The Russell Stannard Questions: Part Four

There are many Big Questions in science, many of which go back to the ancients, even back into prehistory in all probability. One of the best modern set I’ve found recently were sidebars in a book by Emeritus Professor of Physics at the Open University, Russell Stannard. These are my answers, thoughts and commentary to those Big Questions. Many readers might have ‘fun’ trying to come to terms with these in their own way based on their own worldview.

Continued from Part Three.

Q. Why is there no evidence for the existence of magnetic monopoles?

A. Just like theory suggests there should be one heck of a lot of antimatter around, theory also suggests that magnetic monopoles (magnets with only a north pole or a south pole) should be in abundance. That fact that we do not see magnetic monopoles is given as evidence for cosmic inflation, which, due to extreme expansion, diluted the number of magnetic monopoles down to such a very few per volume of space that as far as our volume of space is concerned, magnetic monopoles are as rare as hens’ teeth. Inflation ‘explains’ why we have no evidence for the existence of magnetic monopoles, but only of course if you accept that inflation actually happened, and there was nobody around to cover that event and report it on CNN.

Q. Is it possible to account for the values of the parameters featured in the Standard Model?

A. No. One cannot determine what the values of the physical parameters should be for the particles in the standard model of particle physics from first principles. You cannot calculate from scratch what the mass or the charge, etc. of an electron, proton, neutron, etc. should be. The values can only be determined experimentally, and having done that, determine that there is no rhyme or reason to what those values are. There is no theory that explains why a proton has a mass nearly 2000 times that of an electron, for example, and not some other value.

Q. Is there a Higgs particle?

A. Apparently that has been confirmed by the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).

Q. How are we to account for the masses of the particles?

A. The masses of the particles cannot be calculated from first principles and can only be determined experimentally. Having done that, explaining why the particles have the value they do is apparently explained by resorting to the Higgs Boson and Higgs Field which does the trick. I gather the analogy is that all things Higgs are akin to a mass of people at a party randomly placed, but when a famous particle like an electron enters the room, the mass of people are no longer randomly placed but crowd around the celebrity electron and hinder its passage across the room. That hindrance, like treacle placed in its path, slows the particle down, or as we interpret it, gives the particle mass.

Q. Does supersymmetry hold and if so, why have we not as yet seen any of the supersymmetric partners?

A. Supersymmetry (SUSY) is one of those dearly beloved concepts that could, if confirmed, put the icing on the cake for string theorists. SUSY basically suggests for every force particle there is a corresponding ‘kissing cousin’ matter particle and for every matter particle there is a corresponding ‘kissing cousin’ force particle. IMHO, string theory confirms the idea of GIGO – [string] garbage in; [supersymmetry] garbage out. The garbage out is SUSY, and, as if confirming that garbage, there has been no verification of SUSY at all. The supersymmetric partners haven’t been detected – they are conspicuous by their experimental absence. Why? Because SUSY is garbage and SUSY is garbage because string theory is garbage.

Q. Does the world-in-itself exist between our discontinuous observations?

A. This is a case of does the Moon exist even if no one is looking at it. Presumably, the answer is yes, even if the observer is just phytoplankton that absorbs photons reflected off the lunar surface. Presumably water must be observing the Moon as it does its tidal thing, a thing it wouldn’t otherwise do if the Moon wasn’t there. So hairy issue number one is what exactly is an observer? An observer can be anything. An electron observes another electron when the two come in close proximity and repel each other. Hairy issue number two is how does the Moon know it is being observed? It can’t, therefore it cannot respond to a state of non-observation by vanishing. What about software? Do those video game characters exist when the game isn’t being played and sitting on your shelf? If we’re simulated beings in a Simulated (Virtual Reality) Universe and the Supreme Programmer leaves the room and does not observe us, presumably we keep on keeping on. So the answer is that the world-in-itself exists whether real or simulated. If real, well the world-in-itself (i.e. – the Universe) got along very nicely before there were observers as we traditionally define them and we traditionally define them as living things that react (observe) to their surroundings. The simulation exists as long as the software exists whether it’s running or not.  

Q. Is there any value in Everett’s many worlds hypothesis?

A. The Many Worlds Hypothesis (MWH) is an alternative to the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) of quantum physics. The CI says that when faced with many possible possibilities or outcomes to a situation, once an observation is made, the many possibilities collapses down to just one outcome. For example, the value of the top card in a shuffled deck of card has 52 possible possibilities. Once an observation is made, only one of those 52 possibilities is realized. The MWH however suggests that all possibilities are realized – one possibility realized in our world; the rest in newly established worlds. So, when you observe the top card, your world divides into another 51 other worlds, each new world corresponding to each possible value of the top card that wasn’t observed when you looked. I guess there is value in that approach, but it’s sort of a sledge hammer approach. When you consider all of the forks-in-the-road the cosmos faces each and every nanosecond, well accepting the MWH means that there are multi-trillions upon trillions upon trillions upon trillions of worlds that have a really real existence somewhere out there and they are increasing at a rapid rate of knots to boot.

  

Q. Is the task of science to describe the world-in-itself, whether or not it is being observed, or must it confine itself to speaking only of our observations of the world?

A. Ideally, science tries to account for those actual observations one makes of the world-in-itself. However, there are numerous bits and pieces in scientific texts that rely on speculation and theory and what ifs and extrapolations and mathematical equations. We can’t observe inside the core of the Sun or inside a Black Hole. Nobody has actually observed an electron or a quark. There are many theoretical things we haven’t observed yet like monopoles or gravity waves or supersymmetric particles or extraterrestrials, yet they too are considered a legit part of science.

Q. How are we to understand quantum entanglement, i.e. ‘spooky action at a distance’?

A. We can’t understand quantum entanglement if the Universe is an ordered and comprehensible place. That’s why Einstein railed against it because it was ‘spooky action at a distance’ and there was no place in an ordered Universe for spooky events, but if there were spooky events, well they happened outside of an ordered and comprehensible Universe and thus weren’t understandable. Of course software can be programmed to produce as much spookiness as the programmer wants.

Q. How many dimensions are there? And why are some curled up, and others extended?

A. There are no dimensions at all. Dimensionality is a human invention, attributing magical meaning to right angles, which do have a practical value in navigating around the world and the universe. Since dimensions are mathematical constructs, and therefore not-things (you cannot detect points, length, area or volume – even the so-called fourth dimension of time - with any of your five senses) then how many dimensions there are is a pretty meaningless question.

Q. Is there an M-theory, and if so, what is it?

A. M-theory is just a consolidation of various string theories that now require even one more additional spatial dimension! IMHO, this is all a case of GIGO – garbage in; garbage out.

Q. Is there any way of proving the validity of some form of string theory?

A. IMHO string theory has no validity on the grounds that it has been examined to death over the past three-plus decades without the slightest experimental run being put on the board. Verifying supersymmetry (SUSY) is the closest string theorists can come to putting their money where their mouths are, but any hope of that has apparently gone by the boards as the Large Hadrn Collider (LHC) hasn’t verified any SUSY at all.

