework to comprehend what a pencil is, it’s shape or function.

Anyway with this in mind it’s entirely possible for a multiverse of infinite possibility around us, without being easily measurable or observable/comprehendable. This doesn’t have to venture into woo woo metaphysics, things just are this way, there’s some things we simply can’t understand because of what we are.

41

czechmixing t1_j4dsth1 wrote

This guy 4th dimensions. I still don't get the whole tesseract construct. Too much for my quasi hairless ape grey matter to compute.

20

Rich_Cartoonist8399 t1_j4f1z7l wrote

It’s sort of mind breaking, your meat brain wasn’t built to imagine such things. But in order to have an event, you need a place and time. Xyz and time coordinates. You have a place without a time, that’s not an event. Time without a place, not an event. Without both of them nothing happens.

I’ve always thought that “supernatural” phenomena were people encountering something beyond their ability to parse, so they can only understand it via a preexisting cultural framework - aliens, angels, etc

Edit: it gets more confusing when you start thinking about how time space is essentially created by the forces of gravity

11

itsmeakaeda t1_j4e0gu9 wrote

This is a really good analogy. I like it and may need to steal it next time i get the question about higher dimensions

6

spudsoup t1_j4g2aei wrote

The novel Flatland is a very interesting exploration of this, one of my favorites

4

MankerDemes t1_j4gc5cq wrote

Particles occupying contradictory states simultaneously aren't a measurable symptom? It's seems like you have an awful lot of one-sided skepticism on this matter, have you applied any skepticism to the con-side of your original argument though?

0

Fred_Is_Dead_Again t1_j4cqm0q wrote

If I don't get answers after I die, I'm gonna speak to the manager and demand a refund.

119

Power0766 t1_j4fgq1p wrote

Hell, I already want a refund

3

beestc t1_j4fksij wrote

I bet one year from now, you’ll feel differently. I have a funny feeling 2023 is going to be a big year on a lot of fronts. I’m not saying things will be completely different, but I think big change is on the horizon. The pendulum is about to swing in an unexpected way. Don’t take your money and run yet. The fun is just getting started.

6

BobbyJanson t1_j4ftjy4 wrote

Ohhh man we got a TIME TRAVELERRRR!!!

7

beestc t1_j4fud6k wrote

Just a feeling I’ve got. The thing about the Universe is it always strives for balance, and I feel like this place has been pretty whack for a while now or at least since humans started doing anything ever.

2

smallbrownfrog t1_j4gmxus wrote

The universe is a big, big place. Humans affect the balance of the universe about as much as a speck of dust affects the balance of your coffee table.

6

beestc t1_j4goksf wrote

Right now our universe is this planet. At least that’s how I think we need to start viewing this organic spaceship,.and we do have a profound effect on it. Also, while our tiny planet is an insignificant dot in the universe, you have no way of knowing our significance unless you are an all-knowing deity or can see the future. Maybe we seed and populate the rest of the universe once we get our shit together. Or maybe we blow ourselves up with nukes before we get there. Who knows? I don’t, and I don’t think you can say for sure either.

0

mcnathan80 t1_j4gaeou wrote

The universe strives for balance

Humanity has unbalanced the universe

I don't like where you're going with this.../s

3

GaseousGiant t1_j4ff4do wrote

You’d have more luck getting Tire Rack to honor their road hazard warranties.

2

beestc t1_j4fl4n9 wrote

If you ask the right questions, you may get answers before you die. The problem is we don’t always like the answer or what the answer implies, especially if it requires work on our part. Just for fun, what’s the question at the top of your list?

2

ferrel_hadley t1_j4bpge8 wrote

>but not only that, isn’t the idea completely unfalsifiable?

Yes. But while not a fan of the theory, that is a normal place for an abstract theory to start. Science often emerges from philosophical questions that becomes a framework for thinking about a problem and working at the edges. Think of the origin of the Universe. Today the Big Bang is pretty well understood but it started as being a very abstract set of philosophical musings that was only narrowed in on from multiple angles and with lots and lots of unfalsifiable speculation.

68

Youdontknowmypickles t1_j4bz3t6 wrote

Nope. The advent of the Big Bang theory stemmed from Hubble work. He saw a receding universe from our perspective, then it was postulated that the universe must have been small at some point logically. It wasn’t philosophical, it was data driven.

22

ferrel_hadley t1_j4c0olv wrote

> The advent of the Big Bang theory stemmed from Hubble work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations

But Cosmology as a philosophy goes back to Aristotle and thinking about it led to ideas like Oblers Paradox

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox

This was a step towards it being a scientific question. It is a process from abstract musings to solid physics.

41

Youdontknowmypickles t1_j4c1an7 wrote

I disagree intuitively but let me actually think about this for a bit and come back to it. You might have a good point, I just haven’t ever thought of it

27

jinqsi t1_j4crw1t wrote

Luckily we’re on the internet so you can just come back to it without announcing your intentions to come back to it.

−12

CheeseItTed t1_j4cspks wrote

Personally, I appreciate someone saying out loud, "I have a kneejerk reaction but let me examine it." Reinforces good thinking habits for me. So maybe let people write how they want?

43

jinqsi t1_j4cyvnc wrote

Imagine the forum where everyone informs the rest that they have thoughts and opinions but are taking into account other people’s thoughts and opinions? It would be mostly that, wouldn’t it?

−10

Youdontknowmypickles t1_j4cuiaj wrote

Ok I’m back lol. And I do agree: the night sky should be bright if the universe was static, as was assumed in 1900. But we looked for explanations and stumbled upon the expanding universe, which then led to the creation of the Big Bang hypothesis. I don’t know if we can say that philosophy drove the gear for the explanation, but it certainly set about something that then had to be explained, so I see where you’re coming from

13

InterminableAnalysis t1_j4czh60 wrote

I think there's a good sense in which philosophy drives the gear for the explanation, in that the big bang theory eventually comes, at least partly, from a metaphysical consideration of the universe (e.g., importantly, a consideration of the nature of space).

4

Manureofhistory OP t1_j4c37f1 wrote

Then again I think there as many abstract ideas that never go anywhere. I don’t know what makes the multiverse more credible than anything like, say, panspermia

2

danielravennest t1_j4dqdfe wrote

There are way more theories than experiments, because theory only needs a blackboard, or a pad and pencil, while experiments cost real money. Science makes progress when experiments invalidate theories until there can be only one.

5

Mespirit t1_j4elht6 wrote

The theoratical background for the big bang was published by Lemaître before Hubble's meassurements, people just didn't take it seriously until Hubble published his findings.

3

Whatmeworry4 t1_j4cfift wrote

What is it that implies that the Big Bang created a universe as opposed to a big bang in an already existing universe?

