Martin Rees On The Multiverse, Scientific Research & Reality

There's an interesting piece by Martin Rees about the nature of the Uni/Multiverse, as well as some of the underlying mechanics. Also, a good bit on the nature of scientific research. You can get the text or the Real version. Good stuff.

Comments

In my section of the Multiverse

[Anonymous Coward]

Real doesn't suck so much.

Real audio

[fredrikj]

You can get the text or the Real version. Good stuff.

Great, except that the odds of getting meaningful sound out of the noise in .ram files are worse than those of finding alien signals in the SETI@Home project.

(OT, it's great to have karma to burn)

Re:Real audio

[product byproduct]

[Morpheus] What's Real? Real is an audio codec designed to blind you from the truth.
[Neo] What truth?
[Morpheus] The text version is better.

Theory of Doughnut shaped universe

[someguy456]

Your theory of a donut-shaped universe is intriguing, Homer. I may have to steal it.

Don't encourage idiots...

[I'm a racist.]

This stuff is rather speculative. And, to really understand it, valid or not, takes quite a few years of background. Invariably, when you get the general public reading things like this, it gets them started spouting all kinds of ridiculous shit. They automatically oversimplify, and pretend to actually comprehend it (despite not even knowing what a differential equation is).

I'm all for getting people interested in science. But, is there some way to do that without only getting them to absorb a fraction of the information, and then going on to propogate gross misinformation?

I hate to say that such things shouldn't be written, but they may actually do more harm than good. Afterall, everyone who's read one of Hawking's books thinks they could carry on a conversation with a high level theorist (in topics such as cosmology, quantum mechanics, etc), which is absolutely not the case.

I'll bet that over 50% of the comments for this article will be pseudo-intellectuals espousing their retarded theories, misinformation, and other general stupidity... as opposed to the typical 30-40% of idiocy most /. articles draw.

Re:Don't encourage idiots...

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'll bet that over 50% of the comments for this article will be pseudo-intellectuals espousing their retarded theories, misinformation, and other general stupidity... "
Guess which side of that 50% fence your comment is on! bwhahahahaaaa!

Re:Don't encourage idiots...

[hbo]

Off-topic response to flaimbait warning.

Afterall, everyone who's read one of Hawking's books thinks they could carry on a conversation with a high level theorist (in topics such as cosmology, quantum mechanics, etc), which is absolutely not the case.

Heh. Well, the general public can carry on conversations with high level theorists that aren't elitist jerks.

I actually have personal experience to back that up. For six years I worked as a system administrator at a UC Physics department. We had two Nobel Laureates. One could hardly speak to other people, including other Physicists. But that wasn't from elitism; it was more a question of poor socialization. 8) The other was quite accessible. A true gentleman, he would take the time to explain things if you asked. But I learned the most from the gradual students, many of whom seemed not to have caught the elite bug yet. (I wonder if they point a HERF gun at Physicists when they get tenure?)

After all those years, I learned quite a lot about Physics, despite having only a rough conceptual understanding of what a differential equation is. I also learned much about human nature as it applies to Very Bright People. Some of them are the most wonderful people I've known. A few I would put in the category of "monster." And of course most fall in between the extremes.

I thought this was interesting

[spumoni_fettuccini]

This" was in Scientific American a little while ago. Who knew? I had thought multiverse theory was restrained to sci-fi and comic books.

Re:I thought this was interesting

[Dale Dunn]

Well, until a multiverse theory has actualy observational data pointing to it, perhaps it should stay restrained to sci-fi and comic books.

I'm not aware of any widely accepted theory that says we can make observations to prove or disprove any multiverse theory, so it hardly seems logical to classify them as scientific. SciAm should know better, or at least admit that the article is philosophical speculation, and not scientific.

Re:I thought this was interesting

[harrkev]

As I understand them, the theories you mention are attempts to explain observed phenomena. Without data to suggest multiple universes that theory has no more scientific basis than any form of creationism you might subscribe to. Some say God made the universe. Others say the universe cam out of some super-foam. Both are an appeal to the undetectable, since we can't reach outside the universe from inside.

Mod the parent up!

