Is the multiverse theory a scientific hypothesis?

[Pious]

If no, what do you think caused the Big Bang in the first place, and how is the universe so fine-tuned for our Earth to form and concious life on it to evolve?

If yes, does it require less than a leap of faith to believe in this non-falsifiable speculation about multiverses, as opposed to believing in the Jewish Bible's Yahweh, the New Testament's Theos or the Quran's Allah?

 

[wlminex]

Hypothesis!!

BB? . . . IMPO (<--mods please note) IF it happened (Note: I prefer alternate hypotheses) . . . . it was caused by a subplanckian energy fluctuation . . . . then it evolved (energy --> mass, and other) in a defined way . . . . certain physical 'laws' (that we have 'discovered' afterward) appear to constrain evolution of the mass-universe into what we now observe, including exact parameters critical to evolution of optimum life conditions.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

If no, what do you think caused the Big Bang in the first place, and how is the universe so fine-tuned for our Earth to form and concious life on it to evolve?

If yes, does it require less than a leap of faith to believe in this non-falsifiable speculation about multiverses, as opposed to believing in the Jewish Bible's Yahweh, the New Testament's Theos or the Quran's Allah?

If you watch the TV popular science series Horizon, you might think that the Multiverse is an accepted theory.
They are continually showing programs, often involving the annoying Michio Kaku appearing and disappearing, where physicists
quote it as Bible truth.

With no evidence, and nothing which can be performed experimentally to prove it true or false, it is not science at all.

 

[Cris]

and how is the universe so fine-tuned for our Earth to form and concious life on it to evolve?

Classic fallacy. You have the issue reversed. We are the result of the rules of the universe. If the rules had been different then either we would not exist or life would have different characteristics. So the issue is not that the universe is a perfect fit for us (implying we came first) but we are the product of the universe.

Your perspective is similar to being amazed at how a cooking dish is such a perfect shape for the cake it produced.

 

[Pious]

Hypothesis!!

BB? . . . IMPO (<--mods please note) IF it happened (Note: I prefer alternate hypotheses) . . . . it was caused by a subplanckian energy fluctuation . . . .

This speculation assumes the existence of another spacetime, in a quantum fluctuating state full of virtual particles, even when the Big Bang had not occurred. We can't be sure if it's right.

then it evolved (energy --> mass, and other) in a defined way . . . . certain physical 'laws' (that we have 'discovered' afterward) appear to constrain evolution of the mass-universe into what we now observe, including exact parameters critical to evolution of optimum life conditions.

The Big Bang had to be fine-tuned with extremely high precision. E.g. if the cosmological constant (or quintessence?) was even slightly different, no galaxies would have formed.

(Note: I prefer alternate hypotheses)

Which hypothesis do you prefer?

 

[Pious]

If you watch the TV popular science series Horizon, you might think that the Multiverse is an accepted theory.
They are continually showing programs, often involving the annoying Michio Kaku appearing and disappearing, where physicists
quote it as Bible truth.

With no evidence, and nothing which can be performed experimentally to prove it true or false, it is not science at all.

That's true! Some of them (strong atheists) seem to have blind faith in this non-scientific speculation. It's ridiculous, they are even making many people believe there are an infinite number of unobservable multiverses!

 

[Pious]

Your perspective is similar to being amazed at how a cooking dish is such a perfect shape for the cake it produced.

It's not a good comparison! We don't have a natural explanation for the origin of universe as of yet, nor do we know about what it consists of completely, unlike a cooking dish which we can directly observe. Also, the person who cooks will surely have a purpose, are you actually saying we too have an intelligent designer?

 

[wlminex]

This speculation assumes the existence of another spacetime, in a quantum fluctuating state full of virtual particles, even when the Big Bang had not occurred. We can't be sure if it's right.



The Big Bang had to be fine-tuned with extremely high precision. E.g. if the cosmological constant (or quintessence?) was even slightly different, no galaxies would have formed.


Which hypothesis do you prefer?

Thanks for asking (moderators please note query "Which hypothesis do you prefer") . . . .Ans: Why, my own, of course! See EEMU Hypothesis elsewhere on Sciforums Alternative Theories . . .

 

[BenTheMan]

Isn't the obvious answer "Yes, it is an hypothesis"?

What other answer could there possibly be?

 

[Pious]

Isn't the obvious answer "Yes, it is an hypothesis"?

What other answer could there possibly be?

