Revisiting The Concept Of Parallel Universes

The issue of whether there exist parallel universes has been around for some time, and become more or less a stock theme for a lot of science fiction, some good, most bad. But what do we mean by the term "parallel universe" and is it possible one might ever detect one? Is a parallel universe the same as a "universe" based on the "Many worlds" quantum mechanical interpretation of Hugh Everett III?

Let's take the first last, because it's the easiest to deal with. It also eliminates one potential source of confusion (and unfortunate conflation) right off the bat. In fact, Everett's "Many Worlds" interpretation was devised specifically as an alternative to the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM - in order to physically make sense of the principle of superposition in QM. According to this principle, before an observation is actually made to establish a determinate state, the object or particle exists in a multitude of different (quantal) states simultaneously.

As to the more exact definition of a "state" this was first given by Paul Dirac in his monograph Quantum Mechanics ('The Principle of Superposition', p. 11):

"A state of a system may be defined as a state of undisturbed motion that is restricted by as many conditions or data as are theoretically possible without mutual interference or contradiction"

This definition itself needs some clarification. By "undisturbed motion" Dirac meant the state is pure and hence no observations are being made upon it such that the state experiences interference effects to displace it. In the Copenhagen Interpretation, "disturbance" of mutually defined variables (say x, p or position and momentum) occurs when: [x, p] = -i h/ 2π, where h is the Planck constant. Thus, an undisturbed state must yield: [x, p] = 0. Another way of putting this is that in the latter case the 2 variables commute, and in the former they do not. Hence, Dirac's setting of upper limits in the last part of his definition, specifying as many conditions that "are theoretically possible without mutual interference".

Now, we need to fix ideas further to grasp what the Copenhagen Interpretation (which Dirac held to) was all about. Let's say I fire electrons from a special "electron gun" at a screen some distance away. At first glance one might conclude, reasonably and intuitively, that the electron motion behaves like an apple's if tossed at a wall. That is, there is always one electron which is on a single predictable path, following stages 1, 2, 3 and so on over time, toward the screen. This is a reasonable, common-sense sort of expectation but alas, all wrong!

According to the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum theory the instant the electron leaves the "gun" it takes a large number of differing paths to reach the screen. Each path differs only in phase (but the differing phases determine the states), and has the same amplitude as each of its counterparts, so there is no preference. How does the electron differ from the apple? It takes all paths to the screen, the apple takes only one (at a time) to the wall. And the electron exhibits phases (as a wave) while the apple doesn't. The electron's wave function can be expressed:

y  = y(1) + y(2) + y(3) + .................y (N)

Here the total wavefunction for the electron is on the left hand side of the equation, while its resolved wave amplitude states (superposition of states) are on the right-hand side. If they are energy states, they would correspond to all possible electron energies from the lowest (1) to the highest or Nth state (N). There is absolutely no way of knowing which single state the electron has until it reaches the screen and an observation is made, say with a special detector (D).

What bothered Everett and others was the Copenhagenites' claim that all such differing states existed simultaneously in the same observational domain for a given observer. And then, all but one of the states magically disappeared (referred to as "wave function collapse") when the actual observation was recorded.

To Everett it all seemed too contrived and artificial. What if...he asked himself...instead of explaining the superposition of states this way, one instead used the basis of "many worlds"? Not literal worlds, but rather "worlds" separated from each other denoting specific quantum states, in this case, for the electron?

Thus, instead of thinking of all quantum states (prior to observation) as co-existing in one phase space representation (by which I mean differing phase coordinates could be assigned to each electron) one could think of each phase attached to another "world", a quantum world. For the total duration T of time before the observation was made, all these "worlds" existed at the same time, and then ....on observation....the "choice" for one became reality .....however, in other quantum worlds those other choices might materialize.

Personally, I suspect Everett had a much more significant reason than superficial aesthetics to devise the "Many Worlds" interpretation. That is, it eliminated the troublesome issue of observer disturbance of observations so peculiar to the Copenhagen Interpretation. The core problem or basis is best summarized in Dirac's own words (op. cit,. p. 4):

"If a system is small, we cannot observe it without producing a serious disturbance and hence we cannot expect to find any causal connections between the results of our observations"

In other words, the observation itself disrupts causation. For if the state is "interfered" with such that the observables don't commute (e.g. don't yield [x, p]= 0) then one can't logically connect states in a causal sequence. To quote Dirac (ibid.): "Causality applies only to a system which is left undisturbed".

The other issue that likely bugged Everett, propelling him towards "Many worlds", was the incessant Copenhagenites' debate over what level of consciousness was required for a given observer to collapse a wave function. Perhaps this was best epitomized by Richard Schlegel in his Superposition and Interaction:Coherence in Physics (1980, University of Chicago Press, p. 178,) who refers to the opinion expressed once by Prof. Eugene Wigner (at a conference) that "the consciousness of a dog would effect the projection into a single state whereas that of an amoeba would not."

So, in this sense, "Many worlds" provided welcome relief.

However, it must not be confused with the "parallel universes" to which I will now turn, which I regard as actual PHYSICAL cosmi likely incepted from the selfsame primordial vacuum state (via inflation) as our own universe. Thus, an actual primordial vacuum - not a human observer or consciousness making observational choices- is the source of the real parallel universes. Thus, all putative parallel universes plausibly emerged from the primordial vacuum the way ours did, e.g. from the Big Bang.