The original article states All we can expect is to have a very incomplete and metaphorical view of this deep reality. His arguments about multple universes is just as speculateive as an actual real God as most religions postulate. In fact, there is more evidence for the deity of Jesus than there is for multiple universes!

1) Let's assume for a second that there ARE multiple infinite universes and that it is possible to travel between them. Certainly somewhere there is a super-agressive species that wants to invade all universes. We have not seen them, and we are certainly not enslaved by any aliens right now. So I would consider this theory to be unlikely.

2) OK. Let's assume that ther ARE multiple universes, but they are completely separated from us -- no travel or information may cross universe boundaries. If this is the case, then there can be absolutely NO experimental evidence for this. The only evidence is a little bit of statistical evidence and a lot of faith. How is this so different from religion?

3) Finally, let's assume that a deity DID create the universe, and has a plan for us. It seems reasonable that He left clues about what He wants. At least in this possibility, there is a possibility of searching for evidence and clues, unlike option 2 above.

In short, everybody has to take SOMETHING on faith (Goedel proved that). You can either take it on faith that there IS a God, and look for evidence or clues, or take it on faith that there is NOT a God, and try to postulate multiple unreachable universes to explain the impossible odds of having a universe with life.

At least the multiverse theory is not quite as absurd as the bifucating universe theory ... but that is a whole other can of worms!

More universes than atoms

[killthiskid]

At first it was thought that there might be just one unique solution to the equations, just one possible three-dimensional universe with one possible 'vacuum state' and one set of laws. But it seems now, according to the experts, that there could be a huge number. In fact Lenny Susskind claims that there could be more possible types of universe than there are atoms in our universe--a quite colossal variety. The system of universes could be even more intricate and complex than the biosphere of our planet. This really is a mind-blowing concept, especially when we bear in mind that each of those universes could themselves be infinite.

Note the bolded part of this quote... there could be a multiverse where most slashdotters have sex on a regular basis.! The best news geeks have ever heard!

Re:More universes than atoms

[feepness]

Note the bolded part of this quote... there could be a multiverse where most slashdotters have sex on a regular basis.! The best news geeks have ever heard!

Yes, but equally frightening is that _this_ could be the universe where slashdotters have the most sex!

Multiverse theories scientific?

[Dale Dunn]

What is the basis for multiverse theories? Is there anything in observed physics to indicate their possible existence? Is there any data pointing to a multiverse other than the fact that the idea of existence having a finite beginning is "philosophically repugnant".

If multiverse theories are based on philosophical preference rather than observed data, are not multiverse theories then properly classified as philosophical or metaphysical rather than scientific? Is there any conceivable test that could prove the existence of another universe? If not, then it seems multiverse theories should be published in philosophical journals, and certainly should not be classified as scientific, since science can neither prove nor disprove them.

This author may be a brilliant scientist, but I think we should keep in mind that he's speculating outside the realm of science.

Re:Multiverse theories scientific?

[Anonymous Coward]

People say that the interference patterns created by single photons, electrons (or even atoms) in two slit experiments constitute "obsverved physical data." Wave/particle duality is another way of saying that we have evidence of many worlds, but don't want to admit it. Quantum collapse is also evidence, showing you can't directly look at one universe from another. These things have been shown over and over.

I suppose it might be evidence of something else, but what?

David Deutsch says that if (when) quantum computers get above a few hundred qubits (they're at seven? now), that will also constitute proof, as the calculations that they will do will require more steps than there are atoms in the visible universe.

Etc.

Info about dark matter and extra dimensions

[zaneIO]

Here is some info about dark matter and extra dimensions.

Whats wrong with you?

[m4g02]

Don't encourage idiots...
I hate to say that such things shouldn't be written, but they may actually do more harm than good

Elitist crap. Its ok if people dont understand now what he is saying, they dont need to, a lot of persons reading such an strange theory (to current common knowledge) is enough to do good for civilization. Is not like they are going to be in charge of a nuclear reactor, so why in the first place are you whining?, this kind of "for common folks" inspired documents are good to introduce ideas to the base culture, maybe it wont be undertood until 2050, but thanks to documents like this, that little by little introduce new ideas, it will be undertood some day.

So, without prolonging more this stupid thread of yours, my guess is that you think you are way too special with your selfish elitist crap.

Please....

