Parallel Universes Theory

[GST1441]

To me, this theory is wrong. Why? Because if they are infinite universes in other dimensions, they will be universes that this theory does not exist and if this theory is true and a universe is created from every choice we make, won't it be infinite + 1? Thats Impossible because infinite is endless, even if we add 1 to it, it will still be infinite. And also if this is true does it mean that theres a universe that there is nothing in it at all? When I mean nothing, I mean literally nothing. Not Even Space And time. Nothing exists in that universe. I'm not so sure as alot of famous people like Steven Hawking support this theory, but I am just stating the outcome of this theory if it is true

[ajb]

Because if they are infinite universes in other dimensions, they will be universes that this theory does not exist...

That is an interesting assertion. However, the usual understanding is that the laws of physics are the same, just other 'branches' are taken whenever a quantum measurement takes place. This is of course not just our choices but the result of all quantum interactions. This is hard to fathom and I am not sure what the general consensus in the physics community is. Most people don't think too hard about this.

 

 

...and if this theory is true and a universe is created from every choice we make, won't it be infinite + 1?

'infinity + 1' is still infinity.

[GST1441]

That is an interesting assertion. However, the usual understanding is that the laws of physics are the same, just other 'branches' are taken whenever a quantum measurement takes place. This is of course not just our choices but the result of all quantum interactions. This is hard to fathom and I am not sure what the general consensus in the physics community is. Most people don't think too hard about this.

 

 

 

'infinity + 1' is still infinity.

True. Infinity + 1 is still infinity. So does that mean that it be impossible to have infinite universes? It is a very complicated theory and i doubt i'm right.

[Mr. Astrophysicist]

That is an interesting assertion. However, the usual understanding is that the laws of physics are the same, just other 'branches' are taken whenever a quantum measurement takes place. This is of course not just our choices but the result of all quantum interactions. This is hard to fathom and I am not sure what the general consensus in the physics community is. Most people don't think too hard about this.

 

 

 

'infinity + 1' is still infinity.

Sorry for the intrusion, but if there was a universe where physics laws are different, how would you explain this? All theories would be defied, and blackholes, wormholes, and other stars and its particles would all go haywire. I guess a world like so would also allow pigs to fly and cows in space. What do you think? This may be thought of as a paradox as well, because there may be another universe that defies it; as it goes on and so forth, universes are infinite and it defies the other. The theory may not be proven until further advancements of science and engineering takes place as the future carries on.

Edited February 21, 2015 by Jordyn Rahizel

[GST1441]

That is an interesting assertion. However, the usual understanding is that the laws of physics are the same, just other 'branches' are taken whenever a quantum measurement takes place. This is of course not just our choices but the result of all quantum interactions. This is hard to fathom and I am not sure what the general consensus in the physics community is. Most people don't think too hard about this.

 

 

 

'infinity + 1' is still infinity.

By The Way, the 'infinity + 1 is still in infinity' quote you commented. I already stated it in the next line.

Sorry for the intrusion, but if there was a universe where physics laws are different, how would you explain this? All theories would be defied, and blackholes, wormholes, and other stars and its particles would all go haywire. I guess a world like so would also allow pigs to fly and cows in space. What do you think? This may be thought of as a paradox as well, because there may be another universe that defies it.

But if there are infinite universes, one will defy our universe's laws. But Another one will defy the universe that defied our universe's law. And it will go on to the infinite.

[ajb]

True. Infinity + 1 is still infinity. So does that mean that it be impossible to have infinite universes? It is a very complicated theory and i doubt i'm right.

Infinity is not very natural in physics. I don't see why the theory needs an infinite number of universes; just a finite number for every 'branching point' and since the Universe is finite in age we have a finite number of those branching points. Okay, the number is huge, we need a branch for each and every quantum interaction in each and every universe created etc. So the number grows exponentially, but in finite time (I am not sure exactly what that means in this context) we have a finite number of universes.

 

That said, people do think about infinite number of universes.

Sorry for the intrusion, but if there was a universe where physics laws are different, how would you explain this?

Well, if we have no interaction with these other universes then I see no problem at all. One would then of course have to question the existence of such universes.

 

The usual many-words scenario is based on 'other histories' rather than 'other physics'. I don't know what motivation one has to think too hard about different physics in separate universes.

[GST1441]

Infinity is not very natural in physics. I don't see why the theory needs an infinite number of universes; just a finite number for every 'branching point' and since the Universe is finite in age we have a finite number of those branching points. Okay, the number is huge, we need a branch for each and every quantum interaction in each and every universe created etc. So the number grows exponentially, but in finite time (I am not sure exactly what that means in this context) we have a finite number of universes.