2

danielravennest t1_j4drjzx wrote

Nothing. The Big Bang explains features of the "observable universe", like the cosmic background radiation and the original elemental abundances. It says nothing about what what is beyond our range of observation.

If there were an already existing universe within our range of observation, we would expect to see stars older than the ones we see. The age of the ones we see max out at a bit after the Big Bang.

4

Kitchen_Philosophy29 t1_j4clkde wrote

Nothing. There is no way for us to know what was befote the big bang as of yet.

So its "the beginning"

Just how they have an age in the universe. That is the age because that is what data told us. When we got ol james up there, we had begger data and the age 'increased'

3

3SquirrelsinaCoat t1_j4bsdaa wrote

The root of the idea is in explaining why our universe's physics are so finely tuned to allow a universe that can end up producing something like us. The odds that our universe would be this make-up, rather than another, are enormous. So either we're super special or, taking the "as above so below" notion, every potential universe make-up exists and we are seeing this one because it's the only one where we can emerge. The notion of energy ("energy to maintain itself") might not even apply to other universes because their physics are unknowable. And whether energy exists between universes, now we're in the realm of "just making it up."

In terms of the theories that grow out of that and how everything is rationalized and explained, honestly it's untestable and pretty useless from a scientific view. If something is in another universe, by definition, we cannot access it. All we can do is infer the possibility but never get closer than "maybe." It's an interesting idea but what's the point? Whether it is true is inaccessible knowledge.

25

Kitchen_Philosophy29 t1_j4cmchj wrote

No... we have statistical proof that it is the way it is. We have zero proof it could arise a different way.

So far the laws of nature don't fluctuate.

Given how we understand the way nature works. Our universe and time is the ONLY way for it to turn out; unless we prove other universes.

Furthermore there is no reason to think we couldnt detect other universes. Some speculate that may be the cause of dark matter. Hell it could explain quantum entanglement.

4

mynameisjiyeon t1_j4d6uo4 wrote

That’s what they’re saying though. Laws that govern nature is measured in THIS universe. We don’t know if the laws works differently in another.

Thes laws of nature doesn’t fluctuate in THIS universe

3

Kitchen_Philosophy29 t1_j4d8cm1 wrote

If thats what they are saying... your statement i responded to is wrong.

Which was why i said it

But to be clear. Evidence shows that if there was another universe it would have to follow our physics. Because there are no other instances of anything different.

−2

markmevans t1_j4dee1x wrote

That’s a different multiverse theory where different areas of a potentially infinite cosmos have different laws of physics. I believe the OP is referring to the Everettian multiverse where instead of the wave function collapsing the cosmos “branches” into multiple universe. In this model the laws of physics don’t change.

It rubs people the wrong way for various reasons, mostly because a huge number of universe seems unreasonable.

2

danielravennest t1_j4dsau4 wrote

There is yet another idea based on string theory. It proposes that the universe has more than 4 dimensions, but the additional ones are "rolled up" to quantum size. It would be possible that different sets of four out of ten dimensions exist, with different ones rolled up. These universes would be "perpendicular" to ours and thus unobservable.

1

against_the_currents t1_j4bqmuh wrote

Imagine the multi-verse like quantum foam. It’s a bubbley-fluctuation of expansion and contraction of each universe. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=scOCuRuMFy8

As opposed to a bunch of floating bubbles that knock around.

This fluctuation means the energy works out🤷‍♂️

That’s the way I picture it. As above so below.

Edit to add: if you imagine space time at the Planck scale, there are virtual bubbles that pop into and out of existence

In classical physics, momentum and energy are conserved, but heinsenburg spotted a loophole in the quantum realm. Energy and mass doesn’t have to be conserved, as long as it doesn’t have to exist for very long.

If you imagine the multiverse as these bubbles on a scale we couldn’t even imagine, our universe could exist in there. Just a fluctuation of energy that’s not supposed to exist for very long.

18

SysAdminShow t1_j4by83g wrote

I’ve been thinking of this more recently and you bring up an interesting point I didn’t consider yet. A multiverse with ever possible outcome is already unimaginable, but if true then some of them must be able to contact others which compounds the complexity to infinity. It becomes a never ending loop of sorts.

Personally I don’t like the use of the multiverse in fiction. It’s an easy solution/plot device that too powerful to be enjoyable. If it exists than you have already won and lost every possible scenario, so the story becomes somewhat pointless.

16

EponymousPancake t1_j4ck75p wrote

> if it exists then you have already won and lost every possible scenario, so the story becomes somewhat pointless

This brings up other interesting ideas though, such as perspectives on nihilism, and whether a meaningless universe is tragic and awful or liberating and beautiful, or all of the above or nothing at all. Characters can be apathetic and depressed in the face of nihilism, or compassionate and optimistic. In an existential vacuum, do people become corrupted or reveal their true selves? I think multiverses can be a good setting for philosophical conflicts

11

Kitchen_Philosophy29 t1_j4cmufr wrote

The issue with multiverse is that another universe implies a different set of natural laws.

In order for it to be different at all. Something has to be different. And that means that either somehow universes would effect each other, just be duplicates, or have different physics

Infinity is by definition a never ending loop lol

4

sirhandstylepenzalot t1_j4d1yyv wrote

>Infinity is by definition a never ending loop lol

well, that's entirely false

5

Kitchen_Philosophy29 t1_j4d7x3p wrote

What could be infinite that doesnt loop? Infinite space is infinite space.

Pi. Contains every number in every organization which also means it repeats

If it goes forever than it is a pattern. A pattern of never ending loops.

Any set in an infinite system repeats or loops

3

sirhandstylepenzalot t1_j4d9y0y wrote

i wouldn't say a vector of infinite length could be considered a loop just because the numbers used to measure it are made of a repeating loop

but

i'll reverse the 2 point deduction if you draw me a cool picture

3

Kitchen_Philosophy29 t1_j4dnbgj wrote

Your right. I was thinking of loop like a repeating sequence. I dont kniw why it was stuck in my head vs an actually loop shape

2

[deleted] t1_j4crump wrote

[deleted]

3

Kitchen_Philosophy29 t1_j4d2daa wrote

Infinity could exist and not everything could be possible.

All signs point to the universe of empty space being infinite. We have never had any evidence that the laws of nature change.

Infinite emptiness doesnt mean infinite matter or energy.

Even if there was infinite energy, the infinite nothingness could be larger.

Chaos still wants everything to settle into its lowest energy state. So that infinity besides our visible universe could just be dissociated quarks

We also use infinity in physics. We havent proved infinity but we have used infinity to discover other things.

