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

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