How closely does the 'Flash' series' portrayal of the multiverse align with the complex and theoretical concepts of parallel universes proposed in scientific theories?

[Anirudh Dabas]

The 'Flash' television series/ comics offer an imaginative portrayal of the multiverse, featuring a diverse range of alternate realities—Earth-2, Earth-19, and beyond—each with unique adaptations of familiar characters, altered histories, and differing physical laws. In the show, these alternate Earths are interconnected through a conceptual framework involving breaches, vibrating frequencies, and the Speed Force, enabling characters to traverse these parallel worlds. The series explores intriguing possibilities, depicting alternate versions of the same characters and events, introducing variations in their personalities, backgrounds, and interactions, thus creating a rich tapestry of parallel universes.

In the realm of theoretical physics, the concept of a multiverse is a subject of theoretical discussion rather than direct observation. Various scientific theories, such as quantum mechanics, string theory, and cosmological models, have proposed the existence of parallel universes. For instance, the many-worlds interpretation in quantum mechanics suggests that every quantum event leads to multiple, branching universes, each representing a different outcome. In string theory, the idea of a "landscape" of multiple universes emerges from the intricate configurations of extra dimensions.

The alignment between 'The Flash' series and scientific theories of parallel universes lies in the exploration of diverse realities coexisting alongside our own, often driven by unique physical laws. However, discrepancies arise in the creative liberties taken by the show, such as the ease of travel between worlds and the nature of these alternate realities. Scientific models present a more complex, theoretical, and often mathematically derived understanding of multiverses, involving principles of quantum mechanics, cosmology, and string theory, where access or observation of these parallel universes remains hypothetical or in the domain of advanced theoretical physics.

The question remains: to what extent can the speculative and imaginative narrative of the 'Flash' series be seen as reflecting or deviating from the more elaborate, intricate, and nuanced theoretical frameworks of multiverse models proposed in scientific discourse, considering the similarities, divergences, and complexities of the two perspectives?

 

[joigus]

No reason to expect it does. In order to function, fiction only needs to create enough sense of plausibility for you to temporarily suspend your critical thinking under the implicit assumption that the narrative will be entertaining:

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

[dimreepr]

How closely does the 'Flash' series' portrayal of the multiverse align with the complex and theoretical concepts of parallel universes proposed in scientific theories?

Not very...

 

[Phi for All]

How do we test for multiple universes? If we can't, is it really a theory?

Besides parallel universes, does the Flash ever address the shockwave running that fast would create in front of him? If the air can't get out of his way fast enough, it's going to pile up and heat up and explode as he pushes through it.

[Anirudh Dabas]

15 hours ago, Phi for All said:

How do we test for multiple universes? If we can't, is it really a theory?

 

On the one hand, there is no direct evidence to prove or disprove the existence of the multiverse. So, in that sense, it is not a theory in the traditional scientific sense.

However, the multiverse is a very well-developed and mathematically consistent idea. It is also compatible with a number of other well-established theories in physics, such as quantum mechanics and string theory. So, in that sense, it could be considered a theory, even if it cannot be directly tested.

On 11/10/2023 at 2:46 AM, joigus said:

No reason to expect it does. In order to function, fiction only needs to create enough sense of plausibility for you to temporarily suspend your critical thinking under the implicit assumption that the narrative will be entertaining

That's a valid point. Fiction doesn't need to adhere to scientific accuracy in order to be enjoyable. In the case of the Flash series, the portrayal of the multiverse is more focused on exploring the emotional and dramatic implications of parallel universes than on providing a rigorous scientific explanation.

That said, the Flash series does draw on some of the theoretical concepts of parallel universes that have been proposed by scientists. For example, the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics suggests that every quantum event leads to multiple, branching universes, each representing a different outcome. This idea is reflected in the Flash series, where the characters travel to different Earths that have diverged from our own as a result of different choices being made.

I thought this topic would interest and provoke more interesting conversations, but it seems like we've reached a dead end.

Edited November 11, 2023 by Anirudh Dabas

[divisionbyzero]

In my humble opinion I think the only way the multiverse can exist is through simulation.  The wave function collapse is neither real or local.  The particles are not real.  I know the math shows it to be a plauseable (too strong a word?) outcome, but there are many rabbit holes involved and they always seem to end with a convoluted construct...  Especially in the multiverse!  😉

Edited August 1 by divisionbyzero

[joigus]

46 minutes ago, divisionbyzero said:

I know the math shows it to be a plauseable (too strong a word?) outcome,

Not at all, "plauseable" is not a word.

What is plausible, you think, the multiverse?

I think the problem with the multiverse is how to make it a predictive idea. How to take it to the testing grounds of... well, the testing grounds.

[divisionbyzero]

Not at all, "plauseable" is not a word. 