4

SysAdminShow t1_j4cxe2p wrote

I watched this documentary and enjoyed the infinity hotel example. Best visualization of infinity I’ve seen.

3

[deleted] t1_j4cxqrv wrote

[deleted]

0

SysAdminShow t1_j4cyy27 wrote

Yeah another cool thought experiment, but a drastic over simplification and likely highly inaccurate. Still fun to think about what happens over an infinite amount of time.

2

Kitchen_Philosophy29 t1_j4d2tnw wrote

None of that makes any sense.

The laws of nature can still be implied with something being infinite.

Entropy is still a thing. There is a reason why 99 percent of everything is hydrogen.

2

[deleted] t1_j4d41x0 wrote

[deleted]

0

Kitchen_Philosophy29 t1_j4d7emx wrote

That makes no sense at all.

Again entropy. Infinity time doesn't mean infinity mass or energy. Its far more likely it would just become susceptible to heay death like the rest.

Furthermore... if it was truely industructibe in a way that is impossible in nature, no outside sources would be able to influence it. No pressute change, no heat, no cold. It wouldnt get to become a super fluid. It wouldnt subliminate.

2

[deleted] t1_j4d8lmg wrote

[deleted]

1

Kitchen_Philosophy29 t1_j4d9gq1 wrote

It is a really good theory because we have no evidence to the contrary.

Also guess what. There are loads of physicists that write fiction. Infact... an INSANE amount.

Gregory Benford (born 1941) Gregory Benford (born 1941) ... Carl Sagan (1934 – 1996) Carl Sagan (1934 – 1996) ... Robert L. ... Poul Anderson (1926 – 2001) ... Sir Fred Hoyle (1915 – 2001) ... C.P. ... Vladimir Nabokov (1899 – 1977)

1

f_d t1_j4d6kpr wrote

>If infinity exists literally anything is possible and if it doesn’t that is a different story.

Divide one by three. You'll get endless threes without ever finding any other digits.

Divide one by seven. You'll get six repeating digits without ever finding any of the others.

Infinity doesn't mean everything has to happen. It only means there is no end to whatever happens.

2

[deleted] t1_j4d6zm8 wrote

[deleted]

0

f_d t1_j4dxahc wrote

Infinite time doesn't have to mean endless possibilities. Everything could all play out the exact same way an infinite number of times. Nothing has to change between instances of a repeating universe.

You can also have a finite starting point that expands endlessly to infinity, like a simple graph that keeps going up and up and up the farther you plot it. If the universe keeps expanding and entropy keeps increasing, eventually you get a cold universe where everything is too far apart and too depleted for anything new to happen. Even though many different things happened earlier in that universe, all of its future will be spent quietly in the dark with everything more or less uniform.

2

[deleted] t1_j4dyt36 wrote

[deleted]

0

f_d t1_j4egd0c wrote

>For something to happen the same way an infinite number of times in itself is the most improbable of actions .

You are assuming the universe is not already set up so that everything repeats perfectly. There's nothing improbable about a predestined outcome.

>We do know a lot of galaxies are being sucked to a certain spot in the universe right now called the great attractor and we don’t know why.

All you need is gravity. It's on the other side of our galaxy, so we just can't get a good look at it.

>The problem with the heat death theory is we don’t have enough information to say that is even probable it is just a theory like everything else.

We know what happens to space and energy over time in this universe. We can predict what will happen far into the future based on this. It isn't guaranteed to happen, but it is by far the most likely outcome if nothing drastically changes about what is currently understood. Things like being a simulation that is suddenly turned off are so far outside our normal experience that there is no point trying to assign probability to them. We can predict based on the things we can experience, not outside intervention.

>We see a little picture and extrapolate a big picture and even though that is one of the most popular theory’s it is still as likely as we get to a certain point and it all sucks back and restarts.

You can't make useful predictions about likelihood based on that kind of supposition. You only can make useful predictions about likelihood if you begin from the currently understood behavior of the universe and build from there. And you certainly can't say that on the one hand, heat death is equally likely because anything can happen with equal probability, but on the other hand, an infinitely repeating universe is less likely than everything else. Either we stick to things we can actually predict with different amounts of likelihood based on current observations, or we make up whatever we want and call any of our made-up scenarios as likely as anything else.

An infinitely repeating sequence of events is completely possible as long as everything is lined up the right way at the start. And if there is somehow any kind of eternal repetition of the birth and death of the universe, an infinitely repeating cycle of events would be much more stable and likely to repeat itself than a different sequence each time. Existing in such a cycle would make the likelihood of that cycle existing one hundred percent, no matter how easy or hard it is to create the cycle in the first place.

2

Maplicious2017 t1_j4e4sdj wrote

Not necessarily, the idea of the multiverse isn't only a change in natural laws, it's a change in variables.

In one universe everything can be the same save for an atom bouncing left or right.

Or it could be one in which atoms don't exist.

The trouble is that we currently have no way of observing those different possibilities to know if they can exist or not, not to mention if observing them will change them in any way like in quantum physics.

1

red75prime t1_j4d65rl wrote

> if true then some of them must be able to contact others

Nope. It may be an impossible outcome.

2

Fritzzz333 t1_j4g5dhr wrote

actually no, the point of the quantum muktiverse theory is that the multiverses diverge, so they can never interact with each other. (that's why it's called Multiverses and not Multiregions or something)

0

DolphinWings25 t1_j4c0x4q wrote

All I know for sure is that around every corner of knowledge where we thought we had found the final piece the puzzle, it has proven to be much larger and incomplete.

11

iron40 t1_j4gehv9 wrote

Yes, and that drives people crazy. Many people get really uncomfortable when they cant explain or define something based on the current science. I can understand it to a degree. How would I feel if I spent decades, or even a lifetime learning a particular set of facts/figures/formulas...only to have them all thrown out the window, or turned sideways by new discoveries or observations? That’s a tough position.

1

caseyjcannon t1_j4db9jr wrote

Multiverses are ascientific. And they are getting excessive attention because it seems 'cool' and scientists are all too happy to romanticize it for the attention. But we need to stop pushing it so much. It is akin to a religious belief, which is fine if you want to hold that belief, but don't paint it as scientific or in line with our current understanding. It is an extreme application of math (quantum wave function) to reality without the ability to test and validate, and zero evidence for it within our current scientific understanding.