Q. Will we ever be able to formulate a fully satisfactory theory of quantum gravity?

A. No. Quantum gravity is the Holy Grail of physics, the Theory of Everything or TOE. It’s, to date, been another case of ‘never have so many worked so hard for so long for so little results’. The quantum is the realm of the discontinuous unclassical micro; gravity is the realm of the continuous and classical macro. They are, ultimately two entirely different sets of software running the cosmos. If the Universe were really real, a TOE should leap out of the woodwork since there would have to be one unified natural nature. The fact that there is no TOE strongly suggests that the Universe isn’t really real and does not have a unified natural nature. That is, the Universe is virtually ‘real’ and the Supreme Programmer has written two separate and apart sets of software to run it – the micro software and the macro software.

Q. Does complete understanding require more than solely physical explanations?

A. By complete understanding, one has to incorporate those seemingly nebulous things that reside within the time, thinks that seem far removed from the physical world of forces and fields and particles and actions and reactions, etc. These so-called nebulous things revolve around consciousness and the subconscious, thinking (that’s clearly a neurochemical process), memory (clearly chemically encoded), creativity, emotions (definitely chemically driven), morals and ethics, right and wrong, a soul, spirituality, free will, etc. However, all these sorts of concepts reside in the brain or in a part of the brain normally identified as the mind. Whether mind-in-the-brain, or just in or a part of the brain, the brain is ultimately composed of fundamental particles that make up atoms that make up molecules that ultimately make up your neurochemistry and thus your brain and structures within. The proof of the pudding that these so-called nebulous concepts reside in the realm of the physical is that these concepts or things can be altered by physical things – physical happenings like injury (you can be knocked unconscious) or lose consciousness in sleep; chemical things like drugs, lack of sleep, the aging process and related can have decided effects on aspects of your personality, etc.; biological happenings like disease also can have profound effects on some of those so-called nebulous things. They can also be altered by your own self, being creative and via thinking deep thoughts which is an electrochemical process (you might think ‘morals be damned, crime does pay’) and of course closely related, the lifelong learning process (as in learning and altering your learning about say morals/ethics; right/wrong) – as you learn, you may find that what you thought was crystal clear, black and white, is really murky and grey. The learning process (formal or otherwise) can have profound effects on your belief systems and worldviews. Learning clearly has foundations in neurochemistry.    



It’s Your Shuffle, Dr. Quantum

The realm of the micro, quantum mechanics, is presented as a realm of probability, uncertainty, indeterminacy, indecision, and related terms. This is in contrast to the realm of the macro where events tend to be on firmer footing – you needn’t worry about the Sun rising tomorrow morning. However, such terms as probability are human terms and human interpretations and often result from natural limits on what we can learn about the micro. If you eliminate the human then you eliminate the distinction between the micro and the macro.

Go to the store and buy a fully wrapped fresh deck of standard playing cards. Have ten friends available to shuffle the new deck starting with person one through person ten, ten shuffles per person. At the end of those 100 shuffles, you’d probably agree that the deck is about as shuffled as it can be. Now place the deck on top of the table, all 52 cards face down.

Now the question is, what is the value of the top card (or the 5^th card or the 26^th card or the 51^st card) down from the top? Which card doesn’t matter; just choose one card in the one location.

Quantum physics will give you several possible scenarios.

Many Worlds Interpretation #1: You know, and I know, that the top card can be one of 52 possibilities. No one possibility is more or less likely than the next. So, since there’s nothing that favours one card over another, when the top card is turned over, all 52 possibilities eventuate. That’s accomplished because the cosmos divides into 51 further universes. In our Universe, one card will eventuate as the top card. Since there are 51 other possibilities, all equally possible, each one happens in each of the 51 new universes. There is no favouritism.

The issue of credibility comes into play when you realise that throughout our entire universe, zillions of ‘forks in the road’ decision or option branches happen each second. Thus every second zillions of new universes have to be created in order to give each and every possibility a fair go. Considering how many seconds have elapsed in our universe in the past 13.7 billion years, well that’s a tad more newly created universes than you can count on your fingers and toes! Further, each newly created universe, a branch-off of ours, in turn generates zillions more universes each second, each of which creates zillions more each second, and so on and so on.

The ‘many worlds’ tag isn’t quite ‘infinite worlds’, but the number of universes present and accounted for is several orders of magnitude larger by now than ‘many’ would suggest. The good news is that in one universe, all of those ‘forks in the road’ over all the millennia have been by chance allowed you to become Master of the Universe – well that specific universe anyway! 

Many Worlds Interpretation #2: The other side of the Many Worlds coin is that from the get-go there already exists all those other 51 universes, each with a new deck of cards shuffled 100 times. In those 51 universes plus our own, all top card possibilities are realized. Of course that means that in the beginning there were all those zillions and zillions and zillions of universes each one having its own unique cosmic history. When all are put together, everything that can happen does happen, so all possibilities get a fair go and thus their moment of glory basking in the sunshine.

Copenhagen Interpretation: In this scenario, as above, all you and I know is that the top card is one of 52 possibilities. In the Copenhagen Interpretation, not one of those 52 possibilities is really real until such time as someone peeks. Options all exist equally and simultaneously until then. That’s called the wave-function – it’s a measure of probability. It’s the very act of observation or measurement (same difference) that gives rise to a single and unique reality. That’s termed the collapse of the wave-function. No observation, therefore no reality, just a superposition or a composite of all possible realities. [Actually the entire deck is in a state of ever shifting superposition since the value of every card is undetermined.] The problem here is that how is it that the lucky card becomes the lucky card and the other 51 possibilities go ‘poof’ into the realm of unreality. One card lives; 51 cards die without rhyme or reason.

The other problem is that when it comes to ‘forks in the road’, the universe has made the reality/unreality decision zillions of times without there being anyone around to peek, make a measurement or an observation. Taken to its logical conclusion the Copenhagen Interpretation suggests that the Universe exists and has tangible reality because observers exist. Without observers (life) the entire Universe would be in just one superposition of all possible states simultaneously. So, the question is, is an observer really necessary in order for a state of probabilities to become one actual reality and hence other possibilities achieve unreality? If not, and it would appear that’s the case since the universe hasn’t always had peeping-toms, the Copenhagen Interpretation is kaput. The Universe did nicely without observers (life) for billions of years. Observers are nice but unnecessary.

Common Sense Interpretation: Forget quantum probabilities. Causality rules, OK? If you observe all the variables that went into all the shuffling of that deck of cards, each and every one was grounded in cause-and-effect. If you filmed the entire shuffling sequence in high speed motion, then played back the film frame-by-frame, by knowing the original sequence of the brand new deck, you should be able to determine what the top card was after those 100 shuffles. There is no probability involved. Okay, even if you have no idea what the top card was after 100 shuffles, it is fixed and certain. The top card is not a composite of all 52 possibilities. Whether the top card is turned over seconds after that final shuffle, or 1000 years later, the value of that top card will be the same. Unfortunately you won’t tend to find this kind of explanation in the textbooks as any association between quantum physics and causality is frowned upon.

