Question Is there multiverse?

Mar 14, 2021
21
3
15
Intro
Hey whats up, space guys. Thomas here with another cool question!

Back to the question!
So, a multiverse is more universes put into eachother. People say: There is a sea of little balls containing universe.
Because my mind was blown, i wanted to know. We know 5% of this universe (if there is more then only this)! 95% is unknown. Thanks to the Kepler Telescope!

Do you guys think it, or dont. I think it's real and believe. But i just wanna know if my belief is real ;-)
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007 and rod

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,859
652
2,560
space.com has a variety of reports on the multiverse. Just use space.com search for *multiverse* and they will pop up for reading.

Question. What telescope has documented and observed the multiverse?

Galileo used his telescope to see the tiny lights moving around Jupiter in early 1600s. I can use my telescopes today and still see those tiny lights moving around Jupiter, now known as the Galilean moons.

Question. Do we have telescope observations of the multiverse like we do for the Galilean moons documented over 400 years ago?

Here is another question to consider.

Question. Is the evidence for the multiverse in science, as compelling as the evidence for the heliocentric solar system?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: COLGeek
Jun 1, 2020
987
692
1,260
Now this question would serve as a fair poll question. :)

The Multiverse idea doesn't even qualify as a scientific theory. It does have some interesting mathematical support, but so far, no one can dream-up a way to test if they may be there.

Such things are, by definition, beyond the observable universe. So things that can't be observed, even in principle, are beyond the purview of science.
 
No one can make sense of self-contradictory questions.

By definition the Universe is all that exists. Therefore there cannot be more than one.

Define your terms in a non contradictory manner and a discussion can take place.

Otherwise you are scattering dust in your own eyes. and there can be no clarity.

Cat :)
 
"It's a perennial sci-fi favorite: other worlds, other universes, other possibilities, right beyond the bounds of the known cosmos or just a flick of a magic device away."

Does this not summarise it well?

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
Jun 1, 2020
987
692
1,260
Putting them on the border between science and pseudoscience. We must observe facts, not speculate.
Right, but I would add that it's okay to speculate in hopes of finding a pathway that leads to something that becomes science. Emphasis that separates suppositions and speculations from factual science is too often needed to avoid confusion....

Rod said:
FYI, see this space.com report by Paul Sutter. https://www.space.com/inflating-universe-could-create-multiverse.html, 24-May-2019.

The multiverse emerges in the exotic physics used to promote inflation in BB cosmology.
This is a good example of the above. It's easy to infer that the multiverse is something other than an idea. The Space.com author did a nice job never calling it more than an idea, yet it's still easy to infer otherwise.

"Without direct evidence, it's hard to judge the viability of the multiverse-from-inflation idea. It could be a generic result of all inflation theories, so that if we are able to find stronger evidence for inflation, we might also demonstrate the existence of the multiverse. But right now, we don't fully understand the mechanics of inflation, so that's not much to go on."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Nov 13, 2020
68
66
110
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"
(Carl Sagan)
Not only we do not have proofs of the existence of the multiverse, but also do not know what they would be.
This is not a scientific hypothesis at all.
 
Last edited:
Jun 1, 2020
987
692
1,260
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"
(Carl Sagan)
Not only we do not have proofs of the existence of the multiverse, but also do not what they would be.
This is not a scientific hypothesis at all.
Rod's referenced article is careful not to claim it as a scientific hypothesis, but it would have been best if that fact was made clear. Too often it's not.

But there are no "proofs" in science, only in math. Sagan actually stated, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". There is no objective evidence for a multiverse. Perhaps that will change, but until then it is supposition.

Once again, separating that which is objective from the subjective can be very helpful to amateurs like me. [This is why I would like to see the Green Rules tweaked and made practical.]
 
Last edited:
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"

There is a return quote by Dr Avi Loeb in "All About Space", Issue 115 (April 2021?) page 25:

Extraordinary conservatism leads to extraordinary ignorance".

I am just quoting this without comment.