11

boolucole t1_j4d1rjx wrote

  1. Infinite energy
    You're thinking that the infinite universes exist inside each other sequentially like a chain, with each universe feeding energy into and supporting the ones below it into infinity. That model would certainly require infinite energy, but it's not the only model out there. There's also the 'floating bubbles' model, where each universe is self-contained and generating its own energy.
    In fact, the chain could also be self-contained. Like matryoshka dolls.
  2. Wave-Form Collapse
    We simply don't know enough about multiversal physics to know if there's a way to access other universes without collapsing into each other. It could be that there's no way to confirm the theory, or that we can only look in and never step foot there.
    On a smaller scale, we don't yet have a way to travel faster than light. But we can conceive of multiple possible ways of making it happen. It could be that FTL travel is a prerequisite, that FTL travel affects physics in some weird way that would make it possible, or even easy.
    We won't know until we get there.
  3. Disney Shills
    Look, even if we confirmed the issue beyond a shadow of a doubt one way or the other, it wouldn't affect the inifinite possibilities model of creating media. There's always going to be someone that thinks, "Hey, but what if they were pirates?", and there's always going to be someone that exploits that for money. That's the basis of corporate greed.
    A couple hundred years ago, it was the North Pole. Then it was the Northwest Passage. Then it was Atlantis, Shangri-La, the Centre of the Earth, the Far East. Today it's far-off planets and alternate universes. The possibility of the unknowable will always fascinate and inspire people.
    And fascination opens wallets.
10

travelling-through t1_j4cn76n wrote

its the same as the "we are in a simulation" shit

bored people tripping on stuff for fun

8

Matthayde t1_j4cwq5y wrote

The universe isnt locally real

2

travelling-through t1_j4d0bop wrote

the universe is only locally real

3

sirhandstylepenzalot t1_j4d2p8e wrote

I can't remember where but I read a physicist pointing to a definition of multi-verse to basically mean...neighboring big bangs. so we have our known big bang as a universe and other big bangs as multi-verses. I hate that definition. If they're all still in the same space (just different rooms in one house) calling it a multi-verse is weird. I want multi-verse to mean super-imposed universes separated by planes of consciousness. Thank you

2

ImperialFisterAceAro t1_j4dadjq wrote

Perhaps it's something like different rooms in the same house, different houses on the same street, different streets in the same city, different cities in the same country, different countries on the same planet, different planets in the same star system, different star systems in the same galaxy, different galaxies in the same universe, and different universes in the same room.

2

sirhandstylepenzalot t1_j4db2w1 wrote

would you close the door?

of course it's logical - it's just a personal compartmentalization/language thing

I'd prefer Universe be the base layer that encompasses all. otherwise - what would we call that Space? ...nvm

3

ImperialFisterAceAro t1_j4dp4cs wrote

MEGA SPACE

Lets get all Byzantine with it, just keep adding stuff on to space until we've got 'Supreme August First-rate Senior Space of the West' ;P

3

Maxtrt t1_j4dvgdj wrote

My hypothesis is that the universe is actually a series of spacetime bubbles that are created by gravity. When black holes start eating enough matter they become super dense and with every atom they become more dense until they start to eat entire galactic superclusters and eventually they merge with other black holes until the effect of gravity becomes so strong that it literally rips a hole in space-time. When this happens it becomes a new Big-Bang. I think of this multiverse as being like the structures of a sponge. Each new Big-Bang creates a new bubble in space-time that is interconnected with the universe that caused this new Big-Bang. This would explain the rapid expansion of the universe from a single point. Eventually in a future so far that we can only express using very large exponents, all the matter in our universe will merge due to gravity and eventually the process will repeat itself and as our universe dies a new one will be born.

We are still left with question of where did all the matter/energy come from to start the whole process. The complete vastness of our still growing universe is so large that it can't really be understood in anything but mathematical terms that lose all meaning to humans.

4

thegagis t1_j4bqnte wrote

Its unfalsifiable at least for now. Perhaps we will eventually run into some phenomenon that makes more sense if one intrepretation of quantum mechanics is true compared to the others. For now most physcists follow the "shut up and calculate"-intrepretation.

I have absolutely no clue what your disney angle has to do with the many worlds intrepretation of quantum mechanics. This part of your message seems to make absolutely no sense.

3

Manureofhistory OP t1_j4bu4vd wrote

That’s why I marked it as a side tangent that might be painting my willingness to accept the idea

0

hooray1867 t1_j4c6ucl wrote

I’m with you on this. It’s an interesting idea and certainly fun to dream about. But it has not basis in fact or science. It just an idea to try and determine what caused the Big Bang because our models currently have no explanation for this.

3

aiolive t1_j4csbee wrote

I'm reading "The Universe in your hand" by Christophe Galfard (great book, easy to read and covers everything science knows about the big and the small and then some), and there are 4 types of multiple universes theories all following extrapolations from real physics or mathematics. I'd recommend reading that to better decide for yourself how scientific you believe it is.

3

Tactical-Lesbian t1_j4dt1a2 wrote

The multiverse is a popular trope for those who grapple with the cosmological constant. Perhaps there are some other ways to try and poke holes in the cosmological constant also that don't include the anthropic principle?

Ironically, the anthropic principle hints at the non-physical nature of existence. I don't believe physical existence has ever been proven by science anyway? Form exists, but breaking things down to their most basic fundamental atomos/physical structure leads to the Higgs Boson, which exists without mass.

Leading us back to the nature of consciousness again. But apparently, it's scientific heresy to speak of such things, unless of course you are a quantum physicist who has studied Hebrew or Sanskrit.

3

uselessopinionman t1_j4c2yt2 wrote

I've been on the multiverse idea from a philosophical point of view for a while. For me it's a perspective thing. Our observable universe has a hard limit. Due to expansion anything already out side that bubble will never be apart of it. In that sense there are at least 2 universes the one I am in can see and everything else that i can not. If another being was in another part of space say 50 billion light. Years away, our 2 observable universes could have different localized rules of physics and be fundamentally different.

But then also there is the possibility of overspace as well. In the sense that physics breaks down at the quantum level behaving in ways that are impossible on the macro level. The possibility of an overspace leaves the door open on the multiverse. But who knows

2

ammonium_bot t1_j4d05cn wrote

> be apart of it.

Did you mean to say "a part of"?
Explanation: apart is an adverb meaning separately, while a part is a noun meaning a portion.
Total mistakes found: 477
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes. ^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions.
^^Github
^^Patreon

2

probenation t1_j4chtw8 wrote

I had a little thought experiment about the multiverse. When I first read an article about the multiverse, it was accompanied by a graphic showing how there are multiple dimensions with infinite universes in each. The graphic looked like a layered cake without sides - where each layer was a separate dimension and inside each dimension was the word universes with arrows pointing out into the open sides. I wonder if, instead of a layered cake, it is more like a Russian nesting doll.