 

That said, people do think about infinite number of universes.

Come to think of it, if there are finite number of universes, there will be a starting point. But does that mean that there is no ending point because universes are being created right now as choices are being made like how I am typing this comment now(The Bold Part Is correct if this theory is true)?

[ajb]

Come to think of it, if there are finite number of universes, there will be a starting point.

For infinite I am not sure. For finite we could think about a 'tree diagram' and trace back every quantum measurement, well in principle anyway. For the infinite case this seem not to be clear in principle, but I don't know. I don't work on problems like that, which may end up in philosophy rather than science if we cannot test them.

 

However, there are some formulations of many-words interpretations that are not interpretations and can in principle be tested. This is again not my area of expertise, but wikipedia does mention this and maybe you could chase up the references if you wish.

 

But does that mean that there is no ending point because universes are being created right now as choices are being made like how I am typing this comment now(The Bold Part Is correct if this theory is true)?

I think that is how you should interpret it. More than this, for each measurement occurring at any given time new universes are being created, assuming this is true.

[GST1441]

For infinite I am not sure. For finite we could think about a 'tree diagram' and trace back every quantum measurement, well in principle anyway. For the infinite case this seem not to be clear in principle, but I don't know. I don't work on problems like that, which may end up in philosophy rather than science if we cannot test them.

 

However, there are some formulations of many-words interpretations that are not interpretations and can in principle be tested. This is again not my area of expertise, but wikipedia does mention this and maybe you could chase up the references if you wish.

 

 

I think that is how you should interpret it. More than this, for each measurement occurring at any given time new universes are being created, assuming this is true.

I See Your point now. But if we trace back every quantum measurement, i'm sure we will eventually hit a universe that is the original one. But if thats true, maybe we are living in a sub-universe. A universe that is created from another universe. Or maybe you are at a different universe than I am(Bold part --> Not Real xD).

[ajb]

But if thats true, maybe we are living in a sub-universe. A universe that is created from another universe.

This would indeed be the case and we live in 'one twig and the end of a branch of a tree that keeps growing'.

Edited February 21, 2015 by ajb

[Mr. Astrophysicist]

This would indeed be the case and we live in 'one twig and the end of a branch of a tree that keeps growing'.

While I hate to argue, and not actually taking this as a heat of flame-war, but, some have different theories. Such as is a universe a sphere? And what is it's shape? But I don't think much of the tree theory it's your opinion. But I agree with GST, we work in the same field together to help resolve astrophysics issues and disprove theories as we did to Stephen Hawking's theory of parallel universes.

[MigL]

The branching tree is a flowchart of the evolutionary timelines of the universes.

It has nothing to do with the topology of the universe(s).

[GST1441]

The branching tree is a flowchart of the evolutionary timelines of the universes.

It has nothing to do with the topology of the universe(s).

It Does. When ever a new universe is created, a new 'twig' grows under either a sub-universe made from another universe or the original universe. (Bolded part is true if the theory exists)

[ajb]

But I don't think much of the tree theory it's your opinion.

It is just an analogy with the splitting of the universe into different histories. I did not intent anyone to take it literally and think that the Universe as real 'tree-like' geometry.

 

 

 

It Does. When ever a new universe is created, a new 'twig' grows under either a sub-universe made from another universe or the original universe. (Bolded part is true if the theory exists)

I am not really sure we should think of it as being exactly like that. One point is that we don't seem to be able to make contact with these parallel universes. As far as we are concerned there is one Universe and we are in it. The geometry and topology of our 'branch' is all that we can see and truly know.

 

Unless we can have contact with these other universes then this picture could change. But we are now even more in the realm of speculation than we were by just thinking about parallel universes.

[GST1441]

It is just an analogy with the splitting of the universe into different histories. I did not intent anyone to take it literally and think that the Universe as real 'tree-like' geometry.

 

 

 

 

I am not really sure we should think of it as being exactly like that. One point is that we don't seem to be able to make contact with these parallel universes. As far as we are concerned there is one Universe and we are in it. The geometry and topology of our 'branch' is all that we can see and truly know.

 

Unless we can have contact with these other universes then this picture could change. But we are now even more in the realm of speculation than we were by just thinking about parallel universes.

Come to think of it, do you think that not only one universe is created but more than one can be possible? (Bolded part is a hypothesis if this theory is true)

[swansont]

But if there are infinite universes, one will defy our universe's laws.

 

No, that does not follow.

[IM Egdall]

It's been suggested that the laws of physics emerged as our universe cooled from the big bang. John Archibald Wheeler wrote:

 

"The laws of physics did not exist a priori, but merged from the chaos of the quantum big bang.'"

