 |
Multiverse
Tom Van Flandern writes, on Big Bang model:"Perhaps never in the history of science has so much quality evidence accumulated against a model so widely accepted within a field. Even the most basic elements of the theory, the expansion of the universe and the fireball remnant radiation, remain interpretations with credible alternative explanations. One must wonder why, in this circumstance, that four good alternative models are not even being comparatively discussed by most astronomers" (Top 30 problems with the Big Bang). See also Halton Arp, who shows that the cosmological redshift effect is not solid evidence of cosmic expansion. For my own part, I remark that the The laws of physics are representations of overarching order, not a self-contained package upon which a higher order imposes some kind of mutability. Like dimensionality, they are not to be redefined in ad hoc fashion and used as a conceptual toy, a practice which seems all too common in modern theorising.
Graham Hale - Multiverse
I was expecting to hear something of the multiverse in quantum theory which is the basis of quantum computing so I was disappointed. Could you cover this in a future program please.
the multiverse
I ended up with "It is imperative that we take a fresh look at the key issues in life as a matter of urgency."Peter Chia
mark v . Multiverse and metaphysics
"Physicists, are traditionally horrified of the metaphysical" wrote F. David Peat in his book "Superstrings". His point was touched on in the multiverse debate. Is it not certain that all the speakers would have been considered lunatics only one hundred years ago? My point is not to insult them, but rather to highlight how metaphysical their current ideas would appear to their peers had they lived a century ago. And yet today they are still perhaps horrified that a creator could possibly have organised all these universes, indeed the more complex the subject becomes the more unlikely a creator appears to be (perhaps because of the perceived complexity of the matter). But of course scale and complexity are governed by our perception of them. Perhaps if we thought of the observable universe as something very small the notion of a creator might be easier to consider.
Stuart Woodward - The Multiverse
I enjoyed the program so much that I went back to the start and listened to it again to make sure that I hadn't missed anything.
Quentin Clemence - Multiverse
If these other universes exist then surely they are by definition a part of our universe even if impossibly inaccessible for us. If on the other hand their "existence" is entirely incompatible with our definition of existence we should change our definition of existence. I think the understanding of the whole multiverse would be much improved by a little pondering over the precise meaning of existence.
Roger - multiverse vs. parallel universes
The multiverses discussed in the programme all seemed to be unobservable but 'within' the dimensions of the known universe and there was hardly any mention of the theory of parallel universes as an explanation of quantum interactions (Martin Rees did briefly mention extra-dimensional universes at one point). So we have to deal with both multiverses and parallel universes as separate possibilities. Presumably each multiverse could have its own collection of parallel universes (allowing for the fact that the laws of physics might not be the same in some of these multiverses).As always: a fascinating programme - thanks a lot.
M Foster Multiverse
On the issue of two points far enough apart for light not to travel between them,if there was a big bang from a singularity,light and other radiation leaves that point in every direction.Light travelling in diagonally opposite ditections would now be 26 billion light years apart after only 13 billion years.Also it has been said that in the inital seconds after the big bang,the "laws of physics" did not apply,light speed could be exceeded.(This may not be so) I think that we have an inability to be objective about the universe;many people do not realise how much our individual being is integral with the universe. If we had the same scale relationship to the universe as a human being does to an electron,we might see it as just an explosion.It might be reasonable to say that we live in an exploding universe,we are part of that process. If were able to video a nuclear explosion then slow it right down and zoom in on sub-atomic particles it would take years to track one particle at a speed at which we could watch its motion.
Neil Henriksen on Multiverses
In the fifties, Prof McCrea (I think) wrote to the Listener about the uncertainties of mathematical models. He cited the negative root of a quadratic equation which might have no physical counterpart to the phenomenon measured by the positive root. He was concerned about the mathematics of nuclear power. Similarly, strings may bring diverse physical phenomena under a single theory, but there is no certainty that all the mathematical solutions correspond to something real... pace 'the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in representing the physical world.'