Regarding the agency of inflation current standard theories propose inflation starting at about 10^-35 s and doubling over a period of anywhere from  10^-43 to  10^-35 s after the initial inception. Estimates are that at least 85 such 'doublings' would be required to arrive at the phase where entropy rather than field resident energy dominates. The initial size (radius) of our universe would have been likely less than a proton's - maybe 1 fermi (fm) or  10^-15 m, by the time the doubling process began. By the time it ended (after 90 'doublings') it would have been around 1.25 x 10^-12 m. This is roughly eight times the distance of Earth from the Sun. In effect, the role of inflation is to give cosmic expansion a huge head start or boost, without which our universe would be much smaller. Other parallel universes emerging around the same time might have been larger or smaller depending upon their specific values for their fundamental physical constants (e.g. alpha, the "fine structure constant", h - the Planck constant, G, and eta the permittivity of free space).

In the graphic below I show an "idealized multiverse" replete with parallel universes, each occupying geodesics specified under a coordinate φ, and separated by uniform angular measure Θ from adjacent universes.



 The whole represents a 5-dimensional manifold in a toroidal topology. The topological space of the hypertoroid cosmos can therefore be represented by the global state space, a product of absolute hypertorus coordinate time (Θ) and 'all-space'(φ):GL = Θ X φ

Now, I reiterate that this is an idealized model which assumes that N-cosmi were incepted at equal intervals of time - as manifested by the equal spacing in the longitude angle Θ.

in principle, we don't know a priori how "close" in complex time another parallel universe may be to our own. When one uses the assumption of "equal time intervals" between inceptions in our idealized multiverse, one isn't stating what those times are, and so they could be minuscule - and the smallest time unit imaginable is the unit tau, τ. (About  10^-43 s  and note Θ = f(τ).)

If we specify such an exact parallel universe time displacement we might be able to show how one parallel universe can be "mapped" topologically onto an adjacent one. As an example, let two parallel universes be distinguished by a 1-τ difference in fundamental time parameter, viz. [1 + 2τ] and [1 + 3τ], then we would require for connection, a mapping such that:

(Universe 'A'): f:X -> X = f(Θ,φ) = (Θ, 2φ)

(Universe 'B'): f:X -> X = f(Θ,φ) = (Θ, 3φ)

which means the absolute coordinate φ is mapped onto itself 2 times for [Universe A] and mapped onto itself 3 times for [Universe B]. Clearly, there’ll be coincidences for which: f(Θ,2φ) = f(Θ,3φ) wherein the two universes will 'interweave' a number of times.

For example, such interweaving will occur when φ = π/2 in [A] and φ = π/3 in [B]. The total set or system of multiple points obtained in this way is called a Synchronous temporal matrix. The distinguishing feature of this matrix is that once a single point is encountered, it is probable that others will as well. If one hyperspace transformation can occur linking parallel universes, A and B, then conceivably more such transformations can occur, linking A and C, D and E etc.

What if both absolute toroidal coordinates (Θ,φ) map into themselves the same number of times? Say, something like:

f:X -> = f(Θ, φ) = (2Θ, 2φ): Universe A

f:X -> = f(Θ, φ) = (3Θ, 3φ): Universe B

For example, given the previous conditions for coordinate φ, now let 2Θ = 3Θ for discrete values of Θ (e.g. 2π). For all multiples of 2π, the same toroidal cosmos will be experienced - if the absolute time coordinates are equal (e.g. π/2 = φ in A, and π/3 = φ in B) then we will have: Universe A = Universe B.

What does this equality mean? I conjecture that it implies a briefly inter-phased chaotic state prevails in both A and B where the fundamental physical constants are not fixed (in a future blog I will appeal to quantum chaos to describe this). For all intents and purposes it is as if a "portal" of sorts exists between them, though that doesn't mean it'd be accessible to humans. We say that there exists "an interpenetration of different parallel universes" but not necessarily entailing transfer of bodies from one to the other. Note that though the physical state spaces (e.g. with constants h, G, e/m, etc. )may be alike, they can still differ in dimensionality! And we cannot disregard fractal dimensionality.

IF one has this condition, THEN it is feasible that the proposed David Deutsch experiment (See: The Fabric of Reality) to detect the interphasing of a parallel universe can be carried out, and the penetration of our universe by a parallel one validated. If the topological condition above has not been met, then we expect the Deutsch experiment will render a negative result, but this doesn't mean the parallel universe theory is necessarily invalid- only that the specific topological condition hasn't been met! (Absence of evidence here is not evidence of absence).

Physics Is A "Troubled Field"? Not As Much as Biomedical Research And Psychology

Image of  artificial CME successfully produced in laboratory experiment in 2016. Is physics a "troubled field"?  Only in the opinions of those who know little or nothing about it.

I confess I was rather mystified on reading the recent reviews of two books by physics superstars: Stephen Hawking ('Brief Answers to the Big Questions') and Martin Rees ('On the Future').    These appeared under the banner 'Serious Doubt On Serious Earth' in the WSJ Review section (p. C12, Oct. 20-21) by John Horgan.  

Horgan, after giving reasonable reviews of each book, then writes:

"Hawking and Mr. Rees recognize science's declining status. They call for better science education to lure more young people into science." 

 Then quoting Hawking:

"The low esteem in which science and scientists are held is having serious consequences."

