The multiverse idea
states that there are an arbitrarily large number of Universes like our
own, but whether there are any with differences in the laws of physics
remains an open question.
"We are all agreed that your theory is
crazy. The question that divides us is whether it is crazy enough to
have a chance of being correct." Niels Bohr spoke these words to
Wolfgang Pauli about the latter's theory of elementary particles, but it
could just as easily apply to many of today's most controversial modern
physics ideas. One that's
gotten a lot of attention recently is
that of a Multiverse.
In short, it's the idea that our Universe, and all that's contained
within it, is just one small region of a larger existence that includes
many similar, and possibly many different, Universes like our own. On
the one hand, if our current theories of physics are true, the
Multiverse absolutely must exist. But on the other hand, as
Sabine Hossenfelder rightly points out, it's unlikely to teach us anything useful.
The observable
Universe might be 46 billion light years in all directions from our
point of view, but there's certainly more, unobservable Universe,
perhaps even an infinite amount, just like ours beyond that.
Why must the Multiverse exist? Quite simply: there must be more
Universe than the part that is observable to us. If you look just at the
portion of the Universe we can see, you can measure its spatial
curvature, and find that it's incredibly close to flat. No regions
repeat; no locations connect or loop back on one another; no
large-curvature regions show themselves on a scale approaching that of
the Universe we can observe. If the Universe were a hypersphere, the
four-dimensional analogue of a sphere, it must have a radius of
curvature hundreds of times the size of what we can observe. There must
be more Universe out there than what we can access.
Inflation causes
space to expand exponentially, which can very quickly result in any
pre-existing curved space appearing flat. If the Universe is curved, it
has a radius of curvature hundreds of times larger than what we can
observe.
But this isn't just a conclusion from observations; it's the same
conclusion that we'd draw from our leading theory of the Universe's
origin: cosmological inflation. Prior to the hot Big Bang, the fabric of
the Universe was expanding at an exponential rate, where every 10
-35 seconds or so, it would double in scale in all dimensions. Inflation went on for at least as long as 10
-33
seconds or so, but could have lasted far longer: seconds, years,
millennia, trillions of years or an arbitrarily long length of time.
When inflation ends, the Universe we're left with is stretched flat, the
same temperature everywhere, and far, far vaster than anything we can
ever hope to observe. Considering the finite nature of all we can see,
inflation is the natural way to create a Multiverse of possibilities.
Bock et al. (2006, astro-ph/0604101); modifications by E. Siegel
Inflation set up
the hot Big Bang and gave rise to the observable Universe we have access
to, but we can only measure the last tiny fraction of a second of
inflation's impact on our Universe.
Without a solid knowledge of how inflation began, or if it ever had a
beginning, we cannot know how much "Multiverse" there is out there
beyond our actual Universe. But based on the properties of inflation
that imprint themselves on the Universe we inhabit, we can draw a few
conclusions about it. In particular:
- The lack of spatial curvature,
- The adiabatic nature and spectrum of fluctuations imprinted on the cosmic microwave background,
- The magnitude of imperfections that gave rise to the large-scale structure we see,
- The constraints on the gravitational waves inflation could have created,
- And the superhorizon fluctuations that we observe (on scales larger than the visible Universe),
all give us some important constraints on the type of inflation that
occurred, and teach us two very important lessons, if the implications
of these verified and validated theories are correct, about our
Multiverse.
The fluctuations in
the CMB are based on primordial fluctuations produced by inflation. In
particular, the 'flat part' on large scales (at left) have no
explanation without inflation, and yet the magnitude of the fluctuations
constrains the maximum energy scales the Universe reached at the end of
inflation. It's far lower than the Planck scale.
1.) Inflation did not occur at arbitrarily high energies. There's an energy scale at which the laws of physics no longer make sense: the Planck scale, or about 10
19
GeV. This is about 100 trillion times larger than the maximum energies
the LHC achieves, and a factor of about 100 million higher than the
highest energy cosmic particles we've ever detected in the Universe.