Discussion:

Now quantum physicists will tell you that in the realm of the very, very tiny, you cannot observe or measure to the absolute last decimal place the relative values quantum sized objects have. That’s because in the micro realm the very act of observation or measurement changes the very values of what you are trying to observe or measure. How is that? Well, if you wish to observe or measure a very tiny object, say an electron, you have got to bounce a photon (light particle) off of it and have that photon enter your eyeball or measuring device and thus record what information that photon reveals. However, the energy of that photon is sufficient to alter the velocity, position and trajectory of that electron when it hits and bounces off on the way to your eyeball. So, the best you can say is that the values have a certain probability of being this or that. The electron is somewhere within this range since you know not where the photon knocked it. 

Further, the value of the electron’s velocity, position or trajectory is also uncertain (to us) because of wave-particle duality. The particle electron is actually or allegedly waving in 3-D all over the place, which adds to only being able to describe the electron’s velocity, position or trajectory in probabilistic terms. While that’s true enough, that doesn’t translate, in my book anyway, that there isn’t an absolute last decimal place to whatever value you’re interested in. Like with the deck of cards, you don’t know the value of the top card after 100 shuffles but you had no doubt there was one, and one only value. That’s a certainty. That doesn’t change the fact that the probability, as far as you are concerned, of that top card being such-and-such was 1 in 52. 

Now I have no problem with electrons waving all over the place – it’s what photons (light waves) do. It’s just that the electron has an independent reality as a tiny little ‘billiard ball’, and so despite what the textbooks say, an electron cannot be in more than one place at one point in time. Like the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, there’s the position of the unknowable electron. But position it has. X marks the spot! The electron exists at time T at coordinates A, B, & C.

Put it this way, probability is just having lack of sufficient information to determine the absolute state of affairs of whatever system you are interested in. Your lack of information maybe because it is too complex or difficult to acquire to the degree required or there are too many variables to compute simultaneously or because the act of uncovering that information itself changes the system. But ultimately, there is an absolute state of affairs even if to you it is a probable state of affairs. If you want to look at it this way, Mother Nature (or God - if you are so inclined) knows, even if you don’t.

Note that what we are dealing with here is what we perceive as Mother Nature’s uncertainty or probability when it comes to Her doing this or that. When it comes to human indecision or uncertainty or probability it is just that - indecision or uncertainty or probability. IMHO, Mother Nature is a fixed and final entity; only humans don’t have sufficient data (and sufficient crunch power) or often can’t even get the data through no fault of their own. Thus our interpretation is that Mother Nature isn’t a fixed and final entity. It’s an illusion – our illusion. It is human inability to see or measure the Big Picture in the micro realm that doesn’t translate anywhere to the same degree in the macro realm which we live out our daily lives in.

Also note that so far I have thrown around terms like observers and measurements, and humans, and our, and you, and my, and us and similar sorts of words. In other words, when it comes to quantum uncertainty or probability, etc. as hinted at above, it’s humans that see things as uncertain or as probabilistic. Now, what if we eliminate the human being from the picture? In fact, let’s eliminate all living things. Let’s have a universe without any life at all. Would the concept of probability or uncertainty or indeterminacy be meaningful in a universe without life? 

In a universe without any observers, without any life, would it be meaningful to invoke the idea of quantum probability or uncertainty? It’s not that difficult to imagine a universe without life. In fact that no doubt was the state of our universe for several billion years post the Big Bang event. 

This is no doubt delving into deep philosophy, but to me the answer is clearly “NO”. For billions of years the universe ticked over just fine and everything was classically clockwork with no indecision or indeterminacy or probability or uncertainty about what-was-what and what-was-where and what-was-who and what-was-when. There was nobody around to give a damn about this or that election’s trajectory or position or velocity. It had one that was fixed and final. Of course there was no deck of 52 cards either, but if there had been, nobody would have given a damn about what the top card was or wasn’t. It too would have been fixed and final.

Of course if Planet Earth is the be-all-and-end-all of life in the Universe, and Planet Earth goes kaput, well the Universe has been lifeless before and all the physics therein won’t give a tinker’s damn. Physics, independent of life, will just keep on keeping on. As it was in the beginning so it shall ever be.

So the moral of the story is the natural worlds of the micro and the macro meshes just fine as long as there are no observers* around to artificially classify and put micro and macro concepts into quantum (micro) pigeon holes and classical (macro) pigeon holes that needn’t be put in pigeon holes at all.

There can be no fixed boundary line between the micro and the macro. The micro morphs into the macro or the macro morphs into the micro so it’s really nonsense talking about quantum physics (micro) and classical physics (macro) – there is just physics. 

*If no observers (life) existed, well that’s just an extension of what if you didn’t exist – and you didn’t for 13.7 billion years and you won’t for untold billions more.

Reality: Heads or Tails? Part One

In science as well as in metaphysics there are often competing ideas about what’s real and what’s not real but might be real – an alternate reality not yet proven. Here are a baker’s dozen of examples of what we believe is a truism today, but could easily be shown to be mistaken tomorrow. In one case, the last, tomorrow is already here!

What was reality yesterday (a Flat Earth orbited by the Sun; Unicorns and Dragons, etc.) isn’t of necessity what is accepted reality today, and what’s reality today may not of necessity be reality tomorrow. Here are a few possibilities for tomorrow-land.

1) Quantum Mechanics: The Copenhagen Interpretation (reality) vs. The Many Worlds Interpretation (alternate reality): Actually nobody has a handle on what constitutes reality in the realm of the quantum other than it is a realm of probabilities. When you have a lot of states or things that could be only a measurement or observation will turn one of these probabilities into a certainty. The other probabilities collapse and fall by the wayside once that observation is made. That’s the guts of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum probabilities. The alternate reality is called the Many Worlds Interpretation which suggests that all probabilities happen; none is favored; none fall by the wayside. The way that happens is that when crunch comes crunch and its time to turn the cards face up, the world splits as many times as necessary to allow for each possible outcome to achieve reality, one outcome in this world and another outcome in another world. So, right or left at Oak Street? It’s not either/or. In this world you go say to the left. But that very act generates another separate and apart world where you turn right. 

2) Quantum Mechanics Probability (reality) vs. Quantum Mechanics Causality (alternate reality): As noted above, quantum mechanics is the realm of chance or possibilities or probabilities. One thing that is never certain in quantum mechanics is being able to predict certainty, which is certainly not the case with classical physics. There’s no doubt the Sun will rise in the morning; that you can predict eclipses hundreds of years in advance; that you can use the laws, relationships and principles of classical physics to send a space probe to the planet Mars. In classical physics, causality rules: if A, B & C then X, Y and Z will follow. In quantum physics, if A, B & C then X, Y and Z might follow, or maybe not. Not everyone accepts that. Some suggest that lurking beneath quantum’s probabilistic nature lays hidden variables that will restore quantum mechanics to the realm of cause-and-effect. In quantum physics, causality might prove to be your alternate reality.

3) Traditional Particle Physics (reality) vs. String Theory (alternate reality): Traditional particle physics views the fundamental particles (electrons, etc.) as tiny little billiard balls or for the sake of making the mathematics easier, point (zero-dimensional) particles. If all particles actually were zero-dimensional, then you too would be dimensionless since you are composed of those point particles, and zero plus zero plus zero (plus billions more zeros) ultimately equal zero. String Theory on the other hand replaces little billiard balls (or point particles) with stringy bits that vibrate. The rate of those vibrations, determine what kind of fundamental particle it is; and the particle can be either a closed string (like a doughnut or rubber band) or an open, cut string – one with two separate and apart ends. String Theory however represents alternative reality because 1) after three decades of theoretical speculation it remains just theoretical speculation – nothing experimentally confirmed, and 2) String Theory proper requires a minimum of nine spatial dimensions in order for the mathematics to maintain logical consistency.

4) Three Spatial Dimensions (reality) vs. Four [or more] Spatial Dimensions (alternate reality): You have absolutely no doubt in your mind that you wander through the weird and lurid landscape of three dimensional space. You can go back and forth; up and down; and left and right. You couldn’t exist is less than three dimensional space. You could probably exist in a four dimensional space, or five or six, even seven, eight or nine dimensions. That’s the alternative reality claim of theoretical physicists who adopt a String Theory worldview. However, in your day-in-and-day-out battle against the elements and the powers-that-be, one battle you don’t encounter is negotiating and wandering through a maze of additional spatial dimensions. If they exist, and that’s a big if, they are irrelevant to you, and you probably could therefore care less. But if for all practical purposes they are irrelevant to you, and String Theory physicists can’t provide any evidence, far less proof for their existence in any event, then for all practical purposes they don’t exist. Till they do, this alternative reality is kaput.  

5) General Relativity Space-Time Gravity (reality) vs. Quantum Gravity (alternate reality): Gravity; it’s what holds you firmly to Terra Firma. If I ask you what holds you firmly to Terra Firma you’d answer “gravity”. But if then asked to explain exactly what it is and how it works you’d be stumped. The Newtonian equation of gravity makes predictions but doesn’t give explanations.

However, there are two explanations for gravity if I read the textbooks correctly. One is wrapped up in the General Theory of Relativity whereby gravity is a continuous force operating throughout space-time; the second is non-continuous gravity in the realm of the quantum.

* Gravity is just the geometry of space-time: Mass ‘tells’ space-time how to warp, and warped space-time ‘tells’ mass how to move – seemingly experimentally verified more than several times over. The movement of mass in warped space-time is what we interpret as the ‘force of gravity’, but gravity is actually the actions of mass moving in space-time geometry. If gravity is just a continuous geometry and mass deviates from the straight and narrow path because lots of other mass has warped space-time from the flatland Great Plains to the peaks and valleys of the space-time Rockies, then there’s no apparent need or reason that I can see to unify gravity with the other forces and their particles. There is no graviton. If there is no causality link with the other three (quantum level) forces, there’s no need for a Theory of Everything (TOE). There’s no need to reconcile the 98 pound of weakling gravity with the Atlas physiques of electromagnetism, etc. 

* Gravity is just another force: Secondly, there are in this worldview four fundamental forces: the electromagnetic force, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and gravity. Forces have accompanying elementary particles witch convey the force. In the case of the electromagnetic force, the particle is the photon. The particle associated with gravity has been dubbed the graviton. Unfortunately, it has never (to date) been detected. Now the central issue here is trying as they might, physicists cannot unify the four forces into one whole, called that Theory of Everything or TOE. Since everything should be related to everything else, gravity should be, if not a brother or sister to the other three force-related siblings, at least a kissing cousin. Alas, it’s an unrelated hermit that wants no ancestry with the other three. If however gravity should be shown to be a non-continuous force, that is there is this unit of gravity, and that unit of gravity, but nothing in-between, or in other words, you can’t divide a graviton in half – it’s as fundamental as the electron or the gluon or the photon – then gravity will join the world of the quantum. But that happy marriage date has not yet been set, and maybe never will be.

To be continued…

Reality: Really Real, Pseudo-Real, or Unreal? Part Six

Reality – It’s all relative; it’s reversible; it’s symmetric; it’s personal; it kicks back when you kick it; it’s conceptual; it’s theoretical; it’s actual; it’s abstract; it’s bio-friendly; it’s unforgiving; it’s emotional; and ultimately the reality of life, the Universe and everything resides in your mind.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

Is Your Reality Certainty or A Fluke?

If there is one thing you are absolutely certain of it’s that you exist, and I won’t dispute that (even of you are a figment of my imagination or exist only as the creation of some kind of computer software). Seriously, you exist as a three dimensional, flesh-and-blood, absolutely unique entity inside a three dimensional Universe. However, is your reality something wildly improbable or 100% guaranteed?

On the surface, you are an absolute fluke. Think of those millions of sperm that could have won that race to your mother’s egg, but didn’t. Or that winning sperm could have fertilized some other of your mother’s eggs. Either case, you’re a total nothing in anyone’s philosophy! Now think of all the males and females available at any given time and the odds are against your parents having met, courted, married, etc. Potentially, millions of other males could have married your mother; and potentially millions of other females could have married your father. And of course your mother and father are flukes because a similar argument holds for them via your grandparents, and further backwards for them to your great grandparents, etc, etc. Go back with those sorts of odds a hundred, a thousand, a million, a trillion, generations; back through your mammalian, reptilian, amphibian, etc. ancestry; back through your family tree of invertebrate ancestors (untold generations worth), right down to your unicellular ancestors. What are the odds, all those chance meetings be they sperm and egg, or male and female, of organisms that survived long enough through to a reproductive age (and relatively few, apart from humans do), that you would someday grace the world? Zillions upon zillions to one! You’re an absolute fluke! Or are you?

There appear to be ultimately three sets of either/or conditions which ultimately govern that. The first is, is there one universe, our Universe, or many universes (a Multiverse)? Secondly, is there absolute causality resulting in a deterministic clockwork Universe where once the initial set of relationships were set into play, things evolved with 100% certainty from that point on? Lastly, is there one, and only one possible physics, or could our physics have been different, or are different in another universe?

But first some definitions are in order.  

Universal Physics – One and only one kind of physics is possible, throughout all universes. If you believe in God, She didn’t have any choice in the matter!

Variable Physics – Each universe could have its own individual brand of physics, and the physics that rule our Universe could have turned out differently.

Determinism Rules – There’s 100% causality; there’s absolute certainty.

Chance Rules – Represents less than 100% causality; free will if you will.

