Do you believe in Multiverse theory?

Post Reply New Topic

First of all if you have no imagination and no belief in an idea then how would you advance in any way. To truly be a scientist I think that one must guess, predict, assume, dream. If no person thought to explain any thing or experiment even though they did not already have absolute proof we would still be in the stone age!! If your soul purpose is to go around disbelieving in everything and wanting absolute proof for anything before even looking into it you will not get very far. A long time ago nobody believed that the sun was the center of the solar system. Where would we be if everybody said "where's the proof" and nobody tried to find any proof because they did not believe anything else was possible.

Personally I do not know if I believe in multiple universes. I just am not sure. It is quite possible that there are, it is just something I have not looked into very much. On the other hand I do have a very basic understanding of the behavior of subatomic wave/particle properties. I believe that gravity is a emergent property of strong force and weak force, in the same way that "solidity" of our environment is an emergent property of electromagnetic force aka electroweak force. Every sense and experience we have is an "illusion" based on the interactions of wave/particles. The fact that we do not fall through the floor is because of the electromagnetic forces of our mass of particles and the floors mass of particles. There is plenty, even much more then enough, space between the atoms that we should by all means fall right through the floor and yet we do not. The strong and weak forces that interact with and or on the gluons and quarks of the protons and neutrons of the nucleus hold each to each other, the farther the sub-particles get from each other the stronger the force becomes there by pulling the sub-particle with more intensity. this must only act in a determinant area, once the area is breached the force is "broken" or the interaction with the other forces such as the electromagnetic force between the protons and neutrons dominates it the particle can "escape". Perhaps this force is strengthened by the shear number of interacting particles in a massive object such as a planet or star or even the mass of a human (all things have there own gravitational field that is in relation to the mass of the object). In or when you compare the properties of gravity it is quite similar to the properties of strong and weak force. Albeit in the same way that water molecules has the same properties as an ocean. (look at it on the atomic vs macro scale in the way that hydrogen bonds react the same in both or like a lego has the same properties of a building of legos) This simplifies things and usually the simplest answer is the right answer. How this correlates to multiple universes is that it may point to a different way of thinking of things such as dark matter and black holes.

Albert Einstein, Paul Dirac, Murray Gell-Mann, George Zweig, Sheldon Gladshow, Adbus Salam, Steven Weinberg. Just to name a few of the people who have done research and work in these areas.

I think that another thought process that is important would be that as atoms become individualized and lose the elemental properties (separating down to the smallest possible denominator as far as protons neutrons and electron and the other partials that interact) as in expansion the "element" would become a low energy "gas" in which case it would lose volume as long as the particles are kept at a distance that eliminates interaction this would create perfect conditions for a "gravitational" force that supersedes electromagnetic force which could be how black holes work, in this case the big bang could be the culmination of all matter in this way. There is no reason to think that this is the only case, if it is possible to repeat the intake and expansion of the universe then there is no reason why this could not happen somewhere else. I don't know about membrane universes colliding but "bubble" universes make sense.

I don't need to go into all the information provided in the rest of the thread, it's there if you care you can go back and look at it all. NOTHING is absolute in science, gravity does not work EVERYWHERE and classic physics falls apart on the atomic level. It is not dreaming to contemplate the possibilities of the universe, it is science. In the past (less then 100 yrs ago) computers were science fiction, before that horseless carriages, germs, a round earth, atoms, must I go on. A healthy sense of skepticism is only useful in the scientific community if it is directed at experiments to prove, disprove or adjust theories. And a theory in science is ANY explanation of a natural law, E=mc2 is a theory, the gas "laws" are theory's, the earth is round is a theory, any thing that in any way at any time from the big band to the end of time that has any possibility of being disproved is a theory. This is the definition of the scientific approach!

Instead of saying "that sounds like science fiction" or "I don't see any proof" it would be nice if some people would offer something of substance to the discussion. Show me proof it can't be possible or provide a theory to what you believe or disbelieve.

I am a full believer in M theory

It is not appropriate to express "belief" or disbelief in a scientific notion until you have data and evidence.

In a new study, Stanford physicists Andrei Linde and Vitaly Vanchurin have calculated the number of all possible universes, coming up with an answer of 10^10^16. If that number sounds large, the scientists explain that it would have been even more humongous, except that we observers are limited in our ability to distinguish more universes; otherwise, there could be as many as 10^10^10^7 universes.

...
Endless permutations like that would quickly unravel any parallels of a multiverse.

Not really. Each and every quantum effect splits off a pair of universes. That results in a rather large, but still finite number of universes.

I meant the idea of split universes remaining identical is not really viable.

[

Just because two things are identical does not mean they are the same, any more than twins are the same person, or a mass produced product is the same physical object. One might be broken, the other not.