Do you believe we live in a Multiverse?

I personally don't believe that, because I have problems to imagine it's possible with a infinitely number of different universes, and specially that there would have been many different 'versions' of simple things like water and oxygen.

Now that said, I think there is something logic with a Multiverse, though. If we live in a Multiverse, nothing will be random incidents because what's happening in one Universe is just a other 'version' of something that happens in a other Universe.
But then again, how could it be explained that it's logical or systematic wich of the universes that have a specific 'version' of how things works out? Could that really be behind a systematic rule if we consider that we live in a Multiverse?

What is your viewpoints about this?

__________________
Do not think all you see is "real".

The universe is neither logical nor does it care if we believe it to be so nor does it change anything we do or could know about such reamls.
Speculation is the word to use here. Speculation. That's my 2 cent.

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

I''ve not decided, but there are several versions of multiverses. The once you apparently cite arises from Everett's Many-Universes Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, but another arises from the idea that the Big Bang was but one of many Big Bangs, and yet another arises from Membrane Theory.

It's sort of hard to avoid postulatiing more than one universe. If space and time arise out of Quantum Fluctuations in the vacuum, then this universe is definitely not a one time only event, but that doesn't ncessarily mean infinite universes. Infinity, after all, is just a concept, and nothing real has ever been shown to be infinite. How about 'a lot', rather than infinite? For example, ten to the ten to the tenth power. Or ten to that power.

Yes, Travis, I'll go with you, speculation is the right term.

I find the Universe very logical, one could not describe events in the Universe logically, if the Universe itself did not display logical patterns.

As for multi-verse, we just don't know if there are more macrosystems (universes and semantically there can be just one). It may be possible to know, if we understood the geometry, dynamics and mass of our own system.

If space is infinate and homogenous and time came from quantum fluctuation of this space, then there is no reason to believe this would mean multi-verses. If space were homogenous it is like a single infinate energy field with identical charge throughout. If quantum fluctuations are characteristic of decay of this energy field, then there is more reason than not to believe the decay began at a single point for the single particle. If the dynamics of the decay were so that the system would close off the decay (warped space) then it is quite probable that we are the only one. But there is really no way to tell until we understand the macrosystem we live in. Certainly, it is possible the decay could have occured in more than one place, but does a neutron ever decay into two protons and 2 electrons with a couple of neutrinos....I don't think so.

No idea. I'm waiting for some evidence either way, but there's none now...

Yeah, makes it kind of difficult to have a real idea as opposed to just random philosophical opinion.

I'd participate in the poll, but it's missing a neutral option.

Fascinating concept, but we're just not in a position to answer the question at this time.

I know we can't really know at the time. This is more a poll of belief, not knowledge.
So the poll was more linked to opinions about a Multiverse, although we don't have enough knowledge to say something for sure.

__________________
Do not think all you see is "real".

My opinion: I don't know. As stated above, I just find it a fascinating concept.

I haven't the faintest idea!

This is one of those things that, perhaps, no-one will ever know. At least, I'm pretty certain that I never will.

It is one of those issues where you may find out there is a "multiverse", but you can never truely say there is not other than semantically.

i think there are other pockets of space time outside of ours but not infinite numbers of them

oh woah woah, i think human you've got your idea of a multiverse wrong. The multiverse theory is one in which every opportunity is lived out every decision and every chance. The basic building blocks of the universe are the same or it wouldn't be the same universe. A change in atomic structures would be the formation of a different universe not the same one.
Multiverse is the explination of the probability factors of QM and superpositions like in schrodingers thought experiment. Both realitys are a true fact, the cat is both alive and dead until we open the box the wave function so that one of the multiverse's becomes our reality. This is multiverse theory, we only have one type of standard water atom with fixed atom types because this wave function has all ready collapsed... we collapsed it ourselves infact but thats another longer explination.

Im starting to think there are people on this board that need to look up on QM and see what they think of it because the multiverse theory is a late developer in the QM world so its best to read the beginnings first.

As an avid D&amp;D player, I'd like to believe we live in a multiverse, but until we develop a way to travel between universes, we may never know for sure.

- Maha "take me to another plane" Vailo

__________________
When you get down to it, Science answers how. Religion answers why. - hippietrekx

The Warp Point, my new geek culture blog.

i dont believe in a multiverse then i believe in other pockets of space time, but not a multiverse (where every possibility happens)

I always liked the idea of Multiverse, but is there a way to prove that we live in such a Universe?

__________________
"It is time for the human race to enter the Solar System!"

There is no way to prove it and there is no way to travel between them and there never will be. The ability to travel between them is impossible by fact, theory and reality. The only way is actualy the way they managed it in back to the future where traveling back in time could change your future and the lines you would travel down.

The multiverse theory is where two distinct realitys come out of it, they can never rejoin, they will never even be able to acknolidge the existance of the other. I surgest people look up (Hugh) Everett's Reviews of modern physics 1957 paper. (if anyone finds it PM me or Email me thanks )
To argue against the multiverse theory is to argue against the Copenhagen Interpretation which is main stream Quantum physics which was conceived by (Niels) Bohr and (Werner) Heisenberg in Copenhagen in about 1927.

Oh and before anyone says anything about two equal realitys being formed would cause some error in the conservation of anything, your wrong because it simply doesn't. Nothing is lost and nothing is gained because they become seperate universes which can never join again so there will never be a break in conservations.
Sorry just had to mention that because there is bound to be someone who will mention it, this just saves time

Why is it the fact that they never can be joined again a solution for the problem that for two universes (where there was only one a second ago), you need twice the mass/energy total? The only possible solution I see is that simultaneous with the new universe that is created, an anti-universe (with antimatter etc.) starts to exist as well.