[GeneralEmergency]

...let this be that one 'verse where I get modded up all the time.

philosophy

[YllabianBitPipe]

Here's my 2 cents worth of amateur philosophy on this subject.

I think multiple universes is highly likely because each time people have thought our existence is "special" or "one of a kind" we've been proven wrong. For example, the earth is NOT the center of the universe. Neither is the sun the center of the galaxy, neither is our galaxy the center of the universe etc. etc. There are a multitude of other planets, stars and galaxies in the universe. It is no hard leap to see that our universe is likely not special in any particular way and is not likely the only universe.

I also do not buy into these recent claims that the universe, life on earth or anything on it in particular smacks of some "design" or pre-meditated intent by some creator. One good example is the huge amount of distances between stars and planets. Space travel from here to some other star will likely not happen for thousands of years, not only due to the distance but that speed of light thing. So, I really think if this universe was created for the intent of life, things would be moving along quite a bit quicker (not on the order of trillions of years) and any life would be spaced a bit closer together. What we have here seems to be a really, really, really dull version of the SIMS where your neighbors are trillions of miles away, and your SIMS take millions of years to step outside. If there's a god out there, he's a really boring guy.

So the only explanation I have for life is that with an infinite amount of universes and planets, the odds are SOMETHING will happen on one infitesimally tiny part of one of them. That something in the larger scheme of things has about the significance of a blip of nothing in nothingness. And that blip is us. That doesn't sound like divine intervention to me.

Its a bunch of pop-science gooblygook

[rufusdufus]

Scientific American's article is a confused mess of ideas in an attempt to take a lot of speculation in unrelated areas of theory and make it look like science. The magazine has gone down hill in credibility in the last few years, and this article is the crowning achievement so far; Scientific American is the new OMNI.

Parallel Universe article in Scientific American

[ciphertext]

A Scientific American (publication website) article talks about a theory of parallel universes (article link) that is gaining in popularity in the cosmology circles. It speaks of a "Multiverse" as well. Though, not in the same vein.

Re:Martin Reese is...

[Merovign]

Interesting.

If you are bothered by religion, you will be bothered a great deal. You can either seek offense at it, or swim past it. Don't worry about it.

This message is for those who are either religious or irreligious and find themselves offended by the other.

On the other hand, if Martin Reese was at your window with a bullhorn trying to convert you, then you are right to be offended. If that is the case, I apologize for intruding in the conversation.

I say these things largely because, in my teens, I was what you might call an "Atheist Fundamentalist." In other words, from my doubt of religion flowed a certain rudeness and a desire to get my word in on the subject wherever possible.

For the most part, such things do not bother me now. You might say I have mellowed (few would believe you).

P.S. I am glad you have faith that there is a logical explanation. I do as well.

Sounds familiar

[M.C. Hampster]

At first sight you might get worried about an infinity of things in themselves infinite, but to deal with this you have to draw on a body of mathematics called transfinite number theory, that goes back to Cantor in the 19th century. Just as many kinds of pure mathematics have already been taken over by physicists, this rather arcane subject of transfinite numbers is now becoming relevant, because we've got to think of infinities of infinity. Indeed, there's perhaps even a higher hierarchy of infinities: in addition to our universe being infinite, and there being an infinite number of possible laws of nature, we may want to incorporate the so-called many worlds theory of quantum mechanics.

Why does this sound so familiar? ... Oh, I know, it sounds like the arguments I used to have with my brother:

Me: You're an idiot
Brother: Well, you're an idiot times infinity.
Me: Oh yeah? Well, you are an idiot times infinity times infinity!

And so on and so forth.

You are living in a Computer Simulation

[pyramis]

This stereotypical topic of coffee-house philosophers and stoners gets quite a serious treatment nowadays--The Matrix notwithstanding. Now Oxford faculty member Nick Bostrom provides a logical proof. Whoa.

In Rees's article, he gives the proposition even more support by showing how it's a direct consequence of multiverse theory:

Once you accept the idea of the multiverse, and that some universes will have immense potentiality for complexity, it's a logical consequence that in some of those universes there will be the potential to simulate parts of themselves...

Taking this one step further... If there is another universe X that is more complex than our universe U, universe X has the computational resources to simulate U in its entirety.