To Infinity and Back to Finity?

[CDarwin]

I came across this in one of the 'letters' written to the New Scientist in March 8th's issue. It's a response to an article I don't recall in much detail, to be honest, but was apparently someone arguing for the existence of infinite universes.

 

From Chris Piney

On reading Michael Hanlon's comments on infinite multiverses, I suddenly realized that (To apply Karl Marx's fine phrase) this theory contains the seeds of its own destruction.

 

If, as it states, all conceivable universes are possible, this infinity of universes must contain at least one in which the theory of multiverses is false. The moment this universe appears, all other possibilities and options must collapse onto this immutable reality and, hey presto, mutiversaslity is no more.

 

I would go so far as to suggest that this has already happened.

Valbonne, Alpes-Martimes, France

 

I thought this was a pretty ingenious little refutation. But is it just a word game or do the physics actually work here?

[5614]

Well, err, maybe!? It kind of depends on the original article (I'll try and look for it tomorrow, as I have access to the NS website, but it's late now).

 

If the infinite number of multiverses are supposed to contain every variation on the laws of physics, then perhaps his argument is correct.

 

However if each of the multiverses starts from some ground physical laws, then as each of the multiverses start from some common basis, which must by their existence include the multiverse 'law'(?), each successive multiverse is allowed and allowed to split again ad infinitium. For example, one multiverse theory is that a universe splits in to two every time a decision is made (where a decision can be something like a photon coming out of a superposition and chosing a definite state), if the universe merely splits based on a decision, whilst the two will be very different, the fundemental laws will remain the same, and thus you would not get this paradox.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[edit - stupid auto double-post merger thing, below is a seperate 2nd post]

 

 

The orignal article was, suprisingly, little to do with multiverses. The author of it, Michael Hanlon, is the science editor of the London Daily Mail.

 

In the article he talks about all the big and crazy physics stories that we hear today. That the LHC could create a black hole that would consume the Earth, cosmic strings, crashing branes, "titanic slabs of maths that give rise to the big bang in the exotically lovely ekpyrotic universe of Neil Turok." He also gives the example of:

 

One of the biggest sell-out lectures at last year's Hay-on-Wye festival in Wales starred the UK's astronomer royal, Martin Rees, who entertained his audience with a discussion of the possibility, indeed the probability, of multiple worlds - endless parallel realities existing in a gargantuan super-reality that makes what we think of as the universe as insignificant as a gnat on an elephant's backside

 

He says: "Fun yes, but is it harmless?". He says that physicists will nicely dismiss ghost theories and UFO sightings. "Show us the data, we say to these deluded souls." But he then turns around, saying: "The danger is that on the wilder shores of physics these standards are often not met either" (referring to the wild theories previously mentioned).

 

The comments page for the article, where the OP's quote can be found, is here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19726460.200-physics-porn.html

[swansont]

Does it really state that "all conceivable universes are possible?" The problem doesn't appear if you can have an infinite number of universes in which the same laws hold.

[5614]

Does it really state that "all conceivable universes are possible?"

The only relevant mention of multiverses in the orignal article I quoted in my last post, and no it does not state that. Beyond the quote, the author goes on to talk about how he likes the fact there might be another universe, exactly likes our, but with the gear stick in a Honda Accord a slightly different shade of grey... but nothing more relevant. The author was pointing it out as one of physic's more crazy theories, rather than actually detailing or discussing the theory.

 

The problem doesn't appear if you can have an infinite number of universes in which the same laws hold.

Indeed. This was my point.

[Calabi-Yau]

This is a word game. "Concievable" likely refers to possible universes. If multiple universes exist, it is impossible for one of those to exist in (about?) which others do not, whilst indeed they do exist, as it is one of several. What Piney has noticed is that due to the way Hanlon phrased his points, a paradox arises. Due to the fact this theory is considered one of the more famous ones of it's kind in physics, and has thus been considered by many scientists of significant intellect, and not been outright discredited one would expect Hanlon did indeed mean possible universes. I am quite sure he does not speak for everybody with a PhD in Theoretical Physics.

 

Just as Swansont and 5614 have said above, the same laws must hold. 1+-1=0. Two(or more) things that fundamentally deny the existance of the other cannot both exist.

[Farsight]

Can I make it clear that the idea of parallel worlds is an unproven hypothesis. It has no foundation on fact, and as such should be classed as pseudoscience. And yet it's peddled as something real and given legitimacy by respected physicists. Hanlon also wrote critically in New Scientist about a Lawrence Krauss idea that the life of the universe might be shortened by merely looking at it. I agree with Hanlon that there's some total garbage out there masquerading as science. I say this as the guy who can offer a clear description of what the quantum of quantum mechanics actually is.

[swansont]

Yes, yes, we are all duly in awe of your greatness. But the point of the thread was whether this was a legitimate refutation of the many-worlds interpretation. The answer was "no."

[pioneer]

One of the problems I see, is the inherent within the concept of infinity. Technically, infinity is a abstraction of math to describe one of its limiting conditions. But infinity is not something we can prove actually exists. If we could pin it down it is not infinite anymore. It is metaphysics. It is actually easier to prove a unicorn exists. I am sort of splitting hairs, because I like this metaphysical concept of infinity. But using it, technically builds upon a metaphysical foundation or adds metaphysical 2X4's to the construction. The results end up in air, somewhere near the land of unicorns.

 

This leads to a practical problem. If we eliminate metaphysical from physics and math then we may need to purge infinity. But this would mess things up, which is not a good thing. Maybe the compromise is an infinity disclaimer, which states, after this point, this is only speculation because it needs to include a metaphysical concept.

 

This raises another point. If the odds of proving infinity is close to zero and we are allowed to use this, does this allows us to use any metaphysics with slightly better odds. Can I add unicorns as part of my proof or does infinity have a special grandfather clause, making it sort of unique? Now that I think of it, point and infinitesimal are also grandfathered in.

[foodchain]

One of the problems I see, is the inherent within the concept of infinity. Technically, infinity is a abstraction of math to describe one of its limiting conditions. But infinity is not something we can prove actually exists. If we could pin it down it is not infinite anymore. It is metaphysics. It is actually easier to prove a unicorn exists. I am sort of splitting hairs, because I like this metaphysical concept of infinity. But using it, technically builds upon a metaphysical foundation or adds metaphysical 2X4's to the construction. The results end up in air, somewhere near the land of unicorns.

 

This leads to a practical problem. If we eliminate metaphysical from physics and math then we may need to purge infinity. But this would mess things up, which is not a good thing. Maybe the compromise is an infinity disclaimer, which states, after this point, this is only speculation because it needs to include a metaphysical concept.

 

This raises another point. If the odds of proving infinity is close to zero and we are allowed to use this, does this allows us to use any metaphysics with slightly better odds. Can I add unicorns as part of my proof or does infinity have a special grandfather clause, making it sort of unique? Now that I think of it, point and infinitesimal are also grandfathered in.

 

Why does infinity have to be a metaphysical construct? Last time I checked anything outside of pure math used to explain physics is metaphysics, so you have to experience that regardless when someone puts formalism into another language like English right?

[Ti]

Infinity is a mathematic term of value. What is "infinity"?

What is your question again?