 

Touché 

In relativistic frame of reference, all that is real is invariant and local.  The wave function collapse is not local and is not invariant.  At the plank scale quantum gravity enters the picture and spacetime exhibits a discrete structure, a virtual head-on-collision with classical relativity.  The idea of a multiverse is great fun.  In my mind it is pure fiction.  But that's just one man's opinion.

[MigL]

On 11/9/2023 at 2:32 PM, Anirudh Dabas said:

the speculative and imaginative narrative of the 'Flash' series ... the more elaborate, intricate, and nuanced theoretical frameworks of multiverse models

What makes you think interpretations of quantum mechanics, and untestable, elaborate mathematical models that don't describe a specific 'reality', are not speculative and imaginative also ?

Edited August 2 by MigL

[swansont]

1 hour ago, divisionbyzero said:

 

In relativistic frame of reference, all that is real is invariant and local.  The wave function collapse is not local and is not invariant.  At the plank scale quantum gravity enters the picture and spacetime exhibits a discrete structure, a virtual head-on-collision with classical relativity.  The idea of a multiverse is great fun.  In my mind it is pure fiction.  But that's just one man's opinion.

How do you mean not invariant? That it’s not an invariant, because it’s not a quantity? (is anyone arguing otherwise?)

Or that it’s frame dependent? Which would be incorrect, since an event has to happen in all frames.

20 hours ago, divisionbyzero said:

The particles are not real

They aren’t? Are any particles real?

[divisionbyzero]

Hence the word "theoretical" in front of physics, and my use of the word "opinion."  Your point is a perfectly valid one and well taken. We have no real information, and we have no real tools at our disposal, for measuring or detecting the real or base one reality.   In my Opinion, we never will.  In my opinion reality is not a concept we can understand, or ever have the ability to do so...   

[divisionbyzero]

How do you mean not invariant? That it’s not an invariant, because it’s not a quantity? (is anyone arguing otherwise?)

Or that it’s frame dependent? Which would be incorrect, since an event has to happen in all frames.

  21 hours ago, divisionbyzero said:

The particles are not real

They aren’t? Are any particles real?

 

The wave function collapse is non-invariant... one reason that comes right to mind is "it's" observer dependent.  The very act of observation influences the system so different observers might get different results...  so the collapse can vary based on the observer's reference frame.  Particles are real in a frame of reference only if they are observer dependent.  How could we ever know? Posted just now

Particles are real in a frame of reference only if they are observer independent!!!!!!  sorry

I'm at work so my responses are not vetted at the time of posting.  not enough time for both.

[studiot]

3 hours ago, divisionbyzero said:

In my opinion reality is not a concept we can understand, or ever have the ability to do so...   

Does your use of the word reality bear any relationship to your use of the word real ?

 

Both seem very hand wavy to me.

[divisionbyzero]

In my opinion reality is not a concept we can understand, or ever have the ability to do so...   

Does your use of the word reality bear any relationship to your use of the word real ?

 

Both seem very hand wavy to me.

 

 

My intent is to use words as they are generally defined by the standard model.  However, the further down the rabbit hole this material finds itself the closer it gets to philosophical terminology.  

[studiot]

22 minutes ago, divisionbyzero said:

In my opinion reality is not a concept we can understand, or ever have the ability to do so...   

Does your use of the word reality bear any relationship to your use of the word real ?

 

Both seem very hand wavy to me.

 

 

My intent is to use words as they are generally defined by the standard model.  However, the further down the rabbit hole this material finds itself the closer it gets to philosophical terminology.  

So what do you mean by real ?

[divisionbyzero]

I direct you to my earlier comment:

 

In relativistic frame of reference, all that is real is invariant and local.  The wave function collapse is not local and is not invariant.  At the plank scale quantum gravity enters the picture and spacetime exhibits a discrete structure, a virtual head-on-collision with classical relativity.  

[studiot]

26 minutes ago, divisionbyzero said:

In relativistic frame of reference, all that is real is invariant and local. 

That's just word fluff.

 

One scale's local is another scale's global.

 

See these discussions about invariance, scale and relativity.

 

https://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/threads/the-difference-between-invariants-and-constants.29563/

 

 

[swansont]

2 hours ago, divisionbyzero said:

How do you mean not invariant? That it’s not an invariant, because it’s not a quantity? (is anyone arguing otherwise?)

Or that it’s frame dependent? Which would be incorrect, since an event has to happen in all frames.

  21 hours ago, divisionbyzero said:

The particles are not real

They aren’t? Are any particles real?

 

The wave function collapse is non-invariant... one reason that comes right to mind is "it's" observer dependent.  The very act of observation influences the system so different observers might get different results...  so the collapse can vary based on the observer's reference frame.  Particles are real in a frame of reference only if they are observer dependent.  How could we ever know? Posted just now

If a particle’s eave function collapses the particle is in a well-defined state. e.g. an atom in the ground state. That atom can abosorb a photon of a certain energy, while an atom in a different state can’t.

