Interesting People mailing list archives

Re: Multiverse Model

From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 03:14:22 -0500

Begin forwarded message:

From: Robert Alberti <alberti () sanction net>
Date: November 15, 2008 2:35:51 AM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:   Multiverse Model
Reply-To: alberti () sanction net

The only problem is in the human inability to truly perceive concepts
like "infinity." Individual universes split off for every possible
quantum state of every particle in the universe. The resulting number of
universes is merely infinite, which is already a characteristic of the
universe.

If we take a step back from the overwhelming concept of individual
universes splitting off for every possible state of every particle, we
end up with a gigantic meta-verse or multiverse.  Within this multiverse
of all universes is every possible thing that could ever happen
anywhere, ever. Which again brings us back to the initial concept of
what the universe is supposed to be in the first place.

The idea of individual universes in the multiverse "splitting off" is
only one expression based on our frame of reference within the universe.
Initially, the idea of whole universes being "created" from nothing at
every instant looks like it impossibly violates the laws of conservation
of energy. The other way of looking at the multiverse is that all those
universes already exist, and are already in place, created by the Big
Bang, and all that is happening is that by observing an event, we
ourselves are simply proceeding up one or another (actually every)
possible universe.  The reason that an event, observed, seems to
"collapse" into a single state is because we ourselves, our
consciousness, our frame of reference, splits to perceive every state
individually, and proceeds forwards with the perception of individual
frames of reference.  The states, the universes, are already there, only
our perception of them changes.

Finally, if we return for a second to the concept of the multiverse as
the collection of every event that could ever possibly happen anywhere,
it's easy to visualize such a thing as a solid sphere, at the center of
which is the Big Bang, and the surface of which signifies the end of
every branching universe.  The question then is, how big is this solid?
The answer is, there is nothing outside of the Universe, so there is
literally nothing against which to measure it.  It is simultaneously
tiny, and then also very large.

The point being, that sizeless sphere IS the Big Bang: a static solid
containing all potential events.  Remember, outside of the universe
there IS no time, no measure.  What we perceive as the "detonation" of
the Big Bang, and the eventual progress of the universe towards its end
are all measured by the passage of time.  But time is simply our frame
of reference for our progress from state to state in our Universe.  The
Multiverse itself is a timeless solid consisting of every possible
thing, and our perception of it as changing is merely a product of our
frame of reference within this solid.

I hope this makes some kind of sense, insofar as it's 1:30 a.m. here
which, while an appropriate time for such a topic as this, is not
conducive to clear communications.

On Sat, 2008-11-15 at 01:11 -0500, David Farber wrote:

Begin forwarded message:

From: Frode Hegland <frode () hegland com>
Date: November 14, 2008 8:58:08 PM EST
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>, dewayne () warpspeed com
Subject: Re: [IP] Multiverse Model

Can someone on IP help me understand what defines a (what I would call
a) split-point, but which is called an 'observation' here -  where
universes diverge?

If a split point is a major event, we would have less universes than
if any event is a split point. If it's any event, then the amount of
universes would increased very, very fast indeed.

Problem?

On 14 Nov 2008, at 13:37, David Farber wrote:

Begin forwarded message:

From: dewayne () warpspeed com (Dewayne Hendricks)
Date: November 13, 2008 6:50:02 PM EST
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <xyzzy () warpspeed com>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Multiverse Model

[Note:  This item comes from reader Randall.  DLH]

From: Randall Webmail <rvh40 () insightbb com>
Date: November 13, 2008 2:43:54 PM PST
To: johnmacsgroup () yahoogroups com, dewayne () warpspeed com
Cc: jess () jick net
Subject: Multiverse Model

<http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/11/parallel-univer.html?1>

November 13, 2008

Parallel Universes: Are They More than a Figment of Our Imagination?

"The multiverse is no longer a model, it is a consequence of our
models.”

~Aurelien Barrau, particle physicist at CERN

The Hollywood blockbuster, The Golden Compass, adapted from the
first volume
of Pullman's classic sci-fi trilogy, "His Dark Materials" portrays
various
universes as only one reality among many, but how realistic is this
kind of
classic sci-fi plot? While it hasn’t been proven yet, many highly
respected
and credible scientists are now saying there’s reason to believe that
parallel dimensions could very well be more than figments of our
imaginations.

