|
. | . |
|
by Luke Barnes, Super Science Research Fellow at University of Sydney Sydney, Australia (TCM) May 15, 2014
The recent BICEP2 observations - of swirls in the polarisation of the cosmic microwave background - have been proclaimed as many things, from evidence of the Big Bang and gravitational waves to something strange called the multiverse. The multiverse theory is that our universe is but one of a vast, variegated ensemble of other universes. We don't know how many pieces there are to the multiverse but estimates suggest there many be squillions of them. But (if they exist) there has not been enough time since our cosmic beginning for light from these other universes to reach us. They are beyond our cosmic horizon and thus in principle unobservable. How, then, can cosmologists say they have seen evidence of them?
Seeing the unobservable But there is no such luxury with the multiverse. No signals from from other universes have or will ever bother our telescopes. While there is some debate about what actually makes a scientific theory, we should at least ask if the multiverse theory is testable? Does it make predictions that we can test in a laboratory or with our telescopes? The answer is yes, but perhaps not as you'd expect. And the exploration of the multiverse theory involves some very complex, and very controversial, ideas.
The mark of the generator In some versions of inflation, the process that causes our universe to inflate is expected to produce huge numbers of other universes. Evidence for inflation isn't exactly direct evidence for the multiverse, but it's a start.
A known generator In particular, a multiverse theory that requires only well-tested physics such as gravity and quantum fields is preferable to one that requires new physics, or requires extrapolating known physics to situations where we expect them to break down. Inflation's scorecard is mixed: some of the underlying physics is known, some is hypothetical, and some worry that it skirts close to (or perhaps into) the quantum gravity regime, where all tested physical theories break down.
Observing our universe in the ensemble A packet arrives from the factory and they open it to find a red widget - whose theory is correct? Neither theory is certainly false, but the evidence clearly favours Alice. A multiverse theory will (by definition) predict the statistical properties of its universes. We can then ask whether our universe is the kind of universe one would expect to observe. The more unusual our universe is, the more likely it is that a different multiverse theory would better explain our universe. And if our universe is just too weird for the vast majority of multiverse theories, then the whole idea of a multiverse comes under question. It is thus relevant to ask: how typical is our universe of the set of possible universes? There is one way in which our universe is highly unusual: it contains life. If our laws of nature were only slightly different then our universe would look and behave quite differently: atoms would fall apart, or the universe would have expanded so fast that stars and galaxies could not form.
Most cosmological scenarios would have left our universe stone-cold dead, devoid of life While universes with observers may be highly unusual in the entire multiverse, they will obviously be the norm for observed universes. And so, the life-permitting nature of our universe can be counted as a successful prediction of the multiverse. (Prediction in the logical, rather than chronological sense.)
Revenge of the Boltzmann Brains Quantum mechanics, the same physics that predicts the inflationary fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, seen by BICEP2, also predicts that there is an extremely tiny probability of a fully-formed brain spontaneously popping out of "empty" space. Given enough time and space this vanishingly improbable event will occur. While such freak observers, known as Boltzmann Brains, would be massively outnumbered by biological observers in our universe, they could be common in the almost unending time and space of the entire multiverse. In that case, the fact that we are not that kind of observer is like seeing the red widget - it is evidence against a multiverse theory that says we should expect to be freaky observers. The multiverse is not just testable; it might even fail.
Ifs and buts Observations do not uniquely favour inflation though the BICEP2 results are an impressive step in this direction. It is a matter of some debate whether inflation naturally generates a multiverse. Further, many multiverse theories struggle to predict anything, so clearly there is much much more to be done. But positing the multiverse is not, as claimed by some, the end of science. It may be the start of the biggest scientific adventure of all. Source: The Conversation
Related Links The Conversation Understanding Time and Space
|
|
The content herein, unless otherwise known to be public domain, are Copyright 1995-2014 - Space Media Network. All websites are published in Australia and are solely subject to Australian law and governed by Fair Use principals for news reporting and research purposes. AFP, UPI and IANS news wire stories are copyright Agence France-Presse, United Press International and Indo-Asia News Service. ESA news reports are copyright European Space Agency. All NASA sourced material is public domain. Additional copyrights may apply in whole or part to other bona fide parties. Advertising does not imply endorsement, agreement or approval of any opinions, statements or information provided by Space Media Network on any Web page published or hosted by Space Media Network. Privacy Statement All images and articles appearing on Space Media Network have been edited or digitally altered in some way. Any requests to remove copyright material will be acted upon in a timely and appropriate manner. Any attempt to extort money from Space Media Network will be ignored and reported to Australian Law Enforcement Agencies as a potential case of financial fraud involving the use of a telephonic carriage device or postal service. |