Multiverse – Lots of separate and apart universes, perhaps even an infinite number of them.

Universe – The one and only Universe; our Universe. However, if our Universe is near infinite in space and time and stuff, then for all practical purposes it’s the same as the Multiverse since there’s enough space and time and stuff for nearly all possibilities to take place within.

Combining the various possibilities suggests how fluky you really are! But first, let’s deal with the supernatural, instead of natural scenario. If God exists and wanted you to exist, assuming there is a God of course, then you’re Probability One – no contest. You’re no fluke. Seeing however as how there is no evidence for any God (or gods), we’d better get back to all things natural and plough on.

Scenario 1: Universal Physics [+] Determinism [+] Multiverse = the exact same set of outcomes in all universes is predicted. If you exist in one universe, you exist in all universes. You’re not a fluke. But if you don’t, you don’t, full stop. However, you probably don’t since you’re existence would be equivalent to tossing a coin several billion times in a row all billion coming up heads. The assumption here is that the initial set of conditions was identical in each and every single universe within the Multiverse. If not, then they won’t be identical further on down the track. If that assumption is incorrect, you could exist in one or more universes; not exist in one or more other universes.

Scenario 2: Universal Physics [+] Determinism [+] Universe = if you exist, then you were a certainty from the get-go. If you don’t, that too was a certainty. On balance, a betting person would probably bet against your existence ever happening because only one exact set of circumstances gives the universe you, while billions of other sets of circumstances don’t.

Scenario 3: Universal Physics [+] Chance [+] Multiverse = your existence in one universe has nothing to do with your existence in any other universe. You’re a fluke in whatever universe(s) you exist in. But, the saving grace is that you do probably exist in at least one universe.

Scenario 4: Universal Physics [+] Chance [+] Universe = If you exist, you’re a fluke. The probability is extremely high given the odds against your existence such that nobody would have been willing to wager anything on your eventual behalf.

Scenario 5: Variable Physics [+] Determinism [+] Multiverse = assuming one universe has our kind of physics, then you’re existence is a 100% certainty, or 100% against. In all other universes, since the physics are different, nothing remotely like you, or anyone else, will exist. If you exist, you’re not just a fluke, but a super-fluke!

Scenario 6:  Variable Physics [+] Determinism [+] Universe = if there’s only one universe, then there can only be one physics, so assuming that that universe is our Universe, the outcome is the same as Scenario 2.

Scenario 7: Variable Physics [+] Chance [+] Multiverse = in the Multiverse, nearly all possibilities are realised (except in Scenario 1), so in at least one universe, you exist. You’re not a fluke due to the vast number of universes that could contain you. But you’re still a fluke in that you don’t exist in the near infinite other possible universes.

Scenario 8: Variable Physics [+] Chance [+] Universe = again, one universe must equal one physics. Since things however are based on a throw of the dice, if you exist, you’re a fluke.

In short, the betting odds towards your existence are to count on there being a Multiverse. If you’re dealt one hand (one universe), the odds against a royal flush are extreme. Being dealt a near infinite number of hands (the Multiverse) doesn’t ensure a royal flush, but it damn well improves the odds. So, if you exist and there’s one universe, our Universe, you’re a real fluke. In the Multiverse, you might be a fluke in any one universe, but there are so many universes that in that broader context, you’re not a fluke.

Do you want to improve the odds in favor of your existence? There’s a variation that could apply to the Multiverse theme called the Many Worlds interpretation of all things quantum. In the Many Worlds scenario, absolutely all possibilities are realized within any given ‘moment’ within the timeline. In terms of eggs and sperm, at any given moment, the universe splits into as many universes such that all sperm available fertilize all eggs available, and that applies regardless of species (so all possible males that can meet and mate with all possible females do so – or vice versa); all possible seeds that could have been are, and produce viable plants somewhere. 

You might note the subtle combining of both the Multiverse and the Many Worlds concepts. Each universe within the Multiverse has the additional complication (or added attraction) of having to jump through the Many Worlds hoops.

Universes within the Multiverse can have differing timelines. Thus Cleopatra, assuming a Cleopatra, in another universe might have been born into a 21^st Century Egypt, or Australia for that matter (assuming these nations exist or existed in this other universe). Likewise, in another, that other, universe, you may have been born a slave (or as Royalty) in an ancient Egypt, again, assuming such a nation existed. So, who knows, in some other universe (modern or ancient) you and (modern or ancient) Cleopatra (or substitute any modern or historical hunk male of your choice if you’re female) have this thing going! I’m not that likely going to be, in any universe, the one to mate with Cleopatra, any more than you’re (if female) are likely to get your act together with Marc Anthony. But, unlikely becomes Probability One when you merge the Multiverse with Many Worlds. The universe that contains you and Marc Anthony, or you (or me) and Cleopatra, will split when it come to that fork in the road. Many Worlds universe #1 split #1 fork – no pairings; Many Worlds universe #1 split #2 fork – you (we) live happy ever after! That’s because all possibilities are realized; have to be realized.

That’s a real headache inducer! So, to repeat, take a near (or actual) infinity of universes, each with its own unique timeline (which will not of necessity mirror our own). Then, multiply all those existences by all the possible forks in the road encountered by each of those universes since all paths are taken. Anything not forbidden is compulsory. You’re wildest dreams may not come true in this, our Universe, and on this particular pathway you’re experiencing, but somewhere you did, or will – but ditto that your worst nightmares, so perhaps be thankful for what you got in the here and now.

Now let’s reduce that headache somewhat by unmerging again the Multiverse and the Many Worlds ideas. Say in one alternate timeline universe Cleopatra and I get our act together (‘we do’). In another alternate timeline universe we don’t (‘we do not’). In both universes, the Many Worlds forks would now have us respectfully ‘we do not’ and ‘we do’ instead. But that’s already happened in the two universes, so do we now have two universes where ‘we do’ and two universes where ‘we do not’? Rather than accept that, perhaps the Multiverse and the Many Worlds concepts are ultimately, for all practical purposes, the same thing.

Ah, but the ‘we do’ in the first alternate universe took place in an alternate Australia thus the Many Worlds fork had us ‘we do not’ also in an alternate Australia. The original ‘we do not”  in the second alternate universe too place in that alternate ancient Egypt, so that Many Worlds fork now has us as a ‘we do’, also in an alternate ancient Egypt. So the two ‘we do’ universes and the two ‘we do not’ universes aren’t the same after all.

But then again, all those four possibilities could also be catered for in four actual separate and apart universes that are part of the Multiverse, so again there’s no need to bring into consideration the Many Worlds interpretation of all things quantum! Back to square one! And this sort of adding on further qualifiers, isn’t going to ultimately alter the apparently near equivalence of the Multiverse and the Many Worlds.