Cedric Barfoot Lawyers in Leiden
Dear Melvyn Bragg, In your newsletter you refer to Martin Rees' comment on the number of lawyers in Leiden University. I don't know whether the number of students doing physics in Leiden has decreased, but as someone who worked in the English Department in Leiden for over thirty years I always remarked on the numbers of young men and women studying law, and especially to those law students who out of boredom with their law studies occasionally came to do an English course. One of the main reasons for the number of law students is the vocational inclination of the Dutch, law being considered the subject that equips you to get a job in many different professions and not just in law firms, etc.
Tom Milner-Gulland - Multiverse
The extent to which cosmological redshift indicates an expanding universe may be disputable, but the absence of *some* degree of general, accelerated recession between clusters of cosmolgical bodies would mean ever increasing centripetal mutual attraction under gravitational force, which would make the cosmos self-annihilating. My explanation for galactic recession is the existence of supermassive bodies, beyond the known universe, sucking matter away from a central point (Martin Rees once told me my theory makes a neat alternative to the problematic inflationary model). Such bodies may be assumed to be fixed relative to one another, something I don't imagine can be accounted for in anything other than metaphysical terms. Like Leibniz, I invoke a many worlds model. For me, a universe is characterised by its possessing an inherent it a life force, which is an organisation of energy, and in my thinking energy *inevitably* yields life (and consciousness). Such organisation is characterised by a specific balance (as by ratios, eg, proton:electron rest mass) between the fundamental constants of nature, and variations in this balance prescribe the amount of matter and energy that is contained in any given universe. All such worlds (universes) are inaccessible to the inhabitants of other universes; similarly, for Leibniz, the organisation of senses in a sentient organism prescribes a space and time - a world - that, entirely removed from all others, is accessible to all organisms that share the same sensibility, but not others. Thus my model is centred upon the idea of metaphysical conditionings that pervade both cosmos and sensibility. The balance between the fundamental constants is the outward expression of a prescribed mode of sensible operation. Ultimately these conditionings reflect what I consider, close to Fichte, what I think of as the array of instinctual facets of God.
John Nissen - Our chance existence
It is clear from the programme and from Martin Rees's book "Just six numbers", that the universe is fine-tuned to our existence. But, by the same Anthropic Principle, so is the history of the Earth also fine-tuned. In particular the climate system was finely balanced during the ice ages, to allow rapid evolution of human intelligence, which allows us to understand how we are here today. But we have broken that fine-tuning of the climate system with a colossal pulse of CO2. So we are led onto another of Sir Martin’s books "Our last century", but with the twist that the Anthropic Principle is an indicator of our most likely downfall. No doubt there is another universe where man has not been so foolish. However we might just be in time to save ourselves in this universe, by a determined concerted international effort – so good could come out this.
Paul - anthropogenic mulitiverse
If chemistry is what imprisons us in this universe, couldn't other universes exsits with the same laws (just in a different prison cell)?
Georgina - Multiverse(s)
'In order for science to prove the multiverse, we first have to believe that they exist' - this sounds awfully as if scientists have faith in a multiverse. I was surprised to hear the terminology of theology applied so often in today's programme: 'why', 'believe', 'accept before proof', 'I have been converted' etc. Seems to me Science and Faith have met, (or have never been separated in the first place). I got the sense that cosmologists are indeed not trying to disprove Creation/Anthropic Principle, but to replace faith in the traditional 'God' with faith in Theory.
LucillaT
Need multiverses be far away from this universe? Surely they could exist in the same time and space, if they follow different physical laws.
The multiverse
Two paradoxes come to mind when discussing the universe or multiverse.The first is that it is impossible to imagine multiverses stretching out for ever into space but at the same time it is impossible to imagine that there is a boundary to the universe or multiverse.The second is that it is impossible to imagine a multiverse appearing out of nothing at all, but at the same time it is impossible to imagine that previous multiverses have been around for ever.
