Multiverse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For other uses, see Multiverse (disambiguation).

Part of a series on

Physical cosmology

Early universe[show] Expanding universe[show] Structure formation[show] Future of universe[show] Components[show]

Universe Big Bang Age of the universe Chronology of the universe

History of cosmological theories[show] Experiments[show] Scientists[show] Social impact[show]

Astronomy portal Category: Physical cosmology

V T E

The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of multiple 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 psychologyand 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.
Contents

[hide]

o o o o o o o o o o o o

1 Multiverse hypotheses in physics 1.1 Categories 1.1.1 Max Tegmark's four levels 1.1.1.1 Level I: Beyond our cosmological horizon 1.1.1.2 Level II: Universes with different physical constants 1.1.1.3 Level III: Many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics 1.1.1.4 Level IV: Ultimate Ensemble 1.1.2 Brian Greene's nine types 1.2 Cyclic theories 1.3 M-theory 1.4 Black-hole cosmology 1.5 Anthropic principle 1.6 Criticism 1.6.1 Non-scientific claims 1.6.2 Occam's razor 2 Multiverse hypotheses in philosophy and logic 2.1 Modal realism 2.2 Decaying Multiverse 2.3 Trans-world identity 2.4 Fictional realism 3 See also 4 References 4.1 Notes 4.2 Bibliography 5 External links

[edit]Multiverse

hypotheses in physics

Artistic impression of a level 2 multiverse

[edit]Categories
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.

[edit]Max Tegmark's four levels

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]

[edit]Level I: Beyond our cosmological horizon

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.

[edit]Level II: Universes with different physical constants

"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 10 1010,000,000.[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.

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

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] 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 doppelgngers reside. In Level I they live elsewhere in good old threedimensional 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.

[edit]Level IV: Ultimate Ensemble

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] Jrgen 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 Gdel's limitations.[9][10][11] He also explicitly discusses the more restricted ensemble of quickly computable universes.[12]

[edit]Brian Greene's nine types

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 CalabiYau 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.

[edit]Cyclic

theories

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

[edit]M-theory
See also: Introduction to M-theory, M-theory, Brane cosmology, and String theory landscape 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]

[edit]Black-hole

cosmology

Main article: Black-hole cosmology 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.

[edit]Anthropic

principle

Main article: Anthropic principle The concept of other universes has been proposed to explain how our Universe appears to be finetuned 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 theteleological argument as the only explanation for the conditions in the Universe that promote our existence in it.

[edit]Criticism [edit]Non-scientific claims

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 :[17]
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 orfalsifiability 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:[18]
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 Dr. Laura Mersini-Houghton 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] three of which have since been observed: the Cold Spot (2007); Dark Flow(2009); 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", [19] just as she and her collaborators had predicted in their theory 8 months earlier.[20] 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,[21] and about the existence and velocity of Dark Flow,[22] 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), ProfessorAnthony 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. [23]

[edit]Occam's razor
See also: Kolmogorov complexity Critics[who?] argue that to postulate a practically infinite number of unobservable universes just to explain our own seems contrary to Occam's razor.[24] 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 toEinstein'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]

[edit]Multiverse [edit]Modal

hypotheses in philosophy and logic

realism

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).[25]

[edit]Decaying

Multiverse

In April of 2013, abstract theorist Trace Fleeman published a paper expanding upon Modal Realism, in which he describes possible worlds as abstract objects.[26] In the paper, he proposes that possible worlds exist, but only as either probability or missed probability. The event in which probability is "missed" is called "Modal Decay".[27]

[edit]Trans-world

identity

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. [28][29]

[edit]Fictional

realism

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. [30][31]