Cat ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: IG2007
Apr 5, 2020
449
475
1,060
In my opinion, multiverse is more of a belief than a scientific theory or hypothesis. Because, quoting rod, "anything that is not falsifiable is unscientific." Simply put, yes, there can be questions that what is the universe expanding into, but also, we do not know how much space actually exists. We can say that space is "infinite", but as infinity is a vague impression and there is no proof to prove that something exists out of our so-called "universe." As there is no proof, it is not falsifiable, and thus, it is unscientific.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Jun 1, 2020
987
692
1,260
In my opinion, multiverse is more of a belief than a scientific theory or hypothesis. Because, quoting rod, "anything that is not falsifiable is unscientific." Simply put, yes, there can be questions that what is the universe expanding into, but also, we do not know how much space actually exists. We can say that space is "infinite", but as infinity is a vague impression and there is no proof to prove that something exists out of our so-called "universe." As there is no proof, it is not falsifiable, and thus, it is unscientific.
Your statement offers a lot of nuggets worth addressing. :) I think it may help everyone but I hope you don't mind me parsing it for effect.

IOG2007 said:
...multiverse is more of a belief than a scientific theory or hypothesis.
Agreed. It has some interesting and supportive math background but doesn't meet, at least yet, the requirements to be a theory or hypothesis.

IOG2007 said:
We can say that space is "infinite", but as infinity is a vague impression and there is no proof to prove that something exists out of our so-called "universe.
Given the enormity of infinity, it should be used lightly. Since, however, proofs imply something that is incontrovertible, and hypotheses actual require falsifiable predictions, then proofs are anathema to science, oddly enough. We may loosely treat certain claims as such, which would explain why we assign "laws" to some of them.

As there is no proof, it is not falsifiable, and thus, it is unscientific.
Again, no proof is required, only claims that can be falsified. But, yes, they aren't falsifiable so they aren't scientific hypotheses, though suppositions are the roots to future hypotheses, so one could argue they are in the realm of science, if only in supposition or perhaps conjecture.
 
My opinion is that there may well be a multiverse, but only on the proviso that the so-called "Universe" becomes referred to as a "semiverse", "compoverse", or some other generally acceptable term. You must have semantic consistency.

Cat :)
 
Aug 14, 2020
167
37
110
Amazing that the universe at its smallest may be the universe at its largest, following, in part, Chaos Theory within the Science of Complexity. According to some around, though, the scientists who deal in the universe of the small (QM) are "pseudo-scientists" dealing in "pseudo-science", meaning they are no scientists at all and their science is no science at all. Apparently they demonstrate nothing; they prove nothing, they deal in no evidence whatsoever, regarding the universe in its largest / smallest dimensions, quite possibly (very possibly) one and the same dimensionality beyond our local grasp of universe at large. From their work ("pseudo-scientists' pseudo-science") they deal in perception and often do prediction regarding the [larger] universe beyond our local grasp ("From a drop of water a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other...").
 
Jun 1, 2020
987
692
1,260
Amazing that the universe at its smallest may be the universe at its largest,...
That is an interesting point, at least until (and if) inflation took place.

According to some around, though, the scientists who deal in the universe of the small (QM) are "pseudo-scientists" dealing in "pseudo-science", meaning they are no scientists at all and their science is no science at all.
You might want to understand more of what QM is by looking at how Einstein got his Nobel Prize. He wasn't big on pseudoscience.
 
Nov 13, 2020
68
66
110
I want to make an example of what is a scientific hypothesis and what is mere speculation.
Consider the conform cyclic cosmology model elaborated by Roger Penrose.
This was a consistent scientific hypothesis, because Penrose explained in detail what we would search to give it evidence or confutation.
The research has been done, no element of confirm was found, so the hypotesis was demonstrated not correct.
Despite the lack of a confirmation, this was a real scientific hypothesis, because suggests in itself the way in which can be verified.
At the present, instead, the multiverse is only a mathematical construct that is compatible with the inflation hypothesis, but does not suggest any way in which could be verified.
I agree that this is not pseudoscience, but speculation.
 