Dr J Ovens - Multiverse
The Multiverse discussion reminded me of a picture I once saw depicting the relationship between particle physics and cosmology. It was of a snake eating it's own tail. The general idea at the time ( mid 1980's ) was that the two disciplines could benfit from this synergy, but following todays talk it could also represent some of the intellectual knots that need to be (un)tied before a decent theory is found.
Ian Taylor Multiverse
Our ability to prove string theory and every other scientific theory awaiting proof, is dependant on our ability to measure space and time on an ever smaller scale. Think about it.
David Love
Another fascinating and brilliant programme. Sir Martin Rees is always excellent and Fay Dowker & Bernard Carr were also very good value. Please invite all three of them back again some time.
Richard Tomlinson
Interesting program but failed to mention the far more interesting and controversial quantum multiverse theory as proposed by Hugh Everett and propounded David Deutsch amongst others: i.e. every possible universe exists. I have yet to hear or read any commentary on this.
Ian Glendinning - The Multiverse
Excellent quality again Melvyn. Great that you ensured recognition of multiple conflicting theories already existing. This comment is really a suggestion of where you should take the programmes. The really interesting part of the debate is the limits to observation. Whilst it is perfectly proper for scientists to speculate metaphorically about about what might exist beyond observable limits (and don't forget that principle of the observable limit is itself already based on relativistic theories about light and time and causation) in the hope that such speculation may throw up some other testable hypotheses in the observable zone. However at this boundary of the observable we really are in need of philosophical input - ontological and epistemological as well as metaphysical - and not limited to philsosophy of science as privelidged over more mystical philosophies, like theologies. I myself am an atheist, but it is wrong to privelidge the scientific view at this interface. I think what I'm saying to you is - there are some subjects where your segregation of programmes into your subject areas has its own coceptual limitations .... we need to synthesise or integrate recent "history of ideas" across science, philosophy, religion and the arts in order to make any progress at these "limits to observation". Integration.
Terry McIntee The Multiverse
I really enjoyed this mornings programme. Listening to the scientists, however, I couldn't help thinking of Occam's razor. I'm always amazed at the intellectual contortions some will go through to avoid the blatantly obvious - that everywhere we look there are unmistakable signs of 'intelligent design.'
Jason Kilburn Evans Multiverse
I am a little puzzled with regard to the multiverse about the nature and origin of the space in which the island universes are thought of inhabiting. How does this superspace arise when the space we know begins with the big bang and how do we, if at all, avoid some kind of infinite regress?
Andy - Multiverse
How can two points in our universe be so far apart that light has not had time to travel between them? If the universe started from a single point, doesn't that mean it has expanded faster than the speed of light?
The Multiverse
I am a little surprised your speakers are still discussing multiverese and Big Bangs when the answers have been provided. If you will, Lord Bragg, access Tempo Field Theory on the web and see what Frank Atkinson has produced. Then encourage Sir Martin et al to do the same. Their surprise will be greater than both yours and mine while future research will go the way they predict but considerably quicker.