Whether or not the atom absorbs a photon can’t be observer dependent. Either it does, or it doesn’t. 

 

2 hours ago, divisionbyzero said:

Particles are real in a frame of reference only if they are observer independent!!!!!!  sorry

I'm at work so my responses are not vetted at the time of posting.  not enough time for both.

A particle that’s observer independent? What does that mean?

In what way would an electron be observer dependent?

What does this have to do with wave function collapse?

[MigL]

2 hours ago, divisionbyzero said:

The very act of observation influences the system so different observers might get different results...  so the collapse can vary based on the observer's reference frame.

Observation in this case refers to an interaction.

You can pass a single particle through a grating to get a single dot on a transparent film.
Then repeat the same experiment on all the capital cities of the world, or even the moon, if you like.
When you place all the transparent films on top of each other, you still get a diffraction pattern.

The interaction with the screen is an event.
That event happens in all frames.

[Phi for All]

On 8/1/2024 at 2:45 PM, joigus said:

I think the problem with the multiverse is how to make it a predictive idea. How to take it to the testing grounds of... well, the testing grounds.

Is gravity allegedly common to all these universes, or does each have it's own unique distribution of mass, fundamental laws, etc? Could a gravitational wave act as a signal from this universe to another?

[joigus]

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Is gravity allegedly common to all these universes, or does each have it's own unique distribution of mass, fundamental laws, etc? Could a gravitational wave act as a signal from this universe to another?

You know what? I don't think anybody can answer that... The multiverse came from string theory, and nobody has ever been able to sensibly look into any of those patches of the landscape. My guess is that all that people do hardly goes beyond writing something called the partition function and trying to guess how many non-equivalent geometries there are (the famous Calabi-Yau manifolds). But I've read that the counting itself is incredibly challenging, let alone case studies of different geometries.

 @Mordred would probably tell you more and better. Provided he maintains his expert status.  

[Mordred]

50 minutes ago, joigus said:

 

 @Mordred would probably tell you more and better. Provided he maintains his expert status.  

Lol truthfully wasn't worried on that score to begin with not that it matters in the slightest.

As far as multiverses go, each universe can indeed have its own mass/energy distribution leading to different expansion rates and critical densities. However our region of causality will be limited to our universe unless some collision occurs. 

There is a line of research that looked directly for signatures in the CMB and the axis of evil from the first Planck dataset was a contented possible signature at that time prior to realizing that the dipole anistrophy was due to unaccounted local effects from our peculiar motion.

Calibi-Yau doesn't particularly deal with multiverse but you do see papers suggesting such much like you do in the many worlds interpretations of QM.

In all honesty though I myself focus on this universe as multiverse theories are far too speculative 

Just a side note though our Observable universe is simply our region of shared causality. When runaway inflation in early inflationary theories was determined attempts were made to solve runaway inflation.

One of those attempts being Chaotic eternal inflation which leads to bubble universes (different regions with different expansion rates ). Sometimes coined Hubble Bubble universes.

One can however readily determine shared causality regions such as is done for our Observable universe (Cosmic event Horizon)

It's been a long time since I saw the movie but there was a lot in that movie that wasn't very realistic when it came to that universe. If I recall even in space they had an atmosphere such an maas/energy density would have likely collapsed but hey it's Sci fi

 

Edited August 2 by Mordred

[MigL]

IIRC, one E8 heterotic string theory was theorized to break down such that gravity was shared between two 'universes'.
That would account for 50 % of the unseen mass/energy of our universe.

Edited August 3 by MigL

[divisionbyzero]

On 8/2/2024 at 4:17 PM, studiot said:

On 8/2/2024 at 3:59 PM, divisionbyzero said:

In relativistic frame of reference, all that is real is invariant and local. 

That's just word fluff.

 

Fair enough...  If you'd like, I can give you at least five, or as many reasons as you'd like, why local realism violates Bell's Theorem.  Then if you want, we can discuss, and poke holes in some of the "iffy" reasons why local realism does not violate Bell's Theorem ("iffy" in my opinion only!  Humble opinion is more appropriate, considering the arguments showing why local realism does not necessarily violate Bells's Theorem were developed by world class physicists who have forgotten more about physics than I will ever know!) .

[studiot]

6 hours ago, divisionbyzero said:

Fair enough...  If you'd like, I can give you at least five, or as many reasons as you'd like, why local realism violates Bell's Theorem.  Then if you want, we can discuss, and poke holes in some of the "iffy" reasons why local realism does not violate Bell's Theorem ("iffy" in my opinion only!  Humble opinion is more appropriate, considering the arguments showing why local realism does not necessarily violate Bells's Theorem were developed by world class physicists who have forgotten more about physics than I will ever know!) .

 

I'm at a complete loss to understand the point you are trying to make or what its relevance to this thread might be.