True, but only in some fields - not all. Case in point, Horgan goes on to note:

 "Both authors fail to mention science's wounds are at least partially self-inflicted. In 2005, statistician John Ioannidis presented evidence that 'most published research findings are wrong'"


Now that is flat out false, and leads the unwary reader to believe all the sciences are publishing error- prone research. In fact,  Joannidis - a meta -researcher- was focused almost exclusively on the credibility of medical research.   

 In effect, his investigations found that much of what biomedical researchers concluded in  their published studies was often misleading, exaggerated or flat wrong. These included studies related to the prescription of antibiotics or blood pressure meds, treatments for back pain, surgery recommended for heart conditions, and advice concerning consumption of fiber and more or less meat.   See e.g.

Dr. John Ioannidis Exposes the Bad Science of Colleagues - The Atlantic

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies.../308269/

The "crisis in replication" as he refers to it is also rampant in psychology. Thus, three years ago in a NY Times report ('Psychology's Fears Confirmed: Rechecked Studies Don't Add Up')   we learned of multiple failures in that discipline including (according to author Benedict Carey):

- A top social psychologist was caught fabricating data, leading to more than 50 retracted papers

- A top journal published a study supporting the existence of ESP that was widely criticized

- The journal Science pulled a paper on the effect of gay canvassers on voters' behavior because of faked data concerns. 

Added to that one also learned (in the same piece)  of a painstaking yearlong effort to reproduce 100 studies published in three leading psychology journals, finding more than half couldn't be validated. According to author Carey (ibid.):

"The vetted studies were considered part of the core knowledge by which psychologist understand the dynamics of personality, relationships, learning and memory"

Note at no point does physics or  its subdisciplines enter into any of this. The beauty of physics is, in fact, its robust quantitative basis which often provides a rigorous cross check on the experiments or observations. (Nearly all of them tied to quantitative models.) Because it isn't merely the outcome of one or more experiments that must be considered, but also the governing quantitative and theoretical dynamic. How can a model be expressed in consistent, quantitative form that gives body to the interpretation of the experimental data? If that quantitative model is defective, then more than likely the whole experimental set up is as well.   So given nearly every physics publication is quantitatively based then there are inherent checks on the model and the capacity for replication.

Take as an example, the astounding replication in the laboratory of an artificial  coronal mass ejection (see top image).  This marked the first time ever solar researchers successfully generated an artificial coronal mass ejection in the laboratory as part of a plasma experiment. The researchers, Ha and Bellan, used a plasma gun in concert with an artificial strapping field to create their own flux ropes in their lab and from these CME-eruptions inside a vacuum chamber.  The strapping field itself  (that field which secures or holds back any emerging flux ropes) had to be carefully computed so that it decayed as a precise function of height. The reason is that the pair needed to generate the most likely instability - called the "torus instability". One self-consistent geometry is shown below as proposed by proposed by DeMoulin and Titov.

Assume then the detailed toroidal structure is initially in equilibrium, what happens to trigger the torus instability? Well, according to one variation proposed by Yuhong Fan, the configuration becomes unstable to an expansion  D R, when the toroidal radius R attains a critical dimension relative to the separation of the charges +q and -q.

Specifically, one will be looking at the decline of the potential field   B _q  with R and when it becomes critically deep.   This is evaluated using a decay index with torus instability occurring when the condition holds:

n = - d ln B _q   / d ln R > 1.5

In respect of their CME -generating experiment, Ha and Bellan would likely have taken these considerations into account to a suitable scale to create their strapping magnetic field that decays with increasing altitude.

The point here is that the replication basis of the model as well as the demonstration could easily be checked for self-consistency and adherence to the physical principles. 

Incredibly, despite this, we are informed by Horgan :

"But physics, which should serve as the bedrock of science, is in some respects the most troubled field of all. ...Over the last few decades it has become increasingly disconnected from empiircal evidence."

He then makes the mistake of citing the "proponents of string and multiverse"  conjectures - which of course grab most of the highlights in the corporate press.   But what about the Parker Solar Probe launched Aug. 12 which will provide us new and hitherto imagery and insights into the dynamic nature of our nearest star?  He doesn't mention that space mission at all. Nor the fantastic discoveries of hundreds of exoplanets by the Kepler telescope.

Nor the recent huge success of the Cassini -Huygens mission to Saturn.

Cassini-Huygens changed the game when it found complex hydrocarbons on Saturn’s ocean moons, hinted at hydrothermal vents on Enceladus, and revealed a cycle of liquid methane on Titan. The bottom line is, ocean worlds encapsulated by ice are now more propitious targets in the broader search for life beyond Earth.

If Horgan would have also taken the time and trouble to peruse recent issues of Physics Today he'd have born witness to dozens of new,  empirically validated discoveries, which seldom make the news like string theory or multiverse conjectures.  These have included:

'Isotope Measurements Help Pin Down The Ancient Rise Of Oxygen' (June, p. 16)

'First direct views of attosecond electron-nuclear coupling' (p. 17)

QED experiment detects two distinct photons simultaneously resonant with an optical cavity  (and with one of two electronic transitions of the same atom)  (August, p. 14)

'Use of Xenon isotopes to track volatile recycling in Earth's mantle' (October, p. 14)

'Acoustic metasurface creates quiet locations in a room' (August, p. 18)

Granted, none of these are especially 'sexy'  or exotic but all give the lie to Horgan's claim that physics has somehow become unmoored from empirical evidence.  The error made by Horgan? Focusing too much on the attention -headline grabbing stuff as opposed to the more prosaic but equally important findings.