Universe/Multiverse
I was pleasantly surprised by this discussion on the 'universe/multiverse'. My gritted teeth after a shaky start relaxed. Martin Rees was truly excellent. However my impression at the end was still of a group of people with the answer to some of their questions in their hands, lacking multidimensional vision with which to see them and groping at the universe from slightly different angles with fingers able to touch a bit at a time.What is basic, on which all that follows depends? From a single dimension follows plurality - a line has more than one end or is a loop. Two dimensions are then implicit and the the possibility of what we call a circle. From that the right-angle, defining the relationship between dimensions is an inevitability along with Phi, Fibonacci, the hexagonal packing tendency and the pentagonal transcendence, the sphere, all of which will lead to a universe that is multi-dimensionally compatible as others self-destruct. I see no future in a theory of the basic granularity of space-time - that is the most unlikely reality I have heard yet - though it may indeed present as that in a view with limited dimensional capability.It is a mistake to define other dimensions as 'dimensions of space' or ' of time'. Even Hyperspace or Hypertime could be misleading. Rees is right when he talks about the analogy of a horizons. I have argued against a multiverse in space and against a 'bouncing' multiverse in time because I believe - no I reason - that the multiverse in time is what we already have and it never needs to bounce. Hoyle and Gamow are both right but were unable to see the model that allows them to agree.I have argued against Inflation as a necessity to explain the consistency of universal physical characteristics. I have nothing against Inflation theory as a theory or its association with the modulation of the universe in its emergence into space-time, a modulation which physicists call the pattern of the background radiation and St John called "The Word, which was God and without which nothing was made". A word is a modulated sound wave. The nearest description to any pattern made by the emerging child universe is a 'word'. John was 2,000 years ahead of his time.Sensible theologian/philosophers such as Spinoza and Averroes saw both intuitively and by reason that God was Nature. Metaphysics is just physics beyond our current knowledge or empirical experience. The multiverses resolve in what we call time to give the one we observe and that makes the Anthropic Principle a fact. We're 'ere because we're 'ere because we're 'ere because etc... There is no need to 'bounce' because there is the equivalent to an 'underground' to the space-time we observe. The universe is thus continually recreating, refining and reproducing itself and will always appear to any observer as the one to suit that observer's intelligence. That means that however uncomfortable life may be for any life it will be appropriate.We look out and say: "The universe is a violent place", but we cannot see what it is, only what it was. As for our ideas on personal death we both over- and under-estimate its significance at the same time. We should be both less self-centered and at the same time more proud of the role we are able to play in the universal enterprise. It is greater than most people imagine. The small size of the earth no more determines its significance than does the size of of single cell that becomes a fertilized human egg does to the human body. As for talk about 'accidents', only a proper understanding of statistics in a multidimensional universe can give that word any meaning, or remove it.
the multiverse
i found the programme quite entertaining.loved the way participants were trying to deny something staring them in the face ie a creator.existence of multiuniverse only proves tha fact that there is a supreme controller who is perfect in every way and not that because we cant see these worlds they might be imperfect with differnt laws of physics,how desperate can you get,why be ashamed to admit logic and overcome the fear of criticism from fellow scientists.so called physicists are saying all the perfectly formed and balanced world we can see is a coincidence but the worlds we cant reach might be imperfect thus proving that we are a one off in millions of other chaotic worlds out there.now i am no astronaut but doesnt all this sound illogical and against reason. would love to hear from anybody who diagrees
David Lawton - Multiverse
I was trained as a geologist, and since my retirement 10 years ago I have been fascinated by the debate on the origins and structure of the universe, mainly on the macro scale. I have developed my own model of how our universe fits into a general theory, which may be amateurish, but parts of which seem to be being gradually established by scientific discoveries and theories.The whole process of debate seems to be so slow, and I get very frustrated by the debates such as the one today.It has seemed obvious to me from basic logic that :-(A)Time is eternal, and is a one way progression of events from the past into the future.(B)That space is infinite, and that there only one, with no parallel dimensions.(C)That our observed universe is only one of an infinite number of universes in various stages of maturity.(D)That each universe starts with a big bang, with matter that expands at first rapidly, and then more slowly.(E) That as it expands, it differentiates into clusters of various densities to form structures of stars, galaxies, and clouds.(F)That these structures decay over time as a universe expands like a bubble; stars collapse; galaxies spiral into black holes; and matter becomes more dense.(G)Our bubble universe forms one of an infinite number of such bubbles which meet at a boundary, which could be polygonal, as in actual bubbles.(H)That in these boundary zones of two or more impinging bubbles, matter in attracted together by gravity to form more and more dense clusters of dead stars, black holes, dust clouds, etc.(I)That in these zones of attraction, matter becomes more and more dense until a trigger sets off another big bang explosion, and a new universe is formed.(J)That this cycle of expansion, decay, and explosion has gone on, and will go on for ever.I look forward to the scientific world proving that I am right or wrong before I die.