Jun 1, 2020
987
692
1,260
At the present, instead, the multiverse is only a mathematical construct that is compatible with the inflation hypothesis, but does not suggest any way in which could be verified.
I agree that this is not pseudoscience, but speculation.
Agreed. It's a problem, however, when people who know better treat it publicly as science (arguing it as a valid scientific theory).
 
Aug 14, 2020
167
37
110
There can be no such thing as proving, verifying, the macro-verse beyond the really-not-so-distant horizon of our local tiny island in the "ocean sea." It can only be possibly observed, possibly be approached to proving, to verification, in the working model of the micro-verse.

I came from a long career history in centralized macro-mainframe computer systems transforming to decentralized local and wide area networked micro-computer / micro-server systems and "cyberspace." The latter far, far, vaster and more multi-dimensional in capacity and capability than the former. Also, by far the greater in all around overall energies, complexity, reaches, richness, and survivability. This being one local -- personal -- beginning realization of proof, of verification, to me. No "only a mathematical construct," no "only speculation," involved to that modeling (that locally working model). I went from ponds I thought (once upon a time) great and deep to the ocean. And unlike many, I could and did make the transformation -- even helping in my localized way to accomplish the transformation -- from one to the other.

I am by no means the first to reach such realization of something greater, combined -- both physically and in mind. Nor was A. Canon Doyle back in the 1890s the first. Nor even Michel Guillaume Jean de Crevecoeur, aka J. Hector St. John, back in the 1770s' America. Nor even were the Greeks during their expansionist era; one era in both world and mind frontier (always combined in the one ultra-energetic, frontier expansionist, era(s)). Always rare, far too rare, otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Nov 13, 2020
68
66
110
There can be no such thing as proving, verifying, the macro-verse beyond the really-not-so-distant horizon of our local tiny island in the "ocean sea." It can only be possibly observed, possibly be approached to proving, to verification, in the working model of the micro-verse.

I came from a long career history in centralized macro-mainframe computer systems transforming to decentralized local and wide area networked micro-computer / micro-server systems and "cyberspace." The latter far, far, vaster and more multi-dimensional in capacity and capability than the former. Also, by far the greater in all around overall energies, complexity, reaches, richness, and survivability. This being one local -- personal -- beginning realization of proof, of verification, to me. No "only a mathematical construct," no "only speculation," involved to that modeling (that locally working model). I went from ponds I thought (once upon a time) great and deep to the ocean. And unlike many, I could and did make the transformation -- even helping in my localized way to accomplish the transformation -- from one to the other.
The problem is that the universe is not a computer network.
 
Aug 14, 2020
167
37
110
The problem is that the universe is not a computer network.
The problem is that the particular representative "universe" most certainly is a kind of universe, a virtual universe, a modeling in a way, and most certainly can be used for analogy.

Analogy: a) resemblance in some particulars in things otherwise unlike : similarity : b) comparison based on such resemblance. ("cyberspace" (dimension) || "hyperspace" (dimension))

And if we break out to the solar system in a big way in personalized stations and specialized facilities, as well as islanded city-state colonies in space, cyberspace virtual dimensionality in our computer systems will be nothing compared to that titanic mass of rabbit holes and interconnecting corridors of lanes and ships in and throughout the solar system. We will model a virtual galaxy of island worldlets, a working micro-galaxy as a potentially huge step toward solving the problem of relativity and achieving the next up frontier, the galaxy. We would be in our countless numbers of facilitation, and our facilities' countless numbers [in] space from one end of the solar system to the other (from one end of our micro-galactic model to the other). You couldn't find -- you couldn't produce -- more paths to resolution, more dimensions of resolution, either by discovery or by invention. The frontage that will be put against the problem of speed from here to there will be the largest of all possible fronts. We built to it in the numbers in the frontage of discovery and invention on Earth, we will build to it in the numbers in the frontage of discovery and invention in the solar system. We brute forced the way with the numbers, finding the one way or innovation in a complex million on Earth and we will do the same in the solar system. To win our way to the one in a million right path, we need the dimensions of the assault on those million or more paths. If it is a one right path in a billion paths, we need the billion paths taken. We need that kind of multi-dimensionality. We need that kind of multiverse. AI won't do it. Neither will a few academics working the problem. It will be an accidental discovery made by one ship in a million or billion ships traveling the solar system or the edges of the solar system, or the accidental action and discovery made by one grease stained engine mechanic in a billion to a trillion grease stained engine mechanics. We will be putting (tasking) titanic numbers to working the titanic problems... and not one of those numbers will probably ever realize they are working on the problems they will solve, finding the paths, the breakthroughs, for the tide following (just as happened before them on Earth, regarding invention, innovation, and/or discovery (far more often than not, it was in and of the many, from the many (from the multi-dimensionality of our entire species), that the job got done)).
 