So, the thought experiment goes like this:

Imagine if every living thing, from the largest biomass down to the smallest single cell organism, was itself a universe - just of varying size and complexity. If every living thing is a universe, conversely, every universe is a living thing. So, take a different look at our universe, specifically our solar system, and imagine our sun as a nucleus and the planets as electrons. That would make all of "us" technically sub atomic particles riding an electron. Hence, the Russian nesting doll notion. Perhaps, it could also explain the issues we have reconciling classical and sub atomic physics, as the forces of the two dimensions would be butting up against each other.

2

PapaSnork t1_j4efenn wrote

While the human mind loves elegance and patterns, if there were more about the universe that qualified as truly scale-invariant, then something like what you propose would be closer to possible; however, consider that even a snippet of recorded speech is only intelligible within a very small range of all possible playback speeds... anything too slow or too fast is unintelligible, and outside of 20 Hz-20 kHz, inaudible to humans. Let's propose for a moment that the Gaia hypothesis is literally true; notwithstanding the difficulty in bridging the experiential gap between forms of sentience, the sheer difference in timescales would preclude true communication. I could try to talk to the mitochondria in my cells, or the literal planet I'm on- but, either way, nothing will happen.

3

Kitchen_Philosophy29 t1_j4cnbva wrote

That would break physics. They couldnt be in one another because e=mc2.

Unless you break physics you couldnt shrink a universe down unless it had no energy and no matter (or differeny physics). Because it was nothingness it would just be part of our universe

2

Durable_me t1_j4cjwx7 wrote

The multiverse can also be an incremental universe.... So just like the Apple time machine backup, it not creates 2 new universes every Plack second, but only creates the differences, so incremental.
In that way, there won't be infinite complete universes, but still all possibilities that happen are possible and can be reconstructed by the incremental data.

2

Interesting_Owl_8248 t1_j4cx7vk wrote

There is measurable evidence on the quantum level, the issue is finding a way to measure in the macro level. And, yes, once we can, it may falsify the multiverse hypothesis.

2

Ape_Togetha_Strong t1_j4d0gzk wrote

Have you read Sean Carroll's writing on it? That'd be a better idea than posing this question to /r/space.

Beyond Falsifiability: Normal Science in a Multiverse

Or how about his 2+ hour long podcast episode titled "The Philosophy of the Multiverse"

2

Manureofhistory OP t1_j4g5h5p wrote

I have I was honestly just looking for other perspectives because more than any of his other work it sounds like mental gymnastics coming from him. He’s one of my favorite science writers and thinkers and I’ve collected most of his works, but man I just don’t buy his multiple universes idea or how he defends it

1

This_Acanthisitta_43 t1_j4dffw2 wrote

Yeah totally agree here. As for a storytelling device it’s a little bit like “it was all just a dream” in that it somewhat diminishes the stakes. It’s ok they are alive in another universe type of crappy method for unkilling a character

2

EnderOfNightmares t1_j4dnfb8 wrote

This might be somewhat different than what your asking, but I think each universe is infinite but not the way you'd think. If there would be a multiverse, each universe is infinite, basically the infinite numbers between 0 and 1. Every universe is like this.

2

22AgentBrown t1_j4dpudx wrote

I’m fascinated with the idea of infinite universes but to bad the idea only exists in science fiction

2

f_d t1_j4dwbq8 wrote

>It seems like multiple universes would require a near infinite amount of energy to maintain itself

Time could be infinite, space could be infinite, our universe could keep expanding infinitely. Why would an infinite amount of energy to go along with that be a problem, as long as everything follows the usual rules at any particular location?

Once you step outside of our universe, time and space and energy might not mean the same things anyway. Imagine a giant twisty extra-dimensional sculpture containing every moment of our universe, with everything figuratively set in stone for any outside observers. Or an environment where everything can pop in or out of existence spontaneously. It's pointless to get too hung up on the rules and limitations inside our universe when speculating about what could exist outside of it.

2

Manureofhistory OP t1_j4g75j6 wrote

That’s interesting but I think the problem with the infinite is the issue of infinite regress, right? So are we thinking of infinite as a sort of shaped vacuity? That would be something like an infinite set, whatever that means. That raises big questions about what we mean when we say infinite.

1

f_d t1_j4jirnn wrote

I'm not sure I follow you here at all. There doesn't have to be any problem with infinite. It's just something that goes on forever.

Things can also be infinite in one direction and finite in another. Our universe might have a finite start at its beginning leading into endless expansion into time and space.

Some infinities come to a virtual end without ever quite reaching it. Much of calculus depends on plugging in infinity to figure out the value an equation will eventually close in on.

Things that are infinite are not identical to each other. You can have a densely populated infinity or a sparsely populated infinity or an empty infinity. You can have a diverse infinity or a homogeneous one. You can have an infinity that is always larger or smaller than another infinity wherever you measure it.

The observable universe stretches equally in every direction without any sign it is approaching a boundary. It doesn't have universe-scale landmarks to set its regions apart from each other. On the largest scale, it meets all the requirements to be an infinitely large, infinitely growing environment with only superficial differences at smaller scales. So that's already one set of infinities in play before we introduce additional universes.

We don't know what rules apply outside our universe, so talking about what infinities are or are not possible with those rules doesn't mean anything either.

1

karma-toes t1_j4dzlut wrote

Concur. Nature is nothing if not efficient. Why operationalize surplus effort? Multiple universes is out of character. Atypical. Nature optimizes.

Mathematical string theory etc is all good on paper but as per the Feynman explainer, all the 5 zillion potential states cancel each other out until you get one solution that's most probably real.

I comment as a know-nothing. Hi Reddit!

2

mindfulmachine t1_j4fhxx8 wrote

Nature is not about max efficiency. The optimum number of kidneys is how many? Nature has redundancy quite often

2

WayneDufty t1_j4ecsep wrote

The universe DOES have an infinite amount of energy. Case closed.

2

OkSmile t1_j4eksgi wrote

I remember David Deutsch making an appearance argument that stuck with me. He said that if you could in fact perform a quantum calculation on a real physical device (this was before we had any sort of quantum computers), then the multiple states of each quantum "bit" must in fact be stored in some "real" physical space. With this premise, the multiverse was actually the simplest "Occam's razor" explanation for how this information is stored.

2

LiberalAspergers t1_j4ep3zz wrote

You are combining two distinct interpretations of quantum mechanics. In a multiverse interpretation, there is no waveform collapse, as all possible outcomes occur.

2

[deleted] t1_j4epgls wrote

Multiverse could be just two. Or 11. Doesn't have to be infinite.

I picture the the universe as a bubble. A multiverse could be seen as another bubble stuck to more bubbles. Like foam. Or bubble bath.

2

DNASweat_SMH t1_j4ez6c0 wrote

I look at multiverse like an explosion. When there is an explosion the forces are directed 360 degrees.