Because of this selective attention he also commits the logical error of fallacy of composition:  attributing to the whole a characteristic or property that only applies to a part. Hence, concluding erroneously all of physics is somehow "troubled" because he perceives certain deficiencies in two exotic areas.  (Which he also egregiously describes as "modern physics" when string theory and multiverse concepts are only a part, and a very speculative part at that.)

Never mind, Horgan's 'Debby Downer' take, there is plenty in modern science- and certainly in physics-  to enlist and attract the best minds, and fuel their continued curiosity. 

Alan Lightman's New Book Validates Transgressive Nature of the 'Multiverse'

MIT physicist -cum-novelist Alan Lightman's new book , “The Accidental Universe: The World You Thought You Knew,” explores the way recent (and not-so-recent) discoveries and theories in physics and cosmology affect our take on the big questions. Often these happen to be questions he additionally explores in his novels, i.e. the meaning of life, the nature of morality, the importance of love and the general human condition including whether there is any ulterior 'purpose' to life.

Lightman's book is presented as a collection of essays but for me the one that struck the biggest chord was the first which gives the book its title ('The Accidental Universe - The World You Thought You Knew'). Therein, Lightman explains the emerging consensus among theoretical physicists that our own universe is only one among countless alternate universes, universes where the properties of matter and energy may differ significantly from our own. Physicists call this “the multiverse.”


Let's go back to explore more of the multiverse concept as it arises from M-theory. In the diagram below one begins with a zero-dimensional point particle. Let the particle move, say from point x1 to point x2 and it sweeps out a linear  (1-D) ‘string'. Take the 1-dimensional string and move it through space and it sweeps out a 2-dimensional band or what is called a p-brane. Take this p–brane and sweep it out in a perpendicular direction and one obtains a higher (p +1) dimensional world volume.

The quantitative description of brane phenomena is enormously complex and far beyond the scope of this blog, or even a small book. However, some simple insight and appreciation for the complexity can be gained by looking at the simplest brane of all, the D-0 brane consistent with the point particle. Without going into the details of obtaining the (fiber) bundle map, we require for completeness the tachyon field described by the expression for T(x) given in the upper right of Fig. 2, where the summation is taken from u= 1 to u = 9, with x_u the coordinates for the rotation space (group) R(9), and Gamma_u , the matrices needed. Then the tachyon field consistent with the above would be given by the small matrix expression in the upper right of Fig. 2.


For a system of D0- branes,  parameterized by such matrices and defined by the given tachyon field (T(x)), we have a system of 9 x 9 matrices, defined by the large array shown in Fig. 2. Since the fields, and dynamics (as well as the tachyon field) are occurring at the level of the vacuum, that is the first place to start. Thus, to manipulate the D-brane in Fig. 2 it seems clear that energy consonant with a vacuum energy – or more exactly, a vacuum energy density- is needed.

The energy density attendant on vacuum manipulation must have some lower limit, estimated to be ~ 10 ^94 g/cm^3

This is an astounding amount of mass-energy density! To give a rough comparison, the mass of the Sun is 2 x 10^33 g. The mass of the Milky Way galaxy is roughly 10 ^45 g. The mass of 100 billion galaxies the size and mass of the Milky Way is ~ 10^56 g. In other words, the mass density or energy density shown is more than ample to account for an entire universe!

I reiterate here that:

1) D-branes, by definition, are dynamical objects that can fluctuate.

2) The dynamical aspect is a result of the ability of D-branes to couple to closed strings (Fig. 2) Recall here that the latter embody a description of gravity and M-theory proper combines supergravity with Brane theory.

Now, I look at the simplified,  "uniform"  multiverse model - shown in the diagram below-  which might be considered a first iteration to a genuinely realistic multiverse model:

















Each longitude circle is a quotient space q1 and each latitude circle is a quotient space q2. More exactly, q2 denotes the fifth dimensional connector that links multiple "parallel" universes, i.e. for the model shown. Each of these can be represented by one single longitudinal loop marking off a coordinate on q1 (e.g. Θ). Since time can be broken down in fundamental units of  Planck time or tau (τ) then each q1 is theoretically separated from its neighbor universe by one tau. This neighbor is impossible to access from within the fixed coordinate quotient space (q1) but can be accessed if one could find a way to get to q2 and traverse it. Thus, in simplest terms, each “slice” q1 can be regarded as an alternate or parallel universe within the multiverse. (Again, the model shown is only for discussion purposes and may not in any way correlate to the actual multiverse!)


More explicitly, one may adopt absolute toroidal (Θ,φ) coordinates to locate events in the multiverse system. There are a number of fascinating aspects of this model. First, the toroidal hypersphere implies an endlessly repeating universe that is the same in each new cycle[1] - instead of being different (i.e. with different physical constants as the reprocessed mode, e.g. of physicist John Wheeler demands). The key to this aspect is the fact that the radius R remains constant.

A second intriguing aspect is that the exact same point of space-time occurs for each "beginning" (Big Bang) and "end" ("Big Crunch"). This point is easily identified in the diagram as the most constricted part of the interior "hour-glass" shape defining the inner wall of the torus-hypersphere. Third, the overall configuration is exactly the same as that defined for the high-energy "twistors" used in the 1980's by Roger Penrose and his colleagues at Oxford.[2] The twistors are discrete points of space, each defined by 4 real numbers and 4 imaginary numbers.

