PDA

View Full Version : the multiverse


VV o n g B a
04-15-2003, 10:06 AM
my oh my. it seems i have a twin just about 10^28 meters from my current position.

-------------------------
Parallel Universes

Not just a staple of science fiction, other universes are a direct implication of cosmological observations

By Max Tegmark

Is there a copy of you reading this article? A person who is not you but who lives on a planet called Earth, with misty mountains, fertile fields and sprawling cities, in a solar system with eight other planets? The life of this person has been identical to yours in every respect. But perhaps he or she now decides to put down this article without finishing it, while you read on.
The idea of such an alter ego seems strange and implausible, but it looks as if we will just have to live with it, because it is supported by astronomical observations. The simplest and most popular cosmological model today predicts that you have a twin in a galaxy about 10 to the 10^28 meters from here. This distance is so large that it is beyond astronomical, but that does not make your doppelgänger any less real. The estimate is derived from elementary probability and does not even assume speculative modern physics, merely that space is infinite (or at least sufficiently large) in size and almost uniformly filled with matter, as observations indicate. In infinite space, even the most unlikely events must take place somewhere. There are infinitely many other inhabited planets, including not just one but infinitely many that have people with the same appearance, name and memories as you, who play out every possible permutation of your life choices.

You will probably never see your other selves. The farthest you can observe is the distance that light has been able to travel during the 14 billion years since the big bang expansion began. The most distant visible objects are now about 4 X 10^26 meters away--a distance that defines our observable universe, also called our Hubble volume, our horizon volume or simply our universe. Likewise, the universes of your other selves are spheres of the same size centered on their planets. They are the most straightforward example of parallel universes. Each universe is merely a small part of a larger "multiverse."

By this very definition of "universe," one might expect the notion of a multiverse to be forever in the domain of metaphysics. Yet the borderline between physics and metaphysics is defined by whether a theory is experimentally testable, not by whether it is weird or involves unobservable entities. The frontiers of physics have gradually expanded to incorporate ever more abstract (and once metaphysical) concepts such as a round Earth, invisible electromagnetic fields, time slowdown at high speeds, quantum superpositions, curved space, and black holes. Over the past several years the concept of a multiverse has joined this list. It is grounded in well-tested theories such as relativity and quantum mechanics, and it fulfills both of the basic criteria of an empirical science: it makes predictions, and it can be falsified. Scientists have discussed as many as four distinct types of parallel universes. The key question is not whether the multiverse exists but rather how many levels it has.


full multiverse story (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000).

VV o n g B a
04-15-2003, 12:37 PM
omg. i just finished reading this article and my brain hurts. apparently some physicists believe that math describes the universe so well b/c the only objective truth is math. and apparently they think that every mathmatical structure must have an equilvalently shaped universe (although most of these won't have any observers). and somehow this all turns out to be simpler than describing 1 single universe by itself. and of course this is in addition to worlds just like ours that are separated by distance; or by differing fundamental particles; or by differing fundamental physics. oi. :wacko:

SunWuKong
04-15-2003, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Apr 15 2003, 12:06 PM
my oh my. it seems i have a twin just about 10^28 meters from my current position.
i thought the article says "10 to the 10^28"?
so that's really 10^(10^28).

VV o n g B a
04-16-2003, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by SunWuKung@Apr 15 2003, 03:05 PM
i thought the article says "10 to the 10^28"?
so that's really 10^(10^28).
ya, thats right. i noticed it myself after talking about it to some friends.

angelwiththesword
04-16-2003, 09:37 AM
fun fact: since many people would agree that the universe is infinitely large, would that not denote that humanity is infinitely small?

Emperor_Mike
04-16-2003, 09:04 PM
The theory of a multiverse/parallel dimensions is certainly possible. If we are to assume that time is layered together like many pieces of paper in a book then we might be able to re-examine the sort of time travel that science fiction allows. A multiverse theory may also get rid of the Grandfather Paradox. For those of you who aren't familiar with the Grandfather Paradox it goes something like this:

"If you were to travel back in time and kill your grandfather it would mean that your father/mother would never have been born. Naturally, that would also result in you being a non-entity. But if you never existed in the first place, how could you travel back in time to kill your grandfather?"