Last edited:
Nov 13, 2020
68
66
110
The problem is that the particular representative "universe" most certainly is a kind of universe, a virtual universe, a modeling in a way, and most certainly can be used for analogy.

Analogy: a) resemblance in some particulars in things otherwise unlike : similarity : b) comparison based on such resemblance. ("cyberspace" (dimension) || "hyperspace" (dimension))

And if we break out to the solar system in a big way in personalized stations and specialized facilities, as well as islanded city-state colonies in space, cyberspace virtual dimensionality in our computer systems will be nothing compared to that titanic mass of rabbit holes and interconnecting corridors of lanes and ships in and throughout the solar system. We will model a virtual galaxy of island worldlets, a working micro-galaxy as a potentially huge step toward solving the problem of relativity and achieving the next up frontier, the galaxy. We would be in our countless numbers of facilitation, and our facilities' countless numbers [in] space from one end of the solar system to the other (from one end of our micro-galactic model to the other). You couldn't find -- you couldn't produce -- more paths to resolution, more dimensions of resolution, either by discovery or by invention. The frontage that will be put against the problem of speed from here to there will be the largest of all possible fronts. We built to it in the numbers in the frontage of discovery and invention on Earth, we will build to it in the numbers in the frontage of discovery and invention in the solar system. We brute forced the way with the numbers, finding the one way or innovation in a complex million on Earth and we will do the same in the solar system. To win our way to the one in a million right path, we need the dimensions of the assault on those million or more paths. If it is a one right path in a billion paths, we need the billion paths taken. We need that kind of multi-dimensionality. We need that kind of multiverse. AI won't do it. Neither will a few academics working the problem. It will be an accidental discovery made by one ship in a million or billion ships traveling the solar system or the edges of the solar system, or the accidental action and discovery made by one grease stained engine mechanic in a billion to a trillion grease stained engine mechanics. We will be putting (tasking) titanic numbers to working the titanic problems... and not one of those numbers will probably ever realize they are working on the problems they will solve, finding the paths, the breakthroughs, for the tide following (just as happened before them on Earth, regarding invention, innovation, and/or discovery (far more often than not, it was in and of the many, from the many (from the multi-dimensionality of our entire species), that the job got done)).
I remember you that in this forum there is a section dedicated to science fiction, in which thìs kind of speculations can find a better place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
Aug 14, 2020
167
37
110
I remember you that in this forum there is a section dedicated to science fiction, in which thìs kind of speculations can find a better place.
A hundred years ago, and especially a hundred and fifty years ago and more, our whole modern world might have belonged in some section dedicated to science fiction. Some people never actually worked in the evolution of Computer and Information Technology; never actually lived within the expanding evolutionary / revolutionary dimensions of that seemingly almost incredibly ancient time to this modern time like I did. I can take it, project it, to a different, higher, and wider, level of universe and dimensionality if I please.

Furthermore, "I remember you" should be 'I remind you'. And yet furthermore, you have no place, that I know of, to be reminding me of any such thing. So leave it be. Your replies are getting farther and farther off topic (in particular concerning the multi-dimensionality (the multi-dimensionalities) of multiverse -- they don't have such narrowly confined limits as you would try to imply and force upon people).
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY