Multiverse and observational evidence?

In summary: WMAP and Planck satellites. In this paper, we compute limits on these entanglement effects from the Planck CMB data combined with the BICEP/Keck polarization measurement, and find no evidence for observable modulations to the power spectrum from landscape entanglement, and no sourcing of observable CMB anomalies."In summary, the recent attention on cosmologist Laura Mersini-Houghton's multiverse model, which proposes that the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is created when universes separate, may be due to the publication of her book "Before the Big Bang: The Origin of the Universe and What Lies Beyond." However, her model has not been verified
  • #1
apostolosdt
173
195
Cosmology and multiverse are beyond my limited knowledge, but I came across the following article that aroused my curiosity. Although I am extremely cautious with "exotic" theories, I'd like to read any comments on that part of the article that a model proposed by cosmologist Laura Mersini-Houghton has found some sort of verification in CMB measurements.
https://www.theguardian.com/science...ersini-houghton-before-the-big-bang-interview
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
apostolosdt said:
Cosmology and multiverse are beyond my limited knowledge, but I came across the following article that aroused my curiosity. Although I am extremely cautious with "exotic" theories, I'd like to read any comments on that part of the article that a model proposed by cosmologist Laura Mersini-Houghton has found some sort of verification in CMB measurements.
https://www.theguardian.com/science...ersini-houghton-before-the-big-bang-interview
I don't understand

"When the process of separation [of universes] happens, that’s the point when the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is created"

I thought that was OUR Universe, decoupling?

@Orodruin @PeterDonis @phinds lots of others but those for now
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #3
I hope other more knowledgeable folks will chime in but I have two comments. First, I abhore all the multiverse theories but that's a personal preference/opinion. Second, I find her comment "When the process of separation [of universes] happens, that’s the point when the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is created." to be just weird. The CMB is just the Surface of Last Scattering and is not something that happened like flipping a light switch but rather something that occurred over a significant amount of time (in human terms anyway, not so much is cosmological terms but still, NOT instantaneous). How that can translate to a "decoupling of universes" does not make sense to me but again, I'm biased against such theories.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes ohwilleke, apostolosdt, pinball1970 and 1 other person
  • #4
I guess, it's just an example that even serious newspapers tend to emphasize esoterics also in scientific news. That's of course much simpler than trying to explain the research to laymen in a proper way. It's only quite disturbing that the scientist in this case obviously approved this kind of statements within her interview. Does anybody know, to which research paper this new coverage refers to?
 
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke and pinball1970
  • #5
vanhees71 said:
I guess, it's just an example that even serious newspapers tend to emphasize esoterics also in scientific news. That's of course much simpler than trying to explain the research to laymen in a proper way. It's only quite disturbing that the scientist in this case obviously approved this kind of statements within her interview. Does anybody know, to which research paper this new coverage refers to?
I don’t know why the sudden attention now, but this paper from 2019 appears to be the one being discussed:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.10833
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke, apostolosdt, PeroK and 2 others
  • #6
Although I don't understand any details of string theory or the landscape multiverse this sounds much more scientific than the Guardian article suggests, as expected. Maybe somebody with more expertise on string theory can evaluate this in more detail.
 
  • #7
apostolosdt said:
a model proposed by cosmologist Laura Mersini-Houghton has found some sort of verification in CMB measurements
"Verification" is too strong. All this really amounts to is "for this particular data, our multiverse model's predictions happen to be indistinguishable from those of standard non-multiverse inflation models, so we can say we match the data as well as they do".

What would actually count as "verification" is something like "for this particular data, our model makes a correct prediction and other models make an incorrect prediction". No multiverse model has done that, nor do I expect one to any time soon.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes ohwilleke, vanhees71, apostolosdt and 2 others
  • #8
apostolosdt said:
I'd like to read any comments on that part of the article that a model proposed by cosmologist Laura Mersini-Houghton has found some sort of verification in CMB measurements.
https://www.theguardian.com/science...ersini-houghton-before-the-big-bang-interview

The abstract from

https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.00672

by Will Kinney:

"We consider observational limits on a proposed model of the string landscape in inflation. In this scenario, effects from the decoherence of entangled quantum states in long-wavelength modes in the universe result in modifications to the Friedmann Equation and a corresponding modification to inflationary dynamics. Previous work by Holman, Mersini-Houghton, and Takahashi suggested that such effects could provide an explanation for well-known anomalies in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), such as the lack of power on large scales and the "cold spot" seen by both the WMAP and Planck satellites. In this paper, we compute limits on these entanglement effects from the Planck CMB data combined with the BICEP/Keck polarization measurement, and find no evidence for observable modulations to the power spectrum from landscape entanglement, and no sourcing of observable CMB anomalies."
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes vanhees71, apostolosdt and PeroK
  • #9
George Jones said:
The abstract from

https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.00672

by Will Kinney:

"We consider observational limits on a proposed model of the string landscape in inflation. In this scenario, effects from the decoherence of entangled quantum states in long-wavelength modes in the universe result in modifications to the Friedmann Equation and a corresponding modification to inflationary dynamics. Previous work by Holman, Mersini-Houghton, and Takahashi suggested that such effects could provide an explanation for well-known anomalies in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), such as the lack of power on large scales and the "cold spot" seen by both the WMAP and Planck satellites. In this paper, we compute limits on these entanglement effects from the Planck CMB data combined with the BICEP/Keck polarization measurement, and find no evidence for observable modulations to the power spectrum from landscape entanglement, and no sourcing of observable CMB anomalies."
Can you say some or all of that so I can understand a little bit better please George? I am not a physicist.
Edit. Is the CMBR a certain amount of time after the big bang, 300,000 years?
And, I thought inflation was fractions of after the BB. Multiverses after that?
 
Last edited:
  • #11
George Jones said:
The abstract from

https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.00672

by Will Kinney:

"We consider observational limits on a proposed model of the string landscape in inflation. In this scenario, effects from the decoherence of entangled quantum states in long-wavelength modes in the universe result in modifications to the Friedmann Equation and a corresponding modification to inflationary dynamics. Previous work by Holman, Mersini-Houghton, and Takahashi suggested that such effects could provide an explanation for well-known anomalies in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), such as the lack of power on large scales and the "cold spot" seen by both the WMAP and Planck satellites. In this paper, we compute limits on these entanglement effects from the Planck CMB data combined with the BICEP/Keck polarization measurement, and find no evidence for observable modulations to the power spectrum from landscape entanglement, and no sourcing of observable CMB anomalies."
While this is relevant to the overall history of this discussion, this paper is from 3 years before Mersini-Houghton's latest model from the paper I linked above.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71

FAQ: Multiverse and observational evidence?

What is the Multiverse Theory?

The Multiverse Theory is a hypothetical concept in which there are multiple universes existing parallel to our own. It suggests that there are an infinite number of universes, each with its own set of physical laws and constants.

What is the observational evidence for the Multiverse?

Currently, there is no direct observational evidence for the existence of a Multiverse. However, some scientists point to the cosmic microwave background radiation and the inflationary theory as potential evidence for the Multiverse. Additionally, the existence of dark matter and dark energy, which make up a large portion of our universe, is still not fully understood and could potentially be explained by the Multiverse Theory.

How does the Multiverse Theory explain the fine-tuning of our universe?

The Multiverse Theory suggests that with an infinite number of universes, it is likely that there will be one with the perfect conditions for life to exist. This could explain the apparent fine-tuning of our universe for life, as we just happen to live in the universe that has the necessary conditions for our existence.

Is there any way to test the Multiverse Theory?

Currently, there is no way to directly test the Multiverse Theory. However, some scientists are working on developing theories and experiments that could potentially provide evidence for its existence. These include studying the cosmic microwave background radiation and searching for evidence of collisions between universes.

What are the criticisms of the Multiverse Theory?

One of the main criticisms of the Multiverse Theory is that it is not falsifiable, meaning it cannot be proven or disproven through experiments or observations. Additionally, some argue that it is a purely speculative theory with no concrete evidence to support it. There are also philosophical and theological objections to the idea of an infinite number of universes.

Similar threads

Back
Top