When we look at the Big Bang we are seeing the light from a single point. Imagine seeing a light from a afar enough to see its single but not close enough to whats directly behind the light.

I think our universe is 1 of a few or 1 of 360. I think it’s somewhere in between.

2

tcadmn t1_j4f2h8h wrote

To me, there are 3 possibilities. The multiverse doesn’t exist, the multiverse is not infinite, or the multiverse exists, but it is not possible (at least yet) to travel between multiverses. If the multiverse is infinite and traversable, there would be infinite travelers showing up in infinite locations, in every multiverse.

2

StarChild413 t1_j58lps3 wrote

> If the multiverse is infinite and traversable, there would be infinite travelers showing up in infinite locations, in every multiverse.

but also infinite obstacles in their way which could be why we wouldn't see them (if the possibility of traveling undercover doesn't mean this turns into The Egg with everyone being everyone)

1

[deleted] t1_j4fpyo3 wrote

I really, really enjoyed this thread. Thanks OP!

2

feralcomms t1_j4ccd9c wrote

I’ve lived in the multiverse for 5 years when I thought Charlie sheen was dead.

I would also recommend reading David Deutsch’s fabric of reality.

1

BlurredOrange t1_j4ck4xc wrote

>> It seems like multiple universes would require a near infinite amount of energy to maintain itself

Why do you think a universe requires energy? Where do you think our universe gets this energy from?

1

insidmal t1_j4cncus wrote

Multiverse is a plot device, and a lazy one at that, not real life.

1

McSmackthe1st t1_j4cnqio wrote

I think the energy of each universe would keep itself going. Also, the first thing that popped into my mind was the Double-Slit Experiment. Go into a deep dive into that whole thing and you’ll be lost for hours.

1

Manureofhistory OP t1_j4d226h wrote

I have but I don’t know that it needs to imply anything about multiverses

1

[deleted] t1_j4cts31 wrote

[deleted]

1

Mkwdr t1_j4dhw0o wrote

I have read similar ideas and they are interesting ( if well above my brain grade) but I think I am right in saying that in quantum physics ‘observer’ is really a term for kinds of interaction , it doesn’t actual have to be a consciousness? There is a certain elegance to the idea that there is some kind of natural selection process for universes that means while there may be infinite potential ones only some can be real?

2

Argonated t1_j4elq4j wrote

All can be real and are real if MWI is correct.

1

Mkwdr t1_j4fbxbv wrote

All possible universes if I remember correctly even in MWI? I claim no expertise but there are different kinds of multiverse theories. The cosmological inflationary and the MWI and branes (?) though some would like to link them? I’m not sure to what extent MWI is meant to be multiple versions of ‘this’ universe - the cat being alive in one and dead in another but the laws of physics still being the same? Or does it also produce universes with varied basic conditions? I don’t know - but i think the cosmological inflationary multiverse does include the possibility of universes with very different conditions and some parameters are unsustainable - the bubble pops , deflates etc.

1

[deleted] t1_j4fggw2 wrote

[deleted]

1

Mkwdr t1_j4fi92u wrote

It can indeed.

I keep trying to find something on any limits to the worlds of the many world interpretation but it’s difficult.

>This implies that all possible outcomes of quantum measurements are physically realized in some "world" or universe. (Wiki)

I’m curious as to under these circumstances what determines whether something is possible or not. And are there potential universes that don’t exist because they are not the possible outcomes of any quantum ‘measurement’? Does that make sense?

I did find this .. though obviously I have no idea as to the validity ..

> In the Many World’s interpretation of quantum mechanics the universe we live in seems to split into separate universes. You’re in a not-special one of them and evidently they’ve got normal space. Same π.

https://www.askamathematician.com/2020/12/q-is-%cf%80-the-same-in-every-universe/

1

Shiningc t1_j4g10sl wrote

The laws of physics are the same in the multiverse.

1

Shiningc t1_j4g0x8a wrote

The Many Worlds Interpretation is NOT about "the observer effect". The observer effect is about denying the multiverse.

1

Manureofhistory OP t1_j4g6ar1 wrote

I’m fairly certain that the term observer in quantum physics is more of a misnomer. From what I understand it means something more like “conditions”

1

ken28e t1_j4cu0p6 wrote

Even if true, there are so many you could never find one that even remotely resembles yours

1

poetryisdead28 t1_j4cubpw wrote

Perhaps the energy of every universe keeps the others going, like pushing off of each other or like a neverending waterwheel.

1

TheGoldens19 t1_j4d1iru wrote

That’s so creepy but is theres infinite energy ? isn’t infinite nonexistent if it’s infinite. The thought was scary I don’t like thinking this stuff lol it affects me. I need a Valium.

1

BobDawg3294 t1_j4d7m01 wrote

Just what is it that our universe is expanding into, anyway? Why is there extrema room fo it to expand into?🤯

1

Mkwdr t1_j4dgf4r wrote

It isn’t expanding into anything, it is (at least in this context) everything. It’s not really the sort of concept our ‘ape’ brain intuitions cope with very well.

2

ScottWipeltonIII t1_j4di419 wrote

Sounds like you have some weird issues with Disney more than anything else. You know this concept was around before Marvel movies right? It’s been a scientific theory for over a century and a common plot device in books, movies, and comics for longer than you’ve been alive too. The fact that you think Disney is paying people off to support the theory of the multiverse in the scientific community to promote their movies is frankly completely unhinged.

1

Manureofhistory OP t1_j4g8od4 wrote

To address this specifically, of course the multiverse has been around in sci-fi for forever, that being said it has a bigger degree of popular reception due to its presence in popular media. On the other hand it is not accepted as an element of fantasy, where it seems like it should be. I don’t think people like Sean carol are being specifically paid by the mouse to lie, because they wouldn’t need to. If he saw that it was to his benefit to promote the idea in order to support his more valid science work then why wouldn’t he? Think of Francis cricks book Life Itself, a book promoting the utter crap idea of panspermia. He has admitted he only wrote the book because it was present in popular media and would draw attention to him, and thus his valid science efforts. Of course the mouse isn’t giving scientists money to lie. They don’t have to, it can be a silent agreement that benefits both parties.

1

Klondike2022 t1_j4dm393 wrote

I know there’s a Spider-Verse. I saw real footage in the Marvel documentary

1

Beginning-Floor9284 t1_j4en1qz wrote

Here is my take using logical deduction principles. ? Particles > Atom > molecule > cell > organism > planet > solar system > galaxy > universe > ?

Stop on both sides or multiverse

1

Manureofhistory OP t1_j4g7dk1 wrote

Well it stops on either side at one point or another even if a multiverse exists. But then if the multiverse is infinite there’s the issue of infinite regress

1

PDXalreadtused t1_j4eqqtj wrote

The closest I have gotten to the multiverse is dmt, will definitely open ones eyes.