 

I read that string theory has some 10^500 solutions, each giving rise to different physical features. Some physicists suggest each string theory solution represents a different universe in a multiverse of universes. So there would be all these universes; each with different laws of physics. And ours just happens to have the physical features which allow stars, galaxies, planets, and life as we know it to exist.

 

So if there are really a humongous number of universes out there, each with its own laws of physics and physical features, what could they have in common? The only thing I can come up with is: logic.

 

I mean even if there are multiple universes where the laws of physics are different, each set of laws presumably work within a logical framework for each universe. Without logic, there would be no laws of physics (and no mathematics to represent how these laws work).

 

So here's my question, one which has been kind of bugging me since I was 16 years old: Why is the universe (or multiverse) logical?

[MigL]

Which multiple universes are we talking about here ?

The QM 'many worlds', the multitude of solutions for string theories, other domains with differing symmetry breaks, or any other speculative multiverse idea.

 

I believe AJB and I were talking about Everett's 'many worlds' interpretation of QM, where each observation/interaction generates a different universe/timeline.

But this is all academic because, as AJB has stated, we have no way of detecting these other 'universes', nor can they influence ours in any way. So, whether they exist or not, makes no difference whatsoever

[IM Egdall]

I agree -- the "other universe" idea is speculation, no matter which idea you are talking about. But I don't agree that it is of no importance. For one thing, maybe in the future a scientist will detect evidence for another universe. And the idea of many universes may have profound implications on the origin of our universe and why our universe is so remarkably fine-tuned for life as we know it.

 

Its pure speculation at this point, but fun to think about. And a number of physicists are working hard to develop theories and possible tests for the idea of multiple universes.

[hoola]

In my way of thinking, there are an (approaching) infinite number of (theoretical) universes in the domain of mathematics ... I say this universe exists to the extent that what is visible is what is compatible in physical descriptive multiples, after having come through the logic filter singly, near the same point in time in universal history. This is a high dual bar to pass and would necessarily limit the number of universes that can be as complete as it is error-low, like the one we're in. That is, one that allows sentience by being essentially relatively stable and of low error percentage. Since Godel writes of blind spots in math, that points to errors within the underlying logic of math at the time that this universe was created. I see a finite number of complex universes with perhaps each one altered from differing "blind spots". As mathematics continued to evolve, new blind spots occurred, and earlier ones are fixed with an error correction code, such at the one in string theory S. Gates talks about...which is perhaps busily working away keeping our particular reality on an even keel...I see that as new mathematics are generated, new errors occur and old errors fixed, a future universe may be expressed with compatible subsets of these newer math structures working with the same basic tools as used to build ours. This is to infer that the "fine tuning" of any particular universe is largely dependent (at the time it was in gestation) upon the particular errors extant in math's state of development. So even if there could be an infinity, this seems to lean against any closely repeating universes. To get really "speculative" may I submit that when a logic correction program ends, some error(s) have been fixed in an existing universe, and thus it's underlying logic gains power. This new logic state will pave the way for new maths, with requisite differing subsets, new errors, new universe...from this I see a stepped, or quantized variation of math's development when viewed classically, but with a more continuous flow within math of "hidden variables". These variables are of discrete steps however, so all universes are quantized phenomena.

Edited February 24, 2015 by hoola

[MWresearch]

No model is perfect. The multiverse assumes that all universes have some similar components of physics but at inherently different values, it doesn't assume that any random thing is possible. There are constraints on multiverse theory as with any theory, it doesn't say there is a universe where 2=5 or x =/= x.

[GST1441]

No model is perfect. The multiverse assumes that all universes have some similar components of physics but at inherently different values, it doesn't assume that any random thing is possible. There are constraints on multiverse theory as with any theory, it doesn't say there is a universe where 2=5 or x =/= x.

Exactly. That's why I think this theory is wrong.

And if this is true. There would be another universe that will have no death(so that means that universe won't die).

[Brad Watson_Miami FL]

GST1441,

First, congratulations on posting Parallel Universes Theory and not having it sent to the 'trash can' because it's "highly speculative".

Parallel-universes theory states that for every decision we are faced with, another universe is created out of the decision we don't make. This concept was floated by some physicist in the '60s without a shred of evidence of such a phenomenon! It's was based solely on his theoretical interpretation of quantum mechanics at the time. But in reality, we as 'observers' make a choice and at that time, the other 'possible universe' is immediately dissolved. Therefore, there are no parallel-universes based on the choices we don't make.

This universe is but one of an almost infinite amount in The Conglomerate of nonparallel-universes. I use this term because multiverse is often associated with parallel-universes (which don't exist).

[eswit12344]

Theoretically paralleled universes would be possible in a since of we have no way of knowing we can't say either way.