Replies

Absolutely correct and well-said.

Science is about disprovable hypotheseses.

But a many-Universe theory isn't disprovable. Moreover: it is strictly non-provable, which puts such a theory in a very special class of short-bus scientific endeavours. This is because - by definition - a different Universe must be orthogonal in all ways to this Universe.

So if you can detect or observe any part of a 'different Universe' then - by definition - what you have observed is actually part of your own Universe..

So for instance: different dimensions, different 'branes', phase-spaces of existance with different physical laws - if you can find them, then they are not a different Universe - they are simply proofs that the current Universe is more extended and more extraordinary than previously thought.

There is a conjecture that we can't see any of these other universes ~ but no one has demonstrated that such is the case.

In fact, when we use powerful telescopes we see gazillions of galaxies and other features ALL OVER THE PLACE ~ and there's absolutely no way that we can prove or disprove that any of them are not also their own complete galaxy with subtly different physical laws.

It might well be useful to determine which ones are "different" and which ones aren't ~ particularly if we wee to find ourselves drifting close to one. There's a ginormous blackhole only 51 lightyears away ~ I'd really like to know if that's one of ours or someone else's ~ and pretty soon too!

So if you can detect or observe any part of a 'different Universe' then - by definition - what you have observed is actually part of your own Universe..
So for instance: different dimensions, different 'branes', phase-spaces of existance with different physical laws - if you can find them, then they are not a different Universe - they are simply proofs that the current Universe is more extended and more extraordinary than previously thought.

I disagree. It really depends on your definition of the word "universe". The standard dictionary definition is "all that there is", and by that definition you are correct.

But if there is a multiverse, then we need to use the word "universe" in a different way.

The word "universe" can be used to describe not "all that there is" but rather "all that came from 'our' Big Bang".

Looked at that way, the word "universe" has a somewhat different meaning. You can argue that it's wrong to change the meaning of the word "universe", but then you're arguing semantics, which is fine, but I think it's also fine (in my opinion, anyway) to say, "let's use the word 'universe' to describe all the matter and energy that emanated from 'our Big Bang' and use the word 'multiverse' to describe the collection of all Big Bangs, including our own".

Leaving aside any semantic arguments that might ensue from using those words in that way, I would argue with you that the multiverse is "non-provable".

I'm not saying that there is a multiverse (no one can say that), but I am willing to say that if there is a multiverse we can't know for certain that it is impossible to leak information from one Big Bang system to another and if it is possible to establish/detect such a leak that would not invalidate the definition of "universe" to mean the contents of a single Big Bang and the word "multiverse" to mean the collection of all Big Bangs.

Again, I'm not saying there is a multiverse and I'm not agreeing with anything that Alan Guth says (although I have to admit I do enjoy reading him); what i am saying is that I disagree with you. If there are multiple Big Bangs it is not necessarily impossible to detect the existence of another Big Bang outside our own and that if such detection ever does become possible it doesn't invalidate the "altered" meaning of the word "universe".

Again, I'm not saying there is a multiverse (no one can say that), just saying that if there is a multiverse it doesn't invalidate the word 'universe' and doesn't NECESSARILY preclude the detection of one Big Bang from within a different Big Bang.

Also, on the question of whether all this is science, science fiction or fantasy, I believe that it is science fiction. It is, in fact, exactly what science fiction does. Darn good science fiction, at that.

Should tax payers be funding this? Of course not. Defund, defund, defund... that's my motto.

But does it make for good reading? I think so.

May I disagree?... If we explore the concepts with mathematical modeling and search for possible ways our 'branes' may intersect, we may be able to come up with a way to 'explore' the parallel universes/branes.

The fifth chapter of Daniel has an interesting scene, as someone in a real where/when reaches into the where/when of palace party central to write on the wall ... just the hand/forearm is in the palace where/when, while the remainder of the being to whom the arm belongs remained in a different where/when. From the where/when of the writer some means had been arranged allowing a resident in that where/when to intersect the where/when of the palace in Babylon.

Without time events cannot occur; without space things cannot exist. The arm reached from a spacetime not discernible to the Babylonian king, but it is obvious from the message written that the spacetime of the king was discernible to the writer's spacetime. Some seek to understand how that is arranged, as created by the author of this and all other universes.