And it goes on and on. With multiple layered dimensions, however, the difficulties encountered with time travel brought on by the Grandfather Paradox can somewhat be mitigated if we were to theorise that a hop back into yesteryear will result in the traveller ending up in an alternate past and anything accomplished there (i.e. murdering your Grandpa in cold blood) will only affect the future related to that particular dimension/time fold. Therefore, you can kill your progenitors, go back into the future (your future) and still be unaffected by the deed or deeds you have performed. Of course, you might've changed the present of the the "Other You" by basically wiping him/her out of the time line.

Another thing probably worth contemplating is the possibility of time existing simultaneously in different periods. The past you travelled back to may not have a future yet, which means that the future "You" is perhaps not even there in the first place. So this could mean that our time (the year 2003) may very well be coexisting with the 1900s, 1800s, 1700s, etc, etc.

Fascinating stuff to think about if you're incredibly bored and love to ponder things many people shy away from. :D But I'm no physicist. ;)

lethal
04-16-2003, 09:31 PM
I was prosecuted for violating the multiverse travel restrictions.

"There has never been anything like what I have become."

d-boy
04-16-2003, 10:13 PM
sometimes when I feel down,

I imagine there's another me in an alternate universe with a sh*tload of money, a career path that he enjoys, and a girlfriend he's deeply in love with.

LoneSwordsman
04-17-2003, 07:01 AM
wow
the possibilities out there

VV o n g B a
04-17-2003, 08:16 AM
i wonder if any religion can fit a multiverse comfortably into its teachings...

Emperor_Mike
04-17-2003, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Apr 17 2003, 07:16 AM
i wonder if any religion can fit a multiverse comfortably into its teachings...
Maybe, maybe not. A multiverse in religion may be viewed by some as a place where souls go once the body succumbs. Religious authorities may not find this notion to their satisfaction especially if physicists go around picking the concept of multiple dimensions to pieces (i.e. proving and/or disproving.)

It's be disastrous.

angelwiththesword
04-17-2003, 12:00 PM
you should all look into the idea of Shroedinger's Cat Theorum.
also, research some experiments on wave duality.

that stuff is the neat quantum mechanics stuff.

537
04-17-2003, 12:03 PM
You know, in a parallel universe...my name would be Lens.

537
04-17-2003, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by VV o n g B a@Apr 17 2003, 07:16 AM
i wonder if any religion can fit a multiverse comfortably into its teachings...
I think Scientology, if it qualifies as a religion, does touch into it a little. Please don't quote me, however.....I know nothing of Scientology other than the random ramblings of certain people.

VV o n g B a
04-17-2003, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by angelwiththesword@Apr 17 2003, 02:00 PM
you should all look into the idea of Shroedinger's Cat Theorum.
also, research some experiments on wave duality.

that stuff is the neat quantum mechanics stuff.
the level three multiverse covers this area.

something else i found out from reading one of the article's sidebars in the print magazine... even if u could see the future in a level 3 multiverse, u prolly wouldn't be able to do much with it. this is because u couldn't tell whose future u were oberserving. while u could be observing your own future's many possibilities, those possibilities might have been reached by an alternate u and be unreachable by yourself. but u prolly wouldn't be able to tell the difference. so apparently the idea of a branching future is incorrect. all states exist simultaneously. but if that is so, then what happens to causation? and if all states already exist, then time itself becomes an illusion. a useful illusion, but an illusion nonetheless.

Emperor_Mike
04-17-2003, 02:00 PM
Perhaps time really is an illusion and the old idea of "fate" and such isn't that far off the tangent then, eh? :)

And Scientology? It's not a religion. It's for crazy people who one day woke up and decided to join a cult made up by a former sci-fi writer. Hollywood types seem to love it though. Tom Cruise, John Travolta, Kirstey Alley and the like. Creepy. <_<