I have a problem with the reasoning 'we don't know what will happen, so both (or all) possibilities) are equally true'. They are equally valid as theoretical models until 'it' has happened, but only the 'real' one exists. We don't know if the cat is dead or alive, but it isn't both!

This is just a layman's view, I know that those that have proposed this model have thought a bit more about this, but I was irked a bit by your mail.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Ahhh bad theory bad theory

Okay they can never be joined again because history is set. We cant figure out the future but we can know exactly the past right back to the big bang (or what ever happened). If we know what happened in the past and the universes could join back together it would break down quantum theory and GR and everything else in physics so it can't happen.
No mass is made or lost, the total is double but there is no way of measuring the mass/energy when the coin lands heads against when the coin lands tails because we can't measure the other universe because as we are here it states there can be no interaction between the other universe or we wouldn't be here.
And it hurts to think about it

And as Feyman says, if you dont like the laws of nature go to another universe where the rules are simpler and more psychologicaly pleasing

I've added bold to your quote for emphasis. If the total is double, mass must be made. The fact that we can't measure it doesn't (dis)prove anything. This theory is a priori unprovable, and has in my view more against it than for it. I agree that if it did exist (the multiverse), we couldn't interact with it, but I disagree with the premisse.

__________________
Knowledge is a curse, but ignorance is worse

Go argue with Everett :P

The thing is your thinking on terms of GR (i think), we are talking about QM they dont mix. Each reality is formed on the smallest of things. What would the cause of my life be if i said supposedly, supposebly?
Its a small change but could make a big difference. Both could infact be reality so inturn they both are.

If you look at the two slit experiment from our view more energy is created as they have to pass through both at the same time to create the interferance. So infact every day the laws of GR are been broken but they are also not because of the Copenhagen interpretation. Which Everett's work builds up on (kind of). Its confusing as it is but its harder to explain

Its just accepted that its right because as soon as you start questioning it you might aswell shoot yourself cause you'll never stop.

Sure there is a Multi verse. Here is why. This is (of course) completely speculative.

In the beginning, when the first Universe was created, it was without form until probability took form. This took place in the first Bohr second. Then the Multi verse took shape with the first split into two then four then eight then... every Bohr second until Now. How else can we explain our Anthropic Universe in which we find ourselves today; that is, without bringing up the God factor: some way of fine tuning the Universe into some form where we can exist? All the possible permutations were created and we find ourselves in the one universe we can be in. Of course this means that when all the combinations finally turned out a universe where we could exist that format then multiplied into a number which might as well be called infinity. I bet that there are universes within the Multi verse plenum which have evolved beyond where we could exist too.

Then again, who knows eh?

__________________
I have grasped the bull by the tail and am lookin' 'im right in the eye.

Well your actualy right in this. Every quantum decision that takes place a cause and effect takes place so in turn two different realitys form and seperate and both in turn are equally valid.
Also i think it keeps chance involved while it keeps our single tracked view that reality is fixed and never deviates along its path.

that would still have the same amount of mass/energy

'Nother good whacky idea that could appeal to any theory discussed on the board:

Time starts when matter exists, and the creation of this matter, initialy may never be known. The universe splits on every probability, creating as one person above noted, an anti-matter universe, which is on the 'bottom side' of the quantum foam, just behind 'now', anihalating all those 'previous' moments in time, creating massive amounts of energy (enough to make all the next probabilities).... a pressure wave we call time.

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

Dear All, you are invited to visit the New Topic: The Four Space-times Model of Reality. It is a really simple Multiverse, based only on the four dimensions we all believe in (and that we see without instruments). In spite of its simplicity it is rich of new unexpected features, if compared to the standard 3+1 space-time.
Best Regards.

__________________
Giorgio

I voted yes and hope that my clones in the other universes do the same :-)

__________________
I have a much better signature in a parallel universe

If we live different realities in a multiverse, and our analogous are equally probable, how to explain the fact that our senses are aware of only one of them? How can we live (exist in) different and equally probable realities not having the correspondent sensitive experience, since our senses clearly inform us that we are confined to a single reality? This is not a trivial question, because from the point of view of living creatures like us, the sensitive experience is what defines existence. The abstract idea of a multiverse, stemming from probable misinterpretations of quantum theory and the maths involved in it, won´t help us in anyway. In my humble opinion, the idea of a multiverse is akin to the higher planes of existence of the esoteric.

__________________
What brings us together is stronger than what pulls us apart

(emphasis added)

Everett made no misinterpretation and great minds like Hawking and Feynman believe(d) in it. There is no error in the math as there is no error in the copenhagen interpretation.
The fact we can not tell the difference between our reality and the next is because we dont have to. We exist in this reality, they exist in that reality there is only certanty in them that time will go forward. There is no way for us to know if the next reality exists and our consciousness may be the deciding factor in which direction "we" go down. I'll elaborate a bit:

If i had a time machine and decided to go back in time i would infact be going forward. It would be just creating a loop hole back to a previous "set" quantum state and from then on your existance has changed the reality. If i then tryed to go back to the "future" i would infact be going back to another previous quantum state.
Now comes in the quantum branches, my first choice to go back in time resulted in line one me going back in time, line two me carrying on forward in time. Both of these would infact happen for example recieving a message from the future would infact be proof we are an unoriginal time line but were created by someone else's decision to send a message back.

I also hope i am going down a quantum path where dark matter is going to be proved non existant

Sorry drhex but some of your "clones" would be voting no but it depends when your reservation on which you would have decided to say yes came. If you believed it 5 years ago then all of your self's from that day onward would believe.
But i hope all my self's believe it too but i like to think some where in superspace timelines there is another me who is completly miserable with my ex-gf as it turns out her breaking up with me was a decision i made... and im so glad i made that choice

I rejoice in my other self's misfortune... god im an [illegitimate son].