Rita Carter - Multi-Verse
I loved the snowflake analogy and while listening to the fascinating discussion was drawing a many stemmed plant with different shaped geometric blooms and a dot that exploded in various trajectories and a multi-tented shape just as she talked about granular qualities!My husband studied physics & will love to talk about this subject evening.
keith farman
Finally! Serious scientists who acknowledge the language in which they express their theories poses acute philosophical problems that must be addressed if what they say is to ‘make sense’. Yet still. If we take Melvyn’s definition of a ‘universe’ at the beginning of the programme then the following discussion about ‘multi-verses’ instead of being a discussion about other ‘existences’ ‘beyond’ the universe we see, might be seen as simply a re-definition of ‘universe’ in the first place.Fay Dowker said ‘ we want to know why things are as they are in the world’. What kind of ‘why’ is this? Surely not a spiritual why. So a why like when we lower the temperature of water ‘why’ does the water freeze? - kind of why. Whether going outwards to the ‘infinitely’ big or inwards to the ‘infinitely’ small it is a conceptual necessity of science that you will always be on an infinite regress as without measurement there is no verification and without verification there is no science. This is NOT a problem as long as science and scientists have the humility to accept it. Doesn’t negate any area of enquiry or reduce its importance. It just means a theory of ‘everything’ colloquially taken is not a scientific term. (Whereas as a theory that integrates quantum theory and the theory of gravity – is a scientific term).Anthropic Principle. The concept of measurement was largely taken for granted in today’s discussion. The ‘surprise’ that the Anthropic Principle expresses elevates a tautology to a mystery. Suppose someone unused to our systems of measurement was introduced to all the measurement units less than a metre - mm, cm, etc etc. Perhaps he makes small things all of which are less than 1 metre long. Then one day you talk to him of the ‘standard’ meter in Paris. If he is ‘anthropic’ by nature he will be ‘astonished’ that the standard meter is absolutely and exactly what it is in order that the mms and the cms etc etc are all precisely in accordance. The point surely is that we CHOOSE to define our measurement systems by reference to certain features of the world and then define others by reference to that. we choose what to DEFINE as the basis a SYSTEM of measurement. It is the existence of the PRACTICE OF MEASUREMENT that is ‘mysterious’ not the units with which we apply it. (We have British greengrocers who regard Kilograms as deeply mysterious). If that is a ‘mystery’ then it is a mystery about why we are the creatures we are and why we act and value things the way we do and choose to act in the ways we do. Not a scientific question I think.What ‘unifies’ quantum theory and the theory of gravity is that both are the product of human CONSCIOUSNESS and if we reject a scientific therefore reductionist, concept of consciousness then we already have in a sense infinite ‘multi-verses’ for there are no limits to what a human being may think only rules he must obey to make them understood by others. And those rules are constantly changing. Now THERE’S a mystery worthy of the name.CONSCIOUSNESS is not a concept susceptible 'scientific' 'explanation' because nothing that would be called a scientific explanation would accord with what we mean by consciousness.
David Jones ch4 8jw multi universe
my view is theres more than multi, for multi implys a certain amount, i think a new term, my term, 'the infinityverses'is accurate. the theory of 'everything' in my view is a flawed premise. the theory of infinity, yes, for i believe theres an infinite amount of universes, big bangs are happening all the time some universes collapsing on themselves, some it seems like ours destined to expand, this eternal infinite perculation, including us.
Alan Hughes - The Multiverse
An excellent programme; classic Radio 4 - well done Melvyn.
Jim Stearn - Multiverses?