I’m not however entirely sure this apparent equivalence will sit well with quantum physicists, because I’m not entirely sure this is what quantum physicists mean by the phrase ‘Many Worlds’ (indeed, lots of quantum physicists deny any such interpretation at all exists – it’s too big an ask for them). However, it seems to deal with the issue of That Cat! In two separate physical universes you have Schrodinger’s Cat (in the box) experiment. Identical cats; identical setups; identical observers (and they can be identical because the fundamental bits that make them all up are identical – all electrons (neutrons, protons, etc.) are 100% clones of each other – absolutely identical). In one unverse, the observer observes the cat alive; the other, well it’s the demise of the feline. Neither universe has to split into two. All possibilities have been exhausted without resorting to the requirement of a Many Worlds either/or split. The only real difference I can see between the Multiverse and the Many Worlds interpretation is that with Many Worlds, the outcome (all possibilities realized) is certainty; with the Multiverse it’s only probable or possible.

In conclusion, you may think our planet is an example of total biodiversity, but imagine what things would be like if all the theoretical possibilities had come to pass (the Many Worlds and/or the Multiverse)!!! How many Einstein’s were never born - on the other hand, how many Hitler’s? Then throw in all the plants and animals that never were but could have been, and you could come up with multi-trillions upon trillions of alternative Earths! Ouch!

Perhaps it’s easier to accept that there’s just one Universe (our Universe) and no such a thing therefore as a Multiverse, and no such an animal as the Many Worlds interpretation of all things quantum. You’re therefore a total fluke, and so just enjoy the company of the rest of us total flukes! That’s unless of course our Universe is near infinite enough in extent, all on its lonesome, to allow for a duplicate copy (or three or four) of you – recall those elementary particles that make you, you, can be identically assembled elsewhere to accomplish exactly that.

To be continued…

Parallel Universes: Part One

Parallel universes, or alternative universes or mirror universes have had a long run of popularity in science fiction and science fantasy, in both print and visual formats. One need only look at an “Alice in Wonderland” or look no further than the “Star Trek” universe (our Universe in less than obvious disguise) to view the near endless plot variations that such parallel / alternative / mirror universes provide our heroes and heroines. Do they actually exist and do they explain anything?

There are apparently two theoretical counterparts in our real world, or in our physics. Firstly, there’s the idea that from the beginning, there’s an infinite number of parallel universes where all things that can happen, do happen. Our Universe is just one of that infinite set. In five of those universes, you 1) flip a coin – in one, it’s a heads you flip; in another, tails; in the third, the coin stands on edge! Or, in a fourth universe you decide not to flip a coin at all, or in universe #5 you decide to flip something else instead.

The other theoretical set of parallel universes is a set that ever increases, staring with just one. Universes split whenever an either/or choice is forced upon it, such that all results that can happen, happen. In this (our) Universe you decide not to flip a coin – but that decision results in a division, the universe splits and in that split, in the new universe, you do flip a coin. In that universe it comes up heads. But, that universe then splits into two and yet another universe where your flip has tails comes up. There’s also another universe where the coin lands on edge! There’s also a universe that originally splits off where you decide to flip something other than a coin. This is known as the ‘Many Worlds Interpretation’ theory, (which resulted out of a need to explain certain quantum phenomena). With every passing second, more and more universes branch off (actually trillions per second).

I’ve never been a fan of the Many Worlds Interpretation of all things quantum. That is, the universe keeps splitting each time it comes to a fork in the road. The question of where all the matter/energy comes from – created out of nothing apparently – I’ve yet to see addressed in the texts. But, many top notch scientists adopt it – perhaps as the least of all the evils certain quantum phenomena dish up. As to where they fit, all those extra universes, that’s not as much of a problem. A motel with an infinite number of rooms never has to put out a ‘no vacancy’ sign – if you get the analogy. Oh, the Many Worlds Interpretation also means that there’s no such thing as free will. You may think you have free will in deciding to wear your red dress instead of your green dress, but in the Many Worlds Interpretation, you do both – so no free will.

However, I myself go for the Copenhagen Interpretation* – when you come to a fork in the road, one and only one choice is made – the other possible choice(s) are never realized and ultimately never have any reality. But, if you start out from scratch with an infinite number of universes, or at least a vast number, then the issue of ‘where’ all the universes are is irrelevant, and the creation of all the stuff that makes them up is equally irrelevant. In the beginning, it was so!

You can have an infinite number of universes in an infinite amount of space. An analogy – there are an infinite number of whole numbers like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. There’s also an infinite number of even numbers such as 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, etc. Ditto an infinite number of odd numbers. Yet the infinite set of even numbers, plus the infinite number of odd numbers, equals the infinite set of whole numbers. Infinity + infinity = infinity! Or, if you like, think of your house (volume) with just one molecule (universe) in it. You’d agree there’s room for one hell of a lot more molecules (universes). If your house had infinite volume, then…

I had always assumed, and followed the assumptions of others infinitely more brilliant than I, that such theoretical constructions, such parallel / alternative / mirror universes, was forever beyond our actual reach – works of fiction aside of course. We could construct them as an intellectual exercise, but could never verify and understand the actual existence of these mental or thought experiments. That’s because these universes, if they exist, would not be part of our space-time continuum and thusly we could never interact with them.

But what if that assumption is wrong? What if parallel / alternative / mirror universes not only exist, but can and do interact with ours, and thereby give some additional credence to the adventures of our “Alice in Wonderland” and “Star Trek” characters, not to mention the reputations of those physicists who propose infinite universes or Many Worlds Interpretation theories. 

Micro & Macro Mysteries: Well, those assumptions just might now be put to the test. I’d love to be able to say I thought of this idea, even independently, it’s just that brilliant. Alas, I didn’t, and I’m kicking myself because it’s just so simple and elegant.  The credit for this goes to physicist David Deutsch, and for a fuller and better outline of his proposals, see his book cited below**. 

The basics are as follows and deals with the paradoxical and famous ‘double slit’ experiment with light – an experiment with photons.

If you shine a light (millions of photons worth) at a slit, you’ll get a blob of light on the surface behind the slit. No problems – the photon ‘bullets’ go through the slit and impact on the surface behind.

Now you shine the light (millions of photons) at two slits. Contrary to expectation, you don’t get two blobs of light – one opposite each slit – but a classic wave interference pattern of alternating light and dark areas on the surface behind. So photons aren’t ‘bullets’; light must be a wave.

Thus is demonstrated the classic wave-particle duality or paradox of light. Is light a continuous wave, or is it a collection of individual ‘bullet’ particles?

Instead of firing millions of photons at these slits at a go, redo the experiment by firing off photons one at a time – say one per hour. That can actually be done. If you fire the one per hour photons at a single slit, the picture that emerges over time is your blob of light behind the slit. Photons are behaving as ‘bullet’ particles as before.

Now, fire the photons – one per hour – at the two slits. Clearly, you’d expect two blobs of light to ultimately form on the (say photographically sensitive) surface that is behind each slit. Sometimes the single photon would go through one slit; sometimes the other. Alas, you still get a wave-like interference pattern! How can this be? What’s interfering in real time with the actual photons that you’re shooting off?