The physical differences manifested via the generation of different universes in Lightman's generic  multiverse  (contrasted with the one I've depicted) would obviously be  much more significant , since each one would exhibit a  completely different assembly of 'universal' constants. Thus, no two component universes would be expected to be duplicates, given inherent differences, say in the fine structure constant, the Newtonian gravitational constant (G), and the charge to mass ratio for the electron, e/m.   Certain other factors, such as the critical ratio w (= (p / rho) = -1 ) would also determine the amount of dark energy in a given universe. Depending on whether w is a little bit greater or lesser — poof!- in one universe you have some degree of 'order' and matter, in another nothing. Thus,  there could well be an infinite, or nearly infinite, number of universes, in which there exists nothing but a cold 'fog' of evenly dispersed particles. In others, there may be only a single, tiny, infinitely dense point. In this milieu ours is merely one of a few universes configured so as to allow life.

All this implies that ours is an accidental universe, rather than  one that's emerged as a result of inexorable and inevitable set laws which have been discovered and understood by humanity. As the  Nobel-winning physicist Steven Weinberg put it, “We now find ourselves at a historic fork in the road we travel to understand the laws of nature. If the multiverse idea is correct, the style of fundamental physics will be radically changed.”

One might go so far as to even say the multiverse concept is transgressive at its core. As Lightman himself has put it, "the philosophical ethos of science is torn from its roots.” That ethos rests on the conviction that science is moving us toward a more and more complete understanding of the laws of nature and that “these basic principles are so restrictive that only one self-consistent universe is possible, like a crossword puzzle with only one solution.”

But if an infinite or nearly infinite number of self-consistent universes exist that all goes out the proverbial window. And the laws that may apply in our universe are as useless as a hammer without a handle in any other.

Needless to say, the multiverse also offers a refutation of the concept of Intelligent Design.  If an infinite or nearly infinite number of universes within it are merely cold, dark voids then wherefore the "designer"? In fact, he, she or it isn't needed at all because the very creation of the multiverse via vacuum energy in a spontaneous quantum fluctuation makes it redundant. But again, if the designer isn't evident in most of the cosmi, why the need to postulate it? Just so one of the infinite number of universes can be said to have one? That's totally ludicrous.

Yes, as Lightman has conceded (interview with salon.com), it may be very hard to test for, far less prove that a multiverse exists. But at least the concept offers a superior natural alternative to the supernatural bollocks spouted by diehard religionists.  In any case, a multiverse such as described is far easier to swallow (and based on rational -mathematical principles)  than an infinite Being who supposedly controls everything  and is everywhere, but yet is powerless to stop evil - whether  human (such as the beheadings of infants now going on in the Central African Republic)  or natural, such as the tsunami that killed over 200,000 in 2004..

-----
[1] This could also be interpreted as a "timeless" universe. See, e.g. Rucker, R.: 1977, Geometry, Relativity and the Fourth Dimension, Dover Publications, New York, p. 105. According to Rucker:"There is no last time around or next time around because nothing is moving...we feel that we are going through time but that is an illusion."

[2] For an excellent article on twistors, see: Spinning New Realities, by R.L. Forward, in Science 80 (December, 1980), p. 40.

Creation Via the Big Bang? How About I Call Bollocks?

Diagram of the multiverse with two localization angles ( Θ  and φ) which may be used to pinpoint parallel universes within it.


It seems our indefatigable fundie creationist is now at it again, trying to link the "Big Bang" to Genesis 1:1 by asserting (like the Pope did to Stephen Hawking, as reported in Hawking's book, 'A Brief History of Time') that it is "the moment of creation". Hardly!

Instead, with the given data we have, a more powerful assertion can be made that the big bang is actually only one of gazillions of initiated cosmi all of which are integrated into one Multiverse (see image). Moreoever, all such cosmi have originated or been incepted spontaneously - via quantum fluctuations.

The fundie's claim that:

"Rather than disproving creation, the big bang theory reinforces the idea that the universe began at a specific point in time"

Therefore amounts to total doggerel and codswallop! (Another interesting aspect is that barely two years ago this same fundie-creationist was demonizing the Big Bang as contradicting creation by deity! Well, he can't have it both ways!) . Anyway, let's first examine the Multiverse theory to show why and how it works as well as fits the observations.

Regarding the basis for inception of so many cosmi, the key point is cosmic inflation occurring in each with the inflation interval conducive to parallel universe onset. Hence, soon after each respective expansion start (technically referred to as a "big bang" - though this is something of a misnomer because it isn't like any explosion.)  Regarding inflation, most current standard theories propose inflation starting at about 10^-35 s and doubling over a period of anywhere from 10^-43  to 10^-35 s after the initial inception. Estimates are that at least 85 such 'doublings' would be required to arrive at the phase where entropy rather than field resident energy dominates.

The initial size (radius) of our universe would have been likely less than a proton's - maybe 1 fermi (fm) or 10^-15  m, by the time the doubling process began. By the time it ended (after 90 'doublings') it would have been around 1.25 x 10¹²   m. This is roughly eight times the distance of Earth from the Sun. In effect, the role of inflation is to give cosmic expansion a huge head start or boost, without which our universe would be much smaller. Other parallel universes emerging around the same time might have been larger or smaller depending upon their specific values for their fundamental physical constants (e.g. alpha, the "fine structure constant", h - the Planck constant, G, and eta the permittivity of free space).