The cosmologists have built a huge pyramid of speculation on some incredibly faint light seen through a telescope (with some technological aids to amplify it and extend the range of frequencies) but they still rely 100% on evidence available only to sight, the least reliable of our senses. They also rely on a set of axioms including the constancy of the speed of light in a "vacuum" (even though they know it travels at different speeds through matter and they posit vast amounts of 'dark matter' which may-or may not- be in the way in constant or variable distribution). They also assume the Universe to be measurable and explicable by Euclidean geometry which is equally applicable to the macroscopic and the microscopic scales. There is every possibility that an alternative (Lobachevskayan) geometry applies which does not asume the parallel postulate as an axiom, and has a trigonometry that depends on absolute scale. If this is a truer account, Euclidean geometry is still applicable as a local approximation for fitting carpets but not for defining the big rectangular boxes conceptually needed for defining the speed of light as wavelength x frequency over interstellar distances. In other words, the Hubble Shift may mean something completely different from an expanding universe and the standard hot big bang theory may be a delusion. I am a sceptic, and not impressed by the true believers' alleged certainty on these topics.
The Universe programme on 21st February
Today's programme was great - even for those who are not experts in Quantum physics or cosmic theories it was easy to follow the discussion, an added bonus perhaps being that M.Bragg's role was reduced to that of a coordinator, more than usual. In some of the programmes he overtakes and enundates the listener with too many hurriedly delivered facts. This is not to undermine the exclusive nature of the In Our Time programmes and their topics. I would especially like to praise Mr Bragg's/the teams choice of female participants who, even in the most male-dominated fields of research such as today's show an impressive clarity of thought and a level of expertise equal and sometimes superior to that of their male counterparts. They also add flavour to the programmes. Please continue in the same vein!
Phil Davies - Multiverse / Anthropic fine-tuning
The comment was made that there is "no explanation" for why the cosmological constants are "fine-tuned" to permit our existence. It seems to me there is a complete and very simple explanation: if things were otherwise, we wouldn't be here to talk about it. It is not necessary to posit a multiverse to explain anthropic tuning. Its much simpler to get used to the fact that we and our minds are a random outcome. I think some people want humanity to be important "to the universe" - and will invent any amount of surplus cosmology to make it so!
Sean McHugh Multiverses
Subjects do not come much bigger than multiverses. This is the kind of thing I most enjoy on 'In Our Time'. So I was taken aback to realise that the assembled cosmologists discussed only multiverses spread out in (i) Time - by successive Big Bangs applied to the same universe; (ii) Space - as in patches too far away to observe ( bit of a cheat, really, it would still be this universe, physically); and (iii) Dimensionality - as in string theory's ten to the 500th variations. But the truly large numbers are not there. The multiverse suggested by some physicists are those that diverge at every quantum event. So the famous photon-slit experiment where a single photon passes through two slits simultaneously would sprout two universes - one for each result. How come there was no particle physicist among the cosmologists to speak to this multiverse?
Ronald Almeida The multi universe.
I do not believe, I know that the whole universe is only in my mind. Quite a creation of 62 years of life what? So even the BBC, Melvyn Bragg, his panel and their theories are only a figment of my imagination. Intelligence is only another brand of insanity.
R Hathaway multiverse
Gr8 program!!I noticed that they mentioned space time.. I did a project a few years back ay university about Time and came to the conclusion that time does not exist! it is only a man made mathamatical system of measuring anything that exists in our or any multiverse.... so time does not actually exist... ???
Paul Wraight - the multiverse
Thanks for this remarkable programme. What an astonishing thing that such a subject can be explored with such clarity and authority! Well done! My only criticism - it would have been good to have at least one person who would have explained reasons for doubting the multiverse idea; I suggest George Ellis for a future programme!
Multiverse
Would have liked to hear more about alternative non-multiverse theories.
Matt - the Multiverse
As I have always said - the whole edifice is just a desperate attempt by scientists to run away from the idea of God.
George Taylor Multiverse
It is interesting to hear senior acacemics talking about the concept of a "multiverse" as I put forward this idea in the 60's in a letter to Professor Fred Hoyle (but received no reply). I wrote again to Sir Patrick Moore (et al) last year (and again received no reply). My modification to the "Big Bang" theory was to suggest an ininite collection of universes, each having it's own BIg Bang at different times and somehow keeping the total volume constant. I further suggested that the expansion would be followed by a contraction and coined the term "Big Boing" to describe it. It is nice to hear that the experts are now catching up with this complete amateur.George
|
|