1

[deleted] t1_j4es147 wrote

I’ve always subscribed to the possibility that what is considered impossible in our universe may not be so in another; who says they all have to abide by the same scientific laws as our universe?

1

dashingstag t1_j4ewywg wrote

I think it’s our inability to fathom the infinite. The way I think about it is to imagine our universe as an atom and the other universes are atoms beside it.

1

Fishyonekenobi t1_j4ey7gn wrote

Not only are there multiverses but there’s an infinite number of them for all time. “Nothing” cannot exist. It’s like dividing by zero. Universes are a wave of matter and energy.

1

Manureofhistory OP t1_j4g7pcz wrote

By definition nothing can’t exist, but that’s because nothing is the placeholder term for non-existence. Conceptually, that doesn’t make it less real right?

1

SiliconeArmadildo t1_j4ey8u9 wrote

The multiverse is one of many similar theories who's sole purpose is to hypothesize about unknown. For everything we know about physics, there are still a lot of things that don't add up, and things like multiverse theries just propose possibilities that might fill in the blanks.

1

gwardotnet t1_j4f2gbn wrote

We'll never know any of it. Never. We'll find more mysteries.

1

cinder_lady t1_j4fib0k wrote

Just throwing this in there... Scientists have started mapping the DMT realm in people's brains by slow IV infusion. Talk about confusing.

1

Robot_Basilisk t1_j4fq0ey wrote

> It seems like multiple universes would require a near infinite amount of energy to maintain itself

What makes you think the conditions for generating and sustaining a universe obey the same laws as events within our known universe? We have no idea if causality or anything like it exists beyond our reality. For all we know, our conservation laws are unique to our island of existence, or even change non-trivially beyond the horizon of the observable universe.

1

RussianTrollToll t1_j4fu633 wrote

Energy is only understood in THIS universe. We have no idea the amount of energy it took to create this timeline and we have no idea how much energy The Creators have at their disposal

1

Shiningc t1_j4g0ha6 wrote

There's one way to falsify the multiverse: Make an AGI/consciousness running on a quantum computer, and make it experience "quantum consciousness" in the multiverse.

1

vitringur t1_j4g7j9e wrote

Why could there not be infinite energy if there is energy in the first place?

Conservation of energy only applies in closed systems and is not a requirement in general relativity

1

kryptek_86 t1_j4g7obm wrote

I don't really understand what you are asking but this is the way I think a multiverse works.

Our universe, or at least the way we can understand it, can be thought of as a 4-dimensional object. The three traditional space dimensions, and the time dimension which forms this 4D object. You could think of it as a 3D cube with infinite length edges that changes with every moment of time (by moment I mean every interval of time, which could be infinitesimal if discrete or perhaps time is continuous, think Calculus).

Each dimension, whether time or space, can contain infinite energy/information (think of the # of points on a line, a 1D object). So if you compare a 3D object (for example a cube) to a 2D object (square) the 3D object is made up of an infinite amount of squares stacked ontop of eachother to create the cube. So the cube has infinitely more information, or space, than the square.

So it's not farfetched that a multiverse would have infinitely more information/energy than the universe.

If you take a cross section of our 4D universe, you'd get a snapshot of the current state of the universe, where time doesn't exist, it's just a 3D object with a vast, or infinite amount of information.

So if you add another dimension to the universe, you'd have infinite iterations of our universe, infinite 4D hypercubes, each describing a unique universe (or maybe it doesn't have to be unique, like the squares that make up a cube).

I don't really know how I feel about a 5D multiverse, as the idea is sorta abstract and maybe it doesn't align with the idea of traditional time and space dimensions. Perhaps it isn't a dimension, but some new factor, which is very chaotic, random, and can explain why there would be infinite universe permutations in the multiverse which causes the existence of parallel universes.

I'll leave it with this: I think the fact that our universe is so precisely tuned for us to be able to exist and ponder about the universe proves that the multiverse exist, and that we are just one of the infinite permutations that have the chance to question about the universe.

1

Marine4lyfe t1_j4gb7c3 wrote

I know nothing about Time and Space, but I do remember some kind of Scientist on TV saying that, since space is infinite, there's a 100% certainty that there is an identical planet with someone who looks just like me, or you, living identical lives to us.

1

danwilan t1_j4gcci0 wrote

They kinda do all this base on math,.. n math without experimentation proved to be misleading at times,. Like may paradoxes that exist,..

1

The_Fleeced_American t1_j4gq69n wrote

Comments in here take me back to the membrane theory. This theory....to me....offers an explanation of how the universe can start from a single point and have inflation... If you have 2 sheets of paper representing the seperate universes and you touch them flat against each other then you get a single point of contact along the entire sheets of paper. That makes the beginning of the universe a single point but the bang occurs along the entire plane, making it appear to be....inflation? Who knows, maybe our universe is over 300 b light years along the plane but only a 15-90 b from top to bottom....

1

tlk0153 t1_j4hpiwc wrote

Don’t know how you got the idea of infinite energy. Our universe has zero net energy. Too long of a discussion to go into so we leave it here.

Imagine you are living inside an opaque balloon. You can’t see outside but there are other balloons floating around. If any two balloons get pressed against each other then you can indirectly observe that from inside of your balloon.

Our universe is homogeneous all around in terms of distribution of matter and temp of the edge of the universe. Theory is that if another universe presses against the boundary of our universe then we should be able to observe that as an inconsistency (just like you can see indention of other balloon pressing against your balloon, even from inside). Scientists have found inconsistent regions of our universe where either the temp is below the average or there are no galaxies (great void). There is no direct proof that another universe is pressing against ours, but the point is that we probably can test the existence of another universe under some very specific conditions

1

Tathanor t1_j4j3r9x wrote

The multiverse exists because it exists outside of our plane of existence. We can't interact with a parallel universe because its timeline is shared with ours, like a mirror. We can only interact with potential universes before time catches up to us.

Just how a sphere is a circle with infinite points in 3 dimensions, our reality is a single point in an infinite possibility of realities. We can know this because we have the ability to shape our reality by interacting with it. Manipulating it before time catches up to solidify it as present, then past. We make one choice, and because of that, the opposing choice is made in a different reality.

Trying to conceptualize it within our universe doesn't make sense because it's operating on laws we cannot fathom. We are bound logically by the laws in our universe, so even trying to imagine it is like trying to teach a sloth quantum physics and expect it to understand.

1

Supreme_InfiniteVibe t1_j4d261n wrote

Look, the multiverse exists.

