Search FQXi

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help

January 18, 2018

ARTICLE: Testing the Multiverse [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Aug. 4, 2011 @ 14:27 GMT
Very positive to find an algorithm in order to change our point of view on the results of CMB, but isn't it a little too early to explain that these "spots" emergingd from the algorithm are results of colliding universes ?

The "signatures" as simulated originate from 380.000 years after an origin of our Universe, an origin that untill now is not yet sure (rebound, big bang, or...), so to interprete these results direcly to a complex model could be true... or not. These temperature modulations for example could also mean that our universe is not so regular at all (inflation ws invented to explain the regularity of our universe).

I do believe (it is a belief, I am not sure) that there is a multiverse around us , this multiverse in the future perhaps can be "touched" from our position in the French cheese bubble, if we construct an algorithm inside a for example 500 qubit quantum computer that creates a consciousness able to pass the limits that we are submitted to in our 4D causal universe.

Very interesting article , hope to see the follow up from the new Planck data.


report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev wrote on Aug. 4, 2011 @ 15:15 GMT
I don't think such developments of the standard model are useful if the following suspicion exists:

"Is Everything We Know Wrong? (...) So for now the standard model remains unchanged... (...) It's the best we have. And it's so nearly a perfect fit. It's just that it could be totally wrong."

By developing something that is "totally wrong" you create Augean stables that no scientific Hercules will be able to clean up.

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 5, 2011 @ 05:14 GMT
The standard model of cosmology is (implicitly) based on the following premises:

Premise 1: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Premise 2: As photons travel, their wavelength varies with their frequency.

The second premise, which is a consequence of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate, should be abandoned. Cosmologists will have to try to deduce their science from the following couple of premises:

Premise 1: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

Premise 2: As photons travel, their wavelength remains constant.

Examples giving some support to the new Premise 2 (varying frequency and speed of light, constant wavelength):

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"

Roger Barlow: "Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c plus v)/(lambda)."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 5, 2011 @ 14:52 GMT

"Shine a light through a piece of glass, a swimming pool or any other medium and it slows down ever so slightly, it's why a plunged part way into the surface of a pool appears to be bent. So, what about the space in between those distant astronomical objects and our earthly telescopes? COULDN'T IT BE THAT THE SUPPOSED VACUUM OF SPACE IS ACTING AS AN INTERSTELLAR MEDIUM TO LOWER THE SPEED OF LIGHT like some cosmic swimming pool?

David Schuster: "Current models of the intergalactic medium contend that it has mass density on the order of 10^(-27) kg/m^3. While it is true that this equates to approximately one atom of neutral Hydrogen per cubic meter, averaging over cosmological distances, it is reasonable to consider the IGM a super-low density fluid. (...) Obviously, as the density of the intervening medium increases, so does the number of interactions and, consequently, so does the travel time of the light. This is the effect seen in a dense material like calcite where there are so many interactions that THE LIGHT SLOWS DOWN appreciably in a short distance. (...) Assuming the interaction cross-section to correspond to the Bohr radius. This means that a photon will, on average, have an interaction and, accordingly, a characteristic delay every 37600 light years. This is using the minimum particle density in intergalactic space, which can vary widely up to approximately 1000 particles/m^3 in areas of particularly high density."

David A. Plaisted: "This suggests that the red shift may be caused by something other than the expansion of the universe, at least in part. This could be a loss of energy of light rays as they travel, or A DECREASE IN THE SPEED OF LIGHT..."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Aug. 7, 2011 @ 04:55 GMT

"A brilliant physicist Joao Magueijo asks the heretical question: What if the speed of light - now accepted as one of the unchanging foundations of modern physics - were not constant? "A number of surprising observations made at the threshold of the 21st century have left cosmologists confused and other physicists in doubt over the reliability of cosmology," Magueijo says. "For instance it has been found that the cosmological expansion appears to be accelerating. This is contrary to common sense, as it implies that on large scales gravity is repulsive."

Then try to explain the cosmological redshift in terms of variable speed of light and static universe, Joao Magueijo. What prevents you from trying? Crimestop?

George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev

report post as inappropriate

Roy Johnstone wrote on Aug. 5, 2011 @ 04:41 GMT
I wonder how well this algorithm might also determine fits for other possible sources of these kinds of CMB features, such as primordial inhomogeneities? For example, signatures of cyclic model features such as the low temperature variance "circles" in Penrose's CCC model surviving through the conformal 4 manifold from black hole collisions in the previous epoch.

These model dependant CMB features could be very similar, but with the improved resolution of Planck's data combined with such an algorithm, it would be good to also test theories that are *not* from inflationary cosmology!

Bring on the Planck data!!

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Aug. 5, 2011 @ 12:04 GMT
• This is not the same as the theory of Gurzadyan and Penrose. That involved an extension of the conformal past "to infinity," where the big bang is a past Cauchy surface where the minimal information content of the universe is globally available. Some type of transition occurs with the occurrence of an event horizon. The cosmology tested here involves nucleation bubbles. It is analogous in some...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein wrote on Aug. 5, 2011 @ 17:24 GMT
"You’ve got to wait around for the people who actually know what they’re doing,"

Well, scientific research and forensic technology have meanwhile a lot in common. From my own work, I may recommend to look at as many independent from each other data that belong to the same place and time. Ask those who measure, simulate, and try to interpret ground penetrating radar pictures. Some artifacts are rather similar.

Good luck,


report post as inappropriate

Roy Johnstone wrote on Aug. 7, 2011 @ 05:19 GMT

"This is not the same as the theory of Gurzadyan and Penrose". Yes, their "CCC" is cyclic, does not include inflation and the CMB signatures are the result of gravitational "shock waves" rather than bubble wall collisions.

But are you saying that CCC concentric low temperature variance circles cannot be confirmed and analysed using the same sort of analysis as the one in this paper, both using WMAP 7 year data or future Planck data?

Penrose was motivated by the conundrum of the "ridiculously" low entropy initial cosmic state and his "Weyl curvature hypothesis". What attracted me to this model initially was more to do with what it might have to say about how we define and measure entropy. This model addresses the low entropy condition essentially by saying that all gravitational degrees of freedom are not yet "activated" at the big bang. This results from the final state of the previous epoch having no matter content (conformal geometry) and Weyl k = 0. So zero gravitational degrees of freedom are carried through under the conformal geometry transition, which I think Penrose takes from the ideas of Tod some 20 years ago?

So gravitational degrees of freedom are converted into radiation only d.o.g. when all matter has "evapourated". The question is, what should we consider the "minimal information content" of the universe to be at the BB? If the past conformal infinity contained information about prior matter content in the form of radiation, can the BB initial state be considered to contain globally *all* the information content, including de-activated gravitational information which should not be lost! Could it be that entropy is in some sense conserved maximally in time and the BB was in fact high entropy when viewed perhaps in terms of complimentarity, ie internally high entropy, externally low entropy?

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Aug. 8, 2011 @ 00:36 GMT
Everybody is looking for kurtosis and other non-Gaussian signals in the CMB. The idea is that it can’t be completely random; there must be some information imprinted on it. After all the post radiation dominated world has information, so some of the information about the world today must have some fingerprint on the early universe, in particular the CMB.

It has been a while since I looked at the Gurzadyan-Penrose theory. The theory involves an extension of conformal structure to beyond the big bang, or the singular condition of the universe. This replaces the singular condition with some conformal structure that is geodesic complete to t = -∞. The singularity is then a sort of phase change which occurs once the universe in every local region no longer has information about “time.” It is an interesting idea, and similar to one I conjured up over 20 years ago. However, the claim of the Gurzadyan-Penrose theory has not been substantiated. The pocket universe problem here does not involve a concentric circle in the CMB, but rather an anisotropy. This has a circular geometry, but is different from the GP theory of concentric circles.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

Ranganath wrote on Aug. 8, 2011 @ 10:04 GMT
New Cosmology [viXra:1107.0058]

report post as inappropriate

Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Aug. 9, 2011 @ 03:34 GMT
Other universes are there and are based on different Planck values. Anywhere as h+n or h-n universes. They don't interact with us, unless in between, like neutrinos.


report post as inappropriate

Michael Popov, Oxford wrote on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 13:55 GMT
Direct / inderect test for multiverse is very attactive problem for some futuristic experimental quantum anthropology as well.

Indeed a neighboring universe can co - exist in some unknown form where normal assumptions of today's normal physics ( for exam[ple Minkowsky's Weltpostulate ) cannot be valid.

Let us imagine some sort of impossible quantum test where for some two located precisely events - simultaneous spaces - there may exist reducible to zero time difference ,where one event of a fixed dimensionality 3+1 may co-exist with another event of the 3 -1 dimensionality (so-called "the end of time " in the terms of recent article by Alan Guth $ Vitaly Vanchurin ( arXiv :1108.0665 hep-th )), hence, test could be understood as a kind of quantum game with time.

( some approximation can be found in my paper entitled "Testing Two-Dimensional Time" Nature of Time Contest FQXi 2008 ). Something similar Vitaly Ginzburg in his brilliant Editor's letter tried to say me when I published my article in Uspechi Physics ,2003. Very interesting findings on multiverse and consciousness in experimental aspect also were made by Michael B. Mensky ( please, see arXiv 060 8309 )

report post as inappropriate

Wilhelmus de Wilde wrote on Aug. 15, 2011 @ 15:12 GMT
Lee Smolin and Giovanni Amelio-Camelia (with a grant (RFP2-08-02) from FQXi)are introducing "PHASE SPACE". Phase Space is quite different from Space-Time.

"Description of particles propagating and interacting in space-time are constructed by observers, but different observers , separated from each other by translations, construct different space-time projectionsfrom the invariant phase-space"

from " The principle of relative locality" arXiv : 1101 0931v2 [hep-th] 31 jan 2011.

Our 4D world is called "Momentum Space" and merged in this view from an eight dimensinal world, this momentum space is amere mathematical tool.

In my point of view the most interesting of this phase-space is that Smolin mentions : "it represents ALL POSSIBLE VALUES of POSITION, TIME, ENERGY an MOMENTUM, (here Smolin touches my own non causal Total Simultaneity, only it does not need eight dimensions.

I touched this item because it can mean that the algorithm as used here to indicate a multiverse, can also mean that this algorithm shows us that the higher dimensional phase-space from Smolin (or perhaps also my own Total Simultaneity) is absolute and invariant to ALL obsevers.

keep on thinking free


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Aug. 28, 2011 @ 15:11 GMT
Your lines of reasoning are totally irrationals, not deterministics, not universals. How could you superimpose correctly? if you do not insert the correct domains, the real series, the foundamental limits. Then your convergences and conclusions are totally falses. I am sorry but I speak simply with freedom and sincerity. It is that the free thinking also.

I do not see real convergences with our pure realism and its pure objectives observations. Multiverses are falses like the extradimensions. These maths are falses.


report post as inappropriate

Jeff King wrote on Sep. 27, 2011 @ 12:04 GMT
That's a good one, seems you have done a great research.

software patents

report post as inappropriate

Udaybhanu Chitrakar wrote on Oct. 14, 2011 @ 02:04 GMT
If total energy of the universe is zero, then it can be shown that multiverse theory cannot be true. This is because total energy being zero, total mass will also be zero due to mass-energy equivalence. Scientists have shown that anything having mass will always occupy some space. So anything that fails to occupy any space cannot have any mass. Our universe perhaps fails to occupy any space, and that is why its mass is zero. But if multiverse theory is true, then our universe will definitely occupy some space within the multiverse, and thus in that case its mass cannot be zero. But as this mass is zero, therefore multiverse theory cannot be true.

Here it may be argued that radiation occupies space but its mass is zero. So here is an example that something occupying space can still be without mass. So our universe can also be without mass even if it occupies some space within the multiverse. In reply we will say that the example cited here is a bad example, because our universe is not any kind of radiation. So if it is without mass, then that can only be due to its not occupying any space, and not due to its being some sort of radiation.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Oct. 19, 2012 @ 12:01 GMT
If they find what they're looking for, it could be anything. A disk shaped "imprint"? Could be caused by any one of thirty thousand things we don't know about. Testing for universes outside this one goes like this - you will say, ah! another universe is evident, we can see it is affecting our data. But it could always be something else, out of a very wide range of things. This is well-known, but the underlying reason they still search for it, and get funding to search for it, is they need it to try to avoid some philosophical conclusions that are in fact unavoidable.

report post as inappropriate

Anonymous wrote on Nov. 9, 2013 @ 17:45 GMT
Baggott[Farewell to Reality: How Fairy-Tale Physics Has Betrayed The Search For Scientific Truth] and even more spot-on Unzicker-Jones[Bankrupting Physics: How Top Scientists Are Gambling Away Their Credibility] critiques shame physics’ shameless rock-star media-hype P.R. spin-doctoring veracity-abandoning touting sci-fi “show-biz” trending viral exacerbated by online social networks...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.