The only object capable of interfering with photons, to cause wave-like interference, an alternating light-dark pattern, is other photons. But there are no other photons in the vicinity if they are shot out at one per hour and your photon source is the only photon source!

The inescapable conclusion is that there must be other photons around that can’t be detected (seen). Call these photons virtual photons, or shadow photons or ghost photons. Where do they come from? The answer is from our parallel / alternative / mirror universes. There is therefore a form of weak interaction between universes.

How do they, parallel universe photons say, actually get here? Well, at the quantum level, all manner of virtual particles pop into and out of existence from what’s called the vacuum energy. At the extremely microscopic level, what’s often called the ‘quantum foam’, is a level seething with activity, including the popping into and out of existence of micro wormholes, wormholes that can connect one universe with another, even if only for nanoseconds. But, that’s enough to allow the transfer of micro objects, like photons, and electrons, etc. from one universe to another. It’s like seeing the ocean from space. It looks really smooth and tranquil. However, at rowboat level, there’s this twenty foot wave about to come crashing down on top of you.

To be continued…

*But with one very, very important caveat. The Copenhagen Interpretation of the quantum requires that Nature makes up Her mind when, and only when an observer or an observer’s measurement is made. Until then all is probability and nothing has reality or actual existence. The Moon has no reality unless someone is observing or measuring it! To me, observers are irrelevant – reality is reality, with or without observers. 

**Deutsch, David; The Fabric of Reality; Penguin Books, London; 1998:

Multiroads to the Multiverse: Part Two

If Mother Nature can create one Universe (ours), Mother Nature can create more than one universe – a Multiverse! The concept of a Multiverse, that there exists more than one universe, that is our Universe – perhaps an infinite number of them existing sequentially in time, or at one go in space, maybe both, is one of the hottest topics in current cosmology.

Continued from yesterday’s blog…

The Multiverse Solves These Puzzles:

In reality, the idea of a Multiverse is more a logical outcome of current thinking and evolving understanding of various discoveries and trends in modern quantum/particle physics and cosmology, relative to being a tool used to explain actual data or anomalies or observations. The basic reason is that other universes, if existing, will tend to be so far away from us in time and/or in space as to exert no influence on what we observe; what data we collect. That’s not to say that the concept of a Multiverse, in one guise or another, can’t be used to help account for actual or philosophical anomalies.

For example, if the computer simulation of our and by extension any Multiverse is correct, that accounts for why there are apparently two sets of independent and incompatible software physics (quantum and classical) running the cosmos.

A computer generated Multiverse (lots of different computer generated simulations coupled with possible multiple copies of each) is in one sense a copout in that it can be used to explain anything. You can account for all data, all anomalies, all weirdness, everything natural and everything supernatural, everything logical and illogical, everything possible, and for that matter impossible. In a computer generated and simulated universe, you can indeed believe six impossible things before breakfast – ‘Alice in Wonderland’ or rather ‘Through the Looking Glass’ rules – OK? The existence of ‘impossible things’ does not of necessity invalidate the possibility however.

The concept of a Multiverse does provide the ways and means of examining other possible origins for our own Universe, which currently is (the standard Big Bang event) that first there was nothing and the there was something.

The there’s the Anthropic Principle: In order to explain why our Universe is so fine-tuned in terms of the laws and relationships of physics that make our universe life-friendly, it is necessary to either postulate one hell of an incredible luck of the draw, or a supernatural creator being who exists outside of space-time. The Multiverse solves the quandary by postulating that with so many universes in existence, with so many combinations of possible laws and relations of physics, that at least one universe, based on sheer chance alone, would be life-friendly. Since we can only exist in a life-friendly universe, the Multiverse helps explain our very existence, without having to resort to bucking incredible improbability or relying on the supernatural. 

Double Slit Experiment: If you fire one photon, say one every minute, at two parallel slits with a photographic plate behind them, you might expect that plate to show, eventually, two blobs of light – one behind each slit, as each individual photon bullet passed through one, or the other, slit. However, what you get is instead a classic interference pattern – alternating light bands with dark bands. Why is this so? Rather, how can this be? Since the one per minute photons aren’t apparently acting like individual bullets, and yet since the only thing that can possibly cause classic wave interference is the presence of other, in addition to these one per minute photon bullets, photons, then where did these other photons come from?  A logical explanation is that these photons are photons that enter or interact with our Universe from another parallel universe(s).

Time Travel Paradoxes: If time travel to the past is possible, and there is only one universe, our Universe, then paradoxes can arise. You can go back in time and murder your mother before you were conceived, which means you were never born, so you couldn’t have gone back in time and murdered your mother, which means you were born…  However, if you travel back in time to another universe, part of the Multiverse, and kill what for all appearances looks exactly like your real mother, but is in fact a parallel universe copy or look-alike, then there is no paradox, because your real biological mother, in the universe in which you were born and raised, remains alive.  

Variations on the Many Worlds Interpretation Theme:

There’s a variation that could apply to the Multiverse theme via the Many Worlds Interpretation of all things quantum. In the Many Worlds scenario, absolutely all possibilities are realized within any given ‘moment’ within the timeline. Each universe within the Multiverse has the additional complication (or added attraction) of having to jump through the Many Worlds hoops. So, to use a simple example, in one universe (A) within the Multiverse, you flip a coin and its heads. Coming to that fork in the road, a choice of heads or tails, that universe then splits into two, and you have flipped tails in the counterpart (B). Both possibilities have been realized. However, it is just as probable that there are enough universes within the Multiverse such that there was another universe (C) where you performed the identical flipping exercise and the coin came up tails (as in universe B). Postulating a Many Worlds Interpretation where there’s a split and you toss heads (universe D), well that’s already something that’s happened (in universe A) – not in a Many Worlds scenario, but in another actual physical universe. Therefore, what need for any Many Worlds interpretations at all? 

I’m not however entirely sure this apparent equivalence will sit well with quantum physicists, because I’m not entirely sure this is what quantum physicists mean by the phrase ‘Many Worlds’ (indeed, lots of quantum physicists deny any such interpretation at all exists – it’s too big an ask for them). However, it seems to deal with the issue of That Cat! In two separate physical universes you have Schrodinger’s Cat (in the box which has been constructed to have a 50/50 chance of killing it within one hour) experiment. Identical cats; identical setups; identical observers (and they can be identical because the fundamental bits that make them all up are identical – all electrons (neutrons, protons, etc.) are 100% clones of each other – absolutely identical). In one universe, the observer observes the cat alive after one hour; the other universe, well it’s the demise of the feline. Neither universe has to split into two to cater for both possibilities of a living cat, and a dead cat. All possibilities have been exhausted without resorting to the requirement of a Many Worlds either/or split.