It's a pseudoscientific hypothesis according to some physicists, e.g. Paul Davies who writes: "The multiverse comes with a lot of baggage, such as an overarching space and time to host all those bangs, a universe-generating mechanism to trigger them, physical fields to populate the universes with material stuff, and a selection of forces to make things happen. Cosmologists embrace these features by envisaging sweeping “meta-laws” that pervade the multiverse and spawn specific bylaws on a universe-by-universe basis. The meta-laws themselves remain unexplained – eternal, immutable transcendent entities that just happen to exist and must simply be accepted as given. In that respect the meta-laws have a similar status to an unexplained transcendent god."

Do you consider it a testable and scientific hypothesis?

 

[BenTheMan]

It's a pseudoscientific hypothesis according to some physicists...Do you consider it a testable and scientific hypothesis?

It's absolutely testable and absolutely scientific, by definition of the word. String theory typically predicts a whole host of new particles with Planck-scale masses. This is a unique prediction, which can rule out string theory as it exists today.

Whether those tests can be carried out is a separate, unrelated question.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

In answer to the OP, yes it is a scientific hypothesis, but a very weak one.
There would be some phenomena, which, if found, would indicate the existence of multiple universes.
For example, if universes are able to bump into each other, then the effects of past collisions might be found in our own universe.
It is something worth keeping in mind as a possible solution to future observations,
but proffering it as a confident theory without evidence is ridiculous.

It reminds me of Creationist science, in that the arguments aim towards a predetermined conclusion.
It is a sort of anti-Creationist science.
You could call it Proto-atheistic.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

One aspect of the theory particularly puzzles me.
Why do the multiverse mathematicians believe that the rules which govern nature are arbitrary?

Taking gravity for example.
In our Universe it is a very weak force.
Why might it be stronger or still weaker, in another universe?

Do the mathematicians assume that they can vary the constants just because they can do it on paper,
or is there some real evidence for their variability.
Isn't it more likely that the forces are the same in every universe?

 

[Pious]

It's absolutely testable and absolutely scientific, by definition of the word. String theory typically predicts a whole host of new particles with Planck-scale masses. This is a unique prediction, which can rule out string theory as it exists today.

String theory predicts at least 6 unseen dimensions for fundamental strings to exist. Dark matter's gravitational effects from unseen dimensions can be directly observed in visible spacetime which seems to corroborate the idea of unseen dimensions.

Now back to the topic of this thread: the multiverse theory. Some have blind faith that an infinite or a vast number of unobservable universes exist in which everything will happen "somewhere", which is only a typical atheistic refutation of the fine-tuning problem. It assumes the existence of eternal and immutable transcendent entities living in unobservable universes. You didn't elaborate how this failed attempt at refuting a possible fine-tuner is "absolutely scientific"?

 

[Pious]

In answer to the OP, yes it is a scientific hypothesis, but a very weak one.
There would be some phenomena, which, if found, would indicate the existence of multiple universes.

But, it gets unscientific when some strongly believe there are an infinite or vast number of universes.

For example, if universes are able to bump into each other, then the effects of past collisions might be found in our own universe.
It is something worth keeping in mind as a possible solution to future observations,
but proffering it as a confident theory without evidence is ridiculous.

It seems likely that nothing supernatural from outside the universe has collided with it, because otherwise an obvious discontinuity in physical laws would have been observed. But we can't rule out the possibility something may collide the part of the spacetime fabric we call "future", which may perhaps be perceived by conscious beings in the universe as change in laws of physics, I think.

It reminds me of Creationist science, in that the arguments aim towards a predetermined conclusion.
It is a sort of anti-Creationist science.
You could call it Proto-atheistic.

Yes, it's only faith-based pseudoscience, intended to oppose another faith-based hypothesis -- that a supernatural God created and programmed the universe because of an intelligent purpose.
It's a case of inverse gambler's fallacy, committed just to explain away the fine-tuning problem.

One aspect of the theory particularly puzzles me.
Why do the multiverse mathematicians believe that the rules which govern nature are arbitrary?

Taking gravity for example.
In our Universe it is a very weak force.
Why might it be stronger or still weaker, in another universe?

Do the mathematicians assume that they can vary the constants just because they can do it on paper,
or is there some real evidence for their variability.
Isn't it more likely that the forces are the same in every universe?

Obviously, physical laws will be different at other universes because even their number of dimensions may be greater. At least 9-Dimensional space in any universe is possible, as predicted by string theory. In Abrahamic terminology, living there would be like living in Seventh Heaven (considering that the First Heaven which is visible to us is 3-Dimensional). But again, just because it's possible, it doesn't mean there has to be an infinite number of unobservable universes, just because ours seems to be extremely fine-tuned.