From the imprints of inflation, we can conclude that the temperature at
the start of the hot Big Bang never got higher than about 10
15 or 10
16
GeV, safely below the Planck scale. This implies that inflation likely
occurred below that scale as well. If true, this would mean that the
inflationary epoch obeyed the current laws of physics, as well as every
region of the Multiverse that inflation created.
Artist’s
logarithmic scale conception of the observable universe. Note that we're
limited in how far we can see back by the amount of time that's
occurred since the hot Big Bang: 13.8 billion years, or (including the
expansion of the Universe) 46 billion light years. Anyone living in our
Universe, at any location, would see almost exactly the same thing from
their vantage point.
2.) There are countless regions where inflation did not end, and still continues today.
The idea that the Big Bang happened everywhere at once may apply to our
Universe, but certainly ought not to apply to the vast majority of
Universes existing in the Multiverse. Assuming that inflation is a
quantum field, like all fields we know of, it must spread out over time,
meaning that in any region of space, it has a probability of ending at a
certain time, but also a probability of continuing on for a while
longer.
If inflation is a
quantum field, then the field value spreads out over time, with
different regions of space taking different realizations of the field
value. In many regions, the field value will wind up in the bottom of
the valley, ending inflation, but in many more, inflation will continue,
arbitrarily far into the future.
In the region that became our Universe, which may encompass a large
region that goes far beyond what we can observe, inflation ended
all-at-once. But beyond that region, there are even more regions where
it didn't end. Those regions grow and inflate as time goes on, and even
though many of those new regions will see inflation end, the ones where
it doesn't will continue to inflate. Inflation, therefore, should be
eternal to the future, at least in some regions of space. This is
irrespective of whether it was eternal to the past or not.
Wherever inflation
occurs (blue cubes), it gives rise to exponentially more regions of
space with each step forward in time. Even if there are many cubes where
inflation ends (red Xs), there are far more regions where inflation
will continue on into the future. The fact that this never comes to an
end is what makes inflation 'eternal' once it begins.
Accepting all of this leads to an inescapable conclusion: we live in a
Multiverse, and our Universe is just one of countlessly many that exist
within it. However, the standard predictions that come out of this are
difficult to do science with. They include:
- That different regions where inflation ends should never collide or interact.
- That the fundamental constants and laws in different regions should be the same as they are here.
- And that unless inflation was truly eternal to the past, there
isn't enough "space" to contain all the parallel Universes that the
many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics would require.
The idea of
parallel Universes, as applied to Schrödinger's cat. As fun and
compelling as this idea is, without an infinitely large region of space
to hold these possibilities in, even inflation won't create enough
Universes to contain all the possibilities that 13.8 billion years of
cosmic evolution have brought us.
It's always possible to construct a contrived model that defies these
generic predictions, and some scientists make a career of doing so.
Writing in NPR, Sabine Hossenfelder is right to criticize that approach, stating, "
Just because a theory is falsifiable doesn't mean it's scientific."
But just because variants of the Multiverse are falsifiable, and just
because the consequences of its existence are unobservable, doesn't mean
that the Multiverse isn't real. If cosmic inflation, General
Relativity, and quantum field theory are all correct, the Multiverse
likely is real, and we're living in it.
An illustration of
multiple, independent Universes, causally disconnected from one another
in an ever-expanding cosmic ocean, is one depiction of the Multiverse
idea.
Just don't expect it to solve your most burning questions about the
Universe. For that, you need physics you can put to an experimental or
observable test. Until that day arrives, the consequences of a
Multiverse will likely remain in the realm of science fiction: where
they presently belong. It's okay to speculate, but if you insist on
attributing a physics problem's solution to an untestable feature of the
Universe, you're essentially giving up on physics. We all know that the
mysteries of the Universe are hard, but that's no reason to not even
try to find a solution. The Multiverse is real, but provides the answer
to absolutely nothing.