In the graphic, I show an "idealized multiverse" replete with parallel universes, each occupying longitudinal geodesics specified under a coordinate φ, and separated by uniform angular measure Θ from adjacent universes. The whole represents a 5-dimensional manifold in a toroidal topology. The topological space of the hypertoroid cosmos can therefore be represented by the global state space, a product of absolute hypertorus coordinate time (Θ) and 'all-space'(φ):GL = Θ X φ.

The concept immediately shows that the claim of the whole "running down" owing to the 2nd law of thermodynamics (the fundie cites god-monger Robert Jastrow - a pseudo-astronomer, comparing it to the running down of a "clock") is poppycock. The reason is clear, because each parallel cosmos is only one part of the whole not the whole itself. Hence, if we liken the whole to an integrated thermodynamic system, the loss of energy in one (insulated) region - say via open systems within it -  doesn't mean the entire configuration runs down. In any case we also need to note here that the 2nd law doesn't obtain in a CLOSED system, i.e. the entropy remains constant in such systems. (Bear in mind each cosmos in the Multiverse is a closed system unto itself).  As noted by Kittel ( 'Thermal Physics' , John Wiley & Sons, p. 65):

The entropy is constant in a closed system, that is, in a system of constant energy and constant number of particles. The Sun, for example, is not a closed system: it loses energy by radiation and is cooling down. It is not clear, according to geophysicists, whether the total entropy of the Earth is increasing or decreasing at this moment

So this also applies to the ensemble of parallel cosmi in the Multiverse.  What about the evidence for the Multiverse and specifically parallel cosmi?  In his book The Fabric of Reality (pp. 38-47), David Deutsch adopts the setup (Fig. 2-4) of a monochromatic light beam that passes through successive screens with single holes. The image presented on the screen is a central bright spot with darker penumbra around it. With a two slit pattern for the screens (p. 41) the experiment becomes more interesting in that successive barriers to generate the patterns engenders what Deutsch calls "shadow photons".


He acknowledges (p. 45) that "tangible" (i.e. measurable) photons are grounded in our tangible, current universe, but also that shadow photons can be thought of as collectively coming from a parallel universe. He then clarifies this in mind-blowing fashion (p. 45):

"For it turns out that the shadow particles are partititoned among themselves in exactly the same way as the universe of tangible particles is partitioned from them. In other words, they do not form a single, homogeneous parallel universe vastly larger than the tangible one, but rather a huge number of parallel universes, each similar in composition to the tangible one, and each obeying the same laws of physics,"

This is mind-blowing indeed, but ultimately based on well known physics.

Now, what about any and all of the assorted parallel cosmi starting from nothing? This can also be shown but will require more patience because of the mathematical underpinning (which I seriously doubt the fundie-creationist possesses, though he's very good at putting up blogs which quote word for word from some creationist "scientist" or other- but not from himself, plausibly because he will be exposed as I did in my earlier blog) 

The basic concept in all "big bangs" is they are results of spontaneous quantum fluctuations from a quantum vacuum.   Thus the quantum vacuum provides an essentially infinite negative energy source (called the Dirace Ether) by which energy can be sustained and used to incept any and all big bangs. (See, for example, Luciano Boi: Chapter 2, 'The Role of Vacuum in Modern Physics'  in 'The Quantum Fluctuation',  Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011)

Consider the vacuum state for spontaneous inception of the cosmos, and the conditions that bear on it.

First, the entropy of the universe is now defined in terms of a "holographic principle" that reckons in the Planck length and quantum fluctuations. It is defined (see e.g. Lawrence B. Crowell, Quantum Fluctations in Spacetime', p. 125):

k_B[KL_p² / 3)^-1  + (ln 2)/2]

Given this, and the condition of zero net mass energy, the spontaneous and acausal inception of the cosmos is actually the simplest formulation for its origin. Even the smallest fluctuation in the vacuum whereby


delta E ~ h/ delta t


leads to an instantaneous local deviation in mass-energy and the explosive origin of a cosmic expansion predicated on negative pressure. (See previous blog entry). As noted by Crowell (op. cit., p. 134):

"A net zero cosmology is the most economical one that can emerge from the vacuum state".

Even more important (ibid.):


"Since K is a measure of the number of Q-bits ....a cosmology with N x Q-bits will exhibit Poisson statistics."

As anyone who has used Poisson statistics knows, these are based on a genuine phenomenal randomness.
Returning to the trace, let the event horizon of the vacuum bubble be defined by


rS(g) = 2 ct


Where r = L_p, the Planck length (L_p = {Gh/2 π c³ }^1/2 ) and S(g) is the action, then we will have the cosmological constant applicable to de Sitter space: K =

(n – 1)(n – 2)/ [2 q² ]

where q is a scale factor, and n denoted the dimension (4) of the volume under consideration. Now for S(g) ~ t ^1/2 , R (the scalar curvature of de Sitter space) = 0, so S(g) = 0


However, the above happens because the Einstein tensor (T_ik) has trace = 0 in the early universe. The ‘trace’ is the sum of the diagonal elements of a tensor, e.g.

Tr(M) = 0

where M =


[1 0 0 0]
[0 -1 0 0]
[0 0 1 0 ]
[0 0 0 -1 ]


Now, if the "preparation device outcome" is none other than the net zero mass vacuum state on quantum fluctuation, such that dx ~ dL/ L (where L is the length scale of the volume, viz. dL >= (L*L_p²)^1/2 , then Tr(M) will apply to good approximation, and the causality assumption is finito. The question is WHY? A clue is provided by Seth Lloyd in his monograph 'Programming the Universe'(p. 118):


"What's going on is that quantum mechanics, unlike classical mechanics, can create information out of nothing"

Thus, what has transpired, is that the holographic fluctuation has not only incepted an inital mass-energy dE ~ H/ dt -> E/c²  but also information! The information inception occurred acausally precisely because the Hilbert space states are different for a vacuum fluctuation than for ordinary QM.


To fix ideas, while the expectation value [E(Q,A)] of an observable represented by a bounded operator A, on separable Hilbert space H is given by:

[E(Q,A)] = tr (Q, A) where Q is a statistical operator, this presumes the ensemble representation is deterministic or 'causal' if for all g in G:

f_A(g) in S(A)


where S(A) is the spectrum of A with respect to the algebra L(H), but the condition does not apply in the case of quantum fluctuations on L_p.

For this reason other avenues can pursued - for example, using Riemann's Zeta function Z(E) in terms of divergent, infinite Dirichlet series that can be transformed into finite sums such as:

Z'(1/2 + iE) ~ 2 exp {- i π N(E)} å m=₁ to (E/2 π)^1/2  m^-1/2  cos(E lnm -  π N(e))

in conjunction with Gutzwiller's trace equation, and a more germane representation for the trace:

Tr G(E) ~ Tr G_o(E) ~ d/ dE {ln Z (E)

Taking into account the Poisson statistical nature attached to the fluctuations, whereby:

delta N = [N]^1/2  and delta V ~ G[V]^1/2


where delta N is the fluctuation of Q-bits arising, and delta V the corresponding fluctuation in volume, then we are led to the conclusion of Cromwell (ibid.).

"The recent discovery that the universe is accelerating outward is the latest of important results, which indicates the universe could well be a net zero (mass-energy). This then indicates that the observed universe is the result of a fluctuation in the quantum gravity vacuum"


In other words, the observed accelerating expansion negates the entropic "wind-down" and since it is itself a negative energy phenomenon, it points to a negative vacuum energy fluctuation for cosmic inception.. Thus dark energy is responsible for the acceleration and is given by the equation of state: w = (Pressure/ energy density) = -1 so energy density(r)  = - p  which is consistent with Einstein's general theory of relativity. In this case, the existence of a negative pressure is consistent with general relativity's allowance for a "repulsive gravity". 

The beauty of this development is that it rests on its own merits, and doesn't require absolute proof of a Multiverse. In other words, whether or not we inhabit a multiverse or universe, the big bang is evidence for a spontaneous inception from a quantum vacuum, NOT "creation". The fundie can try to link Genesis to the Big Bang all he wants, but in the end he's on a fool's errand!

Is It Possible to Detect a Parallel Universe?

Diagram of the multiverse with two localization angles which may be used to pinpoint parallel universes within it. Might it be possible to conduct an experiment to demonstrate the influence of one such parallel universe?


Perhaps, in these tempestuous days, it is comforting to speculate that somewhere in the multiverse a parallel universe exists with another Earth in which there is no threat of global warming, alternative fuels provide most of the energy, the population is below carrying capacity and has all its needs met, and oh yes....politicians can conduct civil debates and the government always works on behalf of all citizens.

Perhaps such a place exists, but before such ruminations can be taken seriously, it would behoove us to first at least demonstrate that a parallel universe can be even remotely detected from within the confines of our own. Before considering such experiments - a bit of background.

Note that the "parallel universes" being considered here I regard as actual, separable PHYSICAL cosmi - and likely incepted from the selfsame primordial vacuum state (via cosmic inflation) as our own universe. Thus, an actual primordial vacuum - not a human observer or consciousness "making observational choices" (as in the case of the Hugh Everett 'Many worlds' interpretation of quantum theory)  is the source of the real parallel universes. Thus, all putative parallel universes plausibly emerged from the primordial vacuum the way ours did, e.g. from the Big Bang.

Regarding inflation, most current standard theories propose inflation starting at about  10^-35 s  and doubling over a period of anywhere from 10^-43 to 10^-35 s after the initial inception. Estimates are that at least 85 such 'doublings' would be required to arrive at the phase where entropy rather than field resident energy dominates. The initial size (radius) of our universe would have been likely less than a proton's - maybe 1 fermi (fm) or 10^-15 m, by the time the doubling process began. By the time it ended (after 90 'doublings') it would have been around 1.25 x 10¹²  m. This is roughly eight times the distance of Earth from the Sun. In effect, the role of inflation is to give cosmic expansion a huge head start or boost, without which our universe would be much smaller. Other parallel universes emerging around the same time might have been larger or smaller depending upon their specific values for their fundamental physical constants (e.g. alpha, the "fine structure constant", h - the Planck constant, G, and eta the permittivity of free space).