While I have little difficulty coming to terms with an infinite (or as close to infinite as makes no odds) number of universes (the Multiverse) that have collectively existed since the get-go in order to cater for all possibilities, I have some trouble coming to accept the idea that (Many) Worlds are created in an ongoing manner, as spin-offs, in response to evolving events that require this choice or that choice or the next choice. The difficulty, which I’ve never seen addressed in any books I’ve read on the subject is, where does all the additional matter/energy for the extra world – actually universe - come from? If a whole new universe is created to allow for the existence of both a cat that’s alive and a dead cat (in that cat-in-the-box thought experiment), that additional universe (to cater for the other option) seems to be a free lunch – something created from nothing. That seems to be a violation of the conservation of matter/energy. That’s much too big an ask for me to swallow! Therefore, I vote solely for the Multiverse, which because of the sheer numbers involved, allows for the incorporation of the Many Worlds Interpretation as a bonus. The only real difference I can see between the Multiverse and the Many Worlds Interpretation is that with Many Worlds, the outcomes (all possibilities realized) is certainty; with the Multiverse it’s only probable or possible.

Further recommended readings:

Carr, Bernard (Editor); Universe or Multiverse?; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; 2007:

Gribbin, John; In Search of the Multiverse; Allen Lane, London; 2009:

Kaku, Michio; Parallel Worlds: The Science of Alternative Universes and Our Future in the Cosmos; Penguin Books, London; 2005:

Rees, Martin; Before the Beginning: Our Universe and Others; Free Press, London; 2002:

Vilenkin, Alex; Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes; Hill & Wang, New York; 2006:

Wolf, Fred Alan; Parallel Universes: The Search for Other Worlds; Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, New York; 1988:

Multiroads to the Multiverse: Part One

If Mother Nature can create one Universe (ours), Mother Nature can create more than one universe – a Multiverse! The concept of a Multiverse, that there exists more than one universe, that is our Universe – perhaps an infinite number of them existing sequentially in time, or at one go in space, maybe both, is one of the hottest topics in current cosmology.

At the outset, there’s no law of physics (or even of God) that says that there can be (or must be) one and only one universe, our Universe.

Three questions arise – the mechanism for the origin and evolution of other universes; what types of Multiverses can be generated; and what can the concept of a Multiverse explain that the existence of our sole Universe cannot explain?

Ways, Means and Mechanisms That Generate a Multiverse:

In the infinite beginning, there existed from square one, more than one universe. No origin event(s) are required. However, those universes will evolve and ultimately morph into other universes. 

The Many Worlds Interpretation of all things quantum states that when anything within our Universe is forced to make an either/or decision, between two or more pathways or alternatives, each and every pathway or alternative is taken – because Mother Nature cannot make up Her mind between equal probabilities! Thus, to accommodate each and every possible choice, the Universe splits into as many other universes as is necessary to cater for all possible outcomes. Thus, where there existed initially one universe – our Universe – now there must exist an extra one, or two, or three, or whatever number of universes because our Universe had to make a decision between two, three, or whatever number of choices confronted it. Multiply that by how many crossroads our Universe comes to each and every microsecond, and you have the beginnings of a Multiverse in real quick-smart fashion.

Baby Universes via Black Holes: An advanced extraterrestrial technology might be able to create or manufacture baby universes by creating or manufacturing Black Holes. The recipe itself is simple – take a lump of matter and squeeze it down to such a density that its gravitational escape velocity exceeds that of the speed of light. Such is the text of ‘Universe Manufacturing 101’. Of course one doesn’t of necessity need ET. A universe with the sort of physics that permit Black Holes to form will ‘breed’ because those Black Holes will produce baby universes, presumably with the sort of suitable physics that will allow for further Black Holes, etc.

Bubble Universes via Inflation: To adequately explain various observational properties of our Universe, the concept of a rapid period of inflation around the time of the Big Bang event (I’ve seen inflation invoked both just before and just after the ‘bang’ itself) has been proposed. For the briefest of times, the Universe’s expansion accelerated at a fantastic pace before running out of puff. The fly in the ointment is that if inflation didn’t stop at the exact same nanosecond everywhere, then you’d get smaller pockets or bubbles of inflation continuing, and that each separate inflating bubble wouldn’t stop at the exact same nanosecond, creating more bubbles, etc. Each separate pocket or bubble would inflate so fast and break off from the parent inflationary event to form another universe. An analogy is to shake up a say, 1/3^rd empty bottle of fizzy soft drink and open the top cap. What do you get – rapid inflation, that’s what! Bubbles form and expand and give rise to other bubbles which create new bubbles. Each bubble is its own separate universe.

Quantum Fluctuations: The vacuum energy can give rise to virtual particles, which can turn into actual particles under suitable conditions. It’s possible for the energy to come together intensely enough to perhaps create not just a pair of virtual particles, but an entire universe of particles. That could happen again and again, a multitude of times.

Video Games Analogy: There are a Multiverse of videogames within our Universe (i.e. – Planet Earth) – in two ways. One is the collective set of the thousands to maybe hundreds of thousands of individual video games within the marketplace. Each videogame equals one possible universe. The other is that each individual videogame has hundreds to hundreds of thousands of identical copies.  So the videogame Multiverse has both individuality, and sameness. Perhaps our Universe is one copy of one individual ‘video game’ or ‘computer simulation’, within a sea of thousands of identical copies of that game, within a sea of thousands of other individual games/simulations! 

Types of Multiverse:

Parallel / Shadow / Alternative / Mirror / Many Worlds / Higher Dimensional (String Theory’s Branes perhaps) universes – collectively, these universes would have the same laws and principles of physics that we know and love (unless you’re a physics student at exam time), although the ultimate nature and evolution of each and every one might differ. In other words, all these universes will be bio-friendly, though that doesn’t mean of necessity that all will contain life. Basically, these universes are all variations on a theme of our own Universe.

Simulated / Video Games Universes – Okay, within these universes, anything goes. A computer program does not have to follow or obey or simulate the existing laws and principles of physics. You want faster-than-light-travel? You got it! You want antigravity? You can have that too! Do you want your heroine to survive travel through wormholes and Black Holes? Fine! All the terrestrial superheroes and superhero powers – a Superman, a Spiderman, a Green Lantern, the list is near endless – all is possible. You can botch an operation – the patient survives. You can crash a plane – no causalities. You can make the Sun stand still; perform miracles like the resurrection; create new life forms and new civilizations, and boldly go where in our Universe, no one can every go! You can have a Heaven and/or a Hell, or live unprotected upon the surface of Venus (which is the same as Hell only worse).

Bubble / Baby / Quantum Fluctuation Universes / Cyclic or Oscillating Universes (standard Big Bang expansions followed by Big Crunch contractions followed by Big Bang expansions, etc.) – collectively, these universes could be as different as chalk and cheese in that the laws and principles of physics could vary to a greater or lesser extent – but vary, well these universes just might. Think of all the laws, relationships and principles in physics and vary them to your heart’s content. While each universe might be unique, the rules and regulations for each and everyone one is fixed.

To be continued…