"The idea of multiple universes is more than a fantastic invention—
it appears

naturally within several scientific theories, and deserves to betakenseriously," stated Aurelien Barrau, a French particle physicist atthe

European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN).

There are a variety of competing theories based on the idea of
parallel
universes, but the most basic idea is that if the universe is
infinite, then
everything that could possibly occur has happened, is happening, or
will
happen.

According to quantum mechanics, nothing at the subatomic scale can
really be
said to exist until it is observed. Until then, particles occupy
uncertain
"superposition" states, in which they can have simultaneous "up" and
"down"
spins, or appear to be in different places at the same time. The
mere act of
observing somehow appears to "nail down" a particular state of
reality.
Scientists don’t yet have a perfect explanation for how it occurs,
but that
hasn’t changed the fact that the phenomenon does occur.

Unobserved particles are described by "wave functions" representing
a set of
multiple "probable" states. When an observer makes a measurement, the
particle then settles down into one of these multiple options, which
is
somewhat how the multiple universe theory can be explained.

The existence of such a parallel universe "does not even assume
speculative
modern physics, merely that space is infinite and rather uniformly
filled
with matter as indicated by recent astronomical observations," Max
Tegmark, a
cosmologist at MIT in Boston, Massachusetts concluded in a study of
parallel
universes published by Cambridge University.

Mathematician Hugh Everett published landmark paper in 1957 while
still a
graduate student at Princeton University. In this paper he showed
how quantum
theory predicts that a single classical reality will gradually split
into
separate, but simultaneously existing realms.

"This is simply a way of trusting strictly the fundamental equations
of
quantum mechanics," says Barrau. "The worlds are not spatially
separated, but
exist as kinds of 'parallel' universes."

Partly because the idea is so uncomfortably strange, it’s dismissed
as sci-fi
by many critics. But there are also many credible, respected
proponents of
the theory—a group that is continuously gaining new adherents as new
research
unveils new evidence. Some Oxford research—for the first time—
recently found
a mathematical answer that sweeps away one of the key objections to
the
controversial idea. Their research shows that Everett was indeed on
the right
track when he came up with his multiverse theory. The Oxford team,
led by Dr
David Deutsch, showed mathematically that the bush-like branching
structure

created by the universe splitting into parallel versions of itselfcan

explain the probabilistic nature of quantum outcomes.

The work has another strange implication. The idea of parallel
universes
would apparently side-step one of the key complaints with time
travel. Every
since it was given serious credibility in 1949 by the great logician
Kurt
Godel, many eminent physicists have argued against time travel
because it
undermines ideas of cause and effect. An example would be the famous
“grandfather paradox” where a time traveler goes back to kill his
grandfather
so that he is never born in the first place.

But if parallel worlds do exist, there is a way around these
troublesome
paradoxes. Deutsch argues that time travel shifts happen between
different
branches of reality. The mathematical breakthrough bolsters his
claim that
quantum theory does not forbid time travel. "It does sidestep it.
You go into
another universe," he said. But he admits that there will be a lot
of work to
do before we can manipulate space-time in a way that makes “hops”
possible.
While it may sound fanciful, Deutsch says that scientific research is
continually making the theory more believable.

"Many sci-fi authors suggested time travel paradoxes would be solved
by
parallel universes but in my work, that conclusion is deduced from
quantum
theory itself."

The borderline between physics and metaphysics is not defined by
whether an
entity can be observed, but whether it is testable, insists Tegmark.

He points to phenomena such as black holes, curved space, the
slowing of time
at high speeds, even a round Earth, which were all once rejected as
scientific heresy before being proven through experimentation, even
though
some remain beyond the grasp of observation. It is likely, Tegmark
concludes
that multiverse models grounded in modern physics will eventually be
empirically testable, predictive and disprovable.

Posted by Rebecca Sato

Current thread:

Multiverse Model David Farber (Nov 14)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Multiverse Model David Farber (Nov 14)
- Re: Multiverse Model David Farber (Nov 15)