In the graphic, I show an "idealized multiverse" replete with parallel universes, each occupying longitudinal geodesics specified under a coordinate φ, and separated by uniform angular measure Θ from adjacent universes. The whole represents a 5-dimensional manifold in a toroidal topology. The topological space of the hypertoroid cosmos can therefore be represented by the global state space, a product of absolute hypertorus coordinate time (Θ) and 'all-space'(φ):GL = Θ X φ


Now, I repeat,  this is an idealized model which assumes that N-cosmi were incepted at equal intervals of time - as manifested by the equal spacing in Θ. In principle, we don't know a priori how "close" in complex time another parallel universe may be to our own. When one uses the assumption of "equal time intervals" between inceptions in our idealized multiverse, one isn't stating what those times are, and so they could be minuscule - and the smallest time unit imaginable is the unit tau, τ. (About 10^-43  s, and note Θ = f(τ).)

If we specify such an exact parallel universe time displacement we might be able to show how one parallel universe can be "mapped" topologically onto an adjacent one. As an example, let two parallel universes be distinguished by a 1-τ difference in fundamental time parameter, viz. [1 + 2τ] and [1 + 3τ], then we would require for connection, a mapping such that:

(Universe 'A'): f:X -> X = f(Θ,φ) = (Θ, 2φ)
(Universe 'B'): f:X -> X = f(Θ,φ) = (Θ, 3φ)


which means the absolute coordinate φ is mapped onto itself 2 times for [Universe A] and mapped onto itself 3 times for [Universe B]. Clearly, there’ll be coincidences for which: f(Θ,2φ) = f(Θ,3φ) wherein the two universes will 'interweave' a number of times.

For example, such interweaving will occur when φ = π/2 in [A] and φ = π/3 in [B]. The total set or system of multiple points obtained in this way is called a Synchronous temporal matrix. The distinguishing feature of this matrix is that once a single point is encountered, it is probable that others will as well. If one hyperspace transformation can occur linking parallel universes, A and B, then conceivably more such transformations can occur, linking A and C, D and E etc.

What if both absolute toroidal coordinates (Θ,φ) map into themselves the same number of times? Say, something like:


f:X -> = f(Θ, φ) = (2Θ, 2φ): Universe A


f:X -> = f(Θ, φ) = (3Θ, 3φ): Universe B


For example, given the previous conditions for coordinate φ, now let 2Θ = 3Θ for discrete values of Θ (e.g. 2π). For all multiples of 2π, the same toroidal cosmos will be experienced - if the absolute time coordinates are equal (e.g. π/2 = φ in A, and π/3 = φ in B) then we will have: Universe A = Universe B.

What does this equality mean? I conjecture that it implies a briefly inter-phased chaotic state prevails in both A and B where the fundamental physical constants are not fixed (in a future blog I will appeal to quantum chaos to describe this). For all intents and purposes it is as if a "portal" of sorts exists between them, though that doesn't mean it'd be accessible to humans. We say that there exists "an interpenetration of different parallel universes" but not necessarily entailing transfer of bodies from one to the other. Note that though the physical state spaces (e.g. with constants h, G, e/m, etc. )may be alike, they can still differ in dimensionality! And we cannot disregard fractal dimensionality.

IF one has this condition, THEN it is feasible that the (David) Deutsch experiment (See: The Fabric of Reality) to detect the interphasing of a parallel universe can be carried out, and the penetration of our universe by a parallel one validated.

In his book(pp. 38-47), Deutsch adopts the setup (Fig. 2-4) of a monochromatic light beam that passes through successive screens with single holes.  The image presented on the screen is a central bright spot with darker penumbra around it. With a two slit pattern for the screens (p. 41) the experiment becomes more interesting in that successive barriers to generate the patterns engenders what Deutsch calls  "shadow photons".

He acknowledges (p. 45) that "tangible" (i.e. measurable) photons are grounded in our tangible, current universe, but also that shadow photons can be thought of as collectively coming from a parallel universe.  He then clarifies this in mind-blowing fashion (p. 45):

"For it turns out that the shadow particles are partititoned among themselves in exactly the same way as the universe of tangible particles is partitioned from them. In other words, they do not form a single, homogeneous parallel universe vastly larger than the tangible one, but rather a huge number of parallel universes, each similar in composition to the tangible one, and each obeying the same laws of physics, but differing in that the particles are in different positions in each universe."

In other words, using the graphic I've shown, we would need multiple ordered pair angles (Θ, φ)  to actually lead to an incomprehensible number, thereby denoting all the shadow photons in one of Deutsch's experiments. But the existence of this multiplicity is what Deutsch uses to justify the term "multiverse" with which I concur. A final challenge to be met, is - I think - reconciling the physical multiverse with the (Hugh Everett III)  'Many worlds' interpretation of QM. I believe this requires using separate wave functions for each inflation-based parallel universe but exactly how each of these would be described is left to future QM workers. (They'd also need to ponder how 'many worlds' can be revamped if each wave state also coincides with a genuine, inflation-generated parallel universe. Also: Is the wave function a wholly physical representation (analogous to David Bohm's real de Broglie waves) , a statistical artifact or a combination of each?)

In the meantime, we've lots to ponder, including whether unknown to us sporadic interpenetrations can occur, say between a 'Universe A' and 'Universe B' and what effects they might have in our real world - say if our universe is denoted B. What physical factors might lead to such interpenetration or interphasing? Can any anomalous terrestrial events - like deja vu- which physicist Michio Kaku has speculated might occur in specific or unusual cases and not be merely memory short circuits -  arise from "flipping between universes? Perhaps before we go there we need to nail down the properties of these "shadow particles" more rigorously first!