We will never be able to see other universes or prove that they exist.

Whenever a black hole sucks energy and matter through it’s singularity that energy and matter is spit out into a new singularity thus creating a new universe.

So energy is infinite.

−1

Mkwdr t1_j4dgnhy wrote

I’m not sure there is actually much in the way of evidence for these rather definitive statements.

2

Supreme_InfiniteVibe t1_j4dov88 wrote

Things don’t need evidence to be true or false. When something is, it simply is.

0

Mkwdr t1_j4dvxpo wrote

Whilst it's trie but entirely trivial that what is ... is. Claims do need evidence to be taken seriously and we can't know what is without evidence.

1

Supreme_InfiniteVibe t1_j4dy8tq wrote

I don’t need evidence to know something is true when my gut already knows from faith and facts provided.

Black holes have a singularity and the Big Bang had a singularity. Put it together

0

Mkwdr t1_j4fa1b4 wrote

>I don’t need evidence to know something is true when my gut already knows from faith and facts provided.

lol. So everything and anything anyone has ‘in their gut’ must be true? I always knew Santa was real…

Or you just have a special git detection device no one else does.

I mean frankly this is just silly. There’s overwhelming evidence that people believe contradictory , absurd , and provably wrong things.

Believe what you like but don’t pretend it has anything to do with reality or science. Don’t expect anyone to take it seriously.

>Black holes have a singularity and the Big Bang had a singularity.

These are based on mathematical modelling and extrapolation. Whether or not there was an actual singularity in the Big Bang is very much debated as is whether it would be the same kind of thing as what might be in black holes. It’s difficult to say since our mathematical modelling break down by that point.

>Put it together

And make something entirely imaginary and unjustified? Provide evidence that a singularity discharges energy into other universes….. Or this has any thing to do with infinite energy ( especially since some argue that the overall level of energy in this universe is zero).

Oh but I forgot. Your evidence is - ‘I feel it in my gut’ . lol. I guess that saves doing the science or the maths at least.

In the words of the prophets of Monty Python…

>He’s making it up as he goes along.

2

Supreme_InfiniteVibe t1_j4fc9bw wrote

Bruh I don’t believe in absurd things. I know what I know and I know the multiverse is real that’s it. People can debate on whether the Big Bang had a singularity or not but like it did. Where else did everything come from the bang? Quit waiting on proof that you’ll never get and just use your intuition

1

Mkwdr t1_j4fcz5e wrote

Like I said

>He’s making it up he goes along.

So it’s just your gut that works as a physics detector then? The fact that peoples ‘guts’ evidently contradict eachother or have proposed things that later turned out to be false …. doesn’t undermine your gut. How lucky. You should market it.

Believing that your gut can inform you of the truth or not of the physics of complex cosmological phenomena is pretty much the definition of absurd.

Intuitively it’s obvious that the world is flat and the sun travels around it …… that must be true then. lol

Anyway enough of Camelot your gut … ‘tis a very silly place.’

2

Supreme_InfiniteVibe t1_j4gkj8g wrote

It’s not very intuitive that the world is flat. Some physics I don’t know enough about to have intuition on it. I know what I know.

1

Mkwdr t1_j4gkx5h wrote

>It’s not very intuitive that the world is flat.

I guess history isn’t a strong point either.

>Some physics I don’t know enough about to have intuition on it.

Seems like you dint know enough about physics fullstop if you think evidence is unimportant and gut instinct is enough.

>I know what I know.

You believe what you believe. Knowledge entails a quality of justification. ‘Feels’ is neither evidence nor justification.

2

Manureofhistory OP t1_j4g6pig wrote

You’re making a “brute fact” argument for the multiverse and then saying it’s unprovable. Why shouldn’t that statement be received as dogmatic or delusional?

2

ChrisGear101 t1_j4emshp wrote

It's easy. It's a bullshit term invented to allow movie executives to make horrible movies that follow no timeline, lore or canon.

−1

StarChild413 t1_j58lx1u wrote

if you think Marvel Studios invented the multiverse theory even as it relates to fiction you're obviously not a real comic fan or at least an exclusively Marvel fan or you'd know about the history of the DC multiverse in the comics

1

ReadditMan t1_j4bsw8c wrote

Multiverse Theory is pure science fiction. There is absolutely no hard evidence that multiverses exist, any "science" based around it is built off of nothing but speculation and mathematics that have never been supported by real observations. It's theories based on theories based on more theories, it's not real science.

It's insane to me that scientists are spending their time trying to prove theories that were literally created by science fiction writers. Almost everything we know about the universe we learned through observation and decades of study, we didn't just randomly come up with a fantastical idea and then spend years trying to prove it's a real thing. Time travel, multiverses, simulation theory, higher dimensions; all of that was conceived from science fiction and now because "scientists" have spent decades creating "research" around it people actually think it's real science. None of it is based in reality, those theories formed in an echo chamber where they were carefully crafted into a convincing pseudoscience.

−5

Substantial-Lab-5647 t1_j4bzf71 wrote

In what sense are you referring to a multiverse? Because the many worlds interpretation is a valid phenomenological approach to wave function collapse, and there’s just as much evidence for that as for the Copenhagen interpretation. Consigning something like that to “science fiction” is a bit premature, don’t you think?

Even if you’re referring to other theories of a multiverse, like Roger Penrose’s conformal cyclic cosmology, mathematics is a very valid approach to the world. It’s like you think mathematics doesn’t tell us things about the natural world. We largely developed our quantum field theories by investigating gauge symmetries, so why is developing a theory based on the math of conformal invariance such a stretch? I get that it’s difficult to verify, but “science fiction”? That’s jumping to conclusions for which there is no evidence.

12

caseyjcannon t1_j4dckge wrote

Math is obviously extremely useful, but just because a mathematical formula exists does not mean that there is an equivalent behavior in reality, particularly one that there is zero real-world evidence to support and is unproveable. Perhaps that will change in the future (though I'd argue it's safe to say it won't any time soon) but at this time it is absolutely ascientific.

2

karma_aversion t1_j4cafq9 wrote

The various theories point to a multiverse do not all come from science fiction, some are the direct result of observations. Some unexplained patterns to the cosmic background radiation have been attempted to be explained with mutiverse theories, like perhaps the pattern is the remnant of our universe impacting or interacting with another.

3

HookItUpCuuz t1_j4c79tr wrote

Go pray to Jesus and read your daily bible bread or something

2

Shiningc t1_j4g13iu wrote

Neither have dinosaurs ever been observed.

1

Manureofhistory OP t1_j4g5zss wrote

To be fair science fiction can inspire invention, and therefore certain modes of thought. But I do think the multiverse leaves a lot to be desired

1