HOW DO WE KNOW MULTIVERSES EXIST?

Bernard Carr
What do we mean by
Observe directly
KNOW
Observe indirectly
Infer theoretically
Levels I
MULTIVERSE
Level II
Level III
Level IV
EXIST
Mathematically
Physically

Recent developments in cosmology

and particle physics suggest that
our universe - rather than being
unique - could be just one of many
universes. Since the physical
constants can be different in other
universes, the fine-tunings which
appear necessary for the emergence
of life may be explained.

CAMBRIDGE 2001
Alex Vilenkin
John Barrow
George Ellis
Martin Rees
Bill Stoeger
Jeremy Butterfield
Max Tegmark

Andrei Linde

CHANGE IN ATTITUDE TO MULTIVERSE

Frank Wilczek
The previous gathering [2001] had a defensive air. It prominently
featured a number of physicists who subsisted on the fringes,
voices in the wilderness who had for many years promoted
strange arguments about conspiracies among fundamental
constants and alternative universes. Their concerns and
approaches seemed totally alien to the consensus vanguard
of theoretical physics, which was busy successfully constructing
a unique and mathematically perfect Universe. Now [2005] the
vanguard has marched off to join the prophets in the wilderness.
Critics gone from It makes no sense and I hate it to I hate it.

LESSONS OF HISTORY
GEOCENTRIC VIEW

Aristotle

Supernova in Cassiopeia 1572

Crassa ingenia. O coecos coeli spectores
(Oh thick wits. Oh blind watchers of the sky)
Preface of De Nova Stella

Tycho Brahe

Lesson 1: theoretical prejudice should not blind one to evidence

HELIOCENTRIC VIEW

1542

August Comte (1859)

Never, by any means, will we be able to study their chemical

compositions [stars]. The field of positive philosophy lies
entirely within the Solar System, the study of the Universe
being inaccessible in any possible science.
Lesson 2: New observational developments are hard to anticipate

GALACTOCENTRIC VIEW

The Great Debate (1921)

Harlow Shapley (1885-1972)
believed it unlikely that nebulae
could be outside the Galaxy

Heber Curtis (1872-1942)

led group supporting island
universe idea

Resolution of Debate
Edwin Hubble
(1889-1953)
measured distance to
M31 (Andromeda) in
1925
using Cepheid variable
stars
500 kpc outside
Galaxy (10s kpc in size)
Hubble, H P,
Proc.Am.Astr.Soc.
48 139-142 (1925)

6106 yrs

Alexander
Friedmann

Lesson 3: Dont reject theory because no observational support

12% c

2109 yrs

Hubble

vd
Recession

Speed of source is v
Distance of source is d
v = H 0d

the Hubble Time is

1
9
H 0 = (13.7 0.2) 10 y
Compare ages of oldest known stars in
Globular clusters (13 2)109 yrs
( Confirmed by HST (712) & WMAP analysis, 2003)

Ralph Alpha & Robert Herman (1946)

Cosmology was then a sceptically regarded discipline, not
worked in by sensible scientists.

Type Ia supernovae show evidence

for speeding up of expansion

Cosmic Background Radiation

Inflation theory invokes this in early universe

but we also need it at the present epoch

Planck

COSMOCENTRIC VIEW

Lesson 4: Tide of history is against cosmocentric view

What we call the universe is always growing and

as it does so nature of legitimate science changes

The observable universe is a miniscule part of

larger physical reality. What lies beyond horizon?

Scientific

American

May 2003 issue

COSMOLOGY

Parallel Universes:
a direct implication
of cosmological
observations
Max Tegmark

Eternal inflation

Many pictures of eternal inflation

M-THEORY

Calabi-Yau space

String Landscape

String Landscape

POPULAR ARGUMENT FOR MULTIVERSE

Cosmology => inflation, acceleration

Particle physics =>

string landscape

Crucial link is vacuum energy

M-theory

Multiverse

Multiverse is culmination of macro-micro connection

OTHER MULTIVERSE PROPOSALS

Cyclic Universe

Many universes in time

Braneworlds

Many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics

COSMOLOGY

Cyclic model
Eternal Inflation
Colliding branes

PARTICLE PHYSICS

Quantum many worlds

String landscape
Quantum cosmology

Message 3
Cosmology and particle physics suggest
that there could be many other universes

Cosmological Natural Selection

Quantum Theory + Relativity Theory + Darwinian Evolution

Smolin

Black hole formation => baby universe the small variation of constants
Most likely to be in universe which maximizes black hole formation!

Tegmark

HOW DO WE KNOW LEVEL I MULTIVERSES EXIST?

Reess slippery slope argument
Accelerate at 1 g for 100 years
Wormholes

HOW DO WE KNOW LEVEL II MULTIVERSES EXIST?

CMB => T/T~1 for 10100 Rh
Probability distributions
Bubble collisions
Giant voids
Extra dimensions

COLLISIONS WITH OTHER UNIVERSES

Garriga, Guth & Vilenkin (2006)
Bubbles will experience collisions with infinite number of bubbles,
violating isotropy and homogeneity. Observer not at centre sees
anisotropic collision rate peaking in outward direction but memory
of onset of inflation persists.
Aguire, Johnson & Shommer (2007)
Benign bubble collision could give scar
in CMB and explain axis of evil.
Chang, Kleban & Levi (2008, 2009)
Benign collision if our less than for
neighbour. Otherwise form wall between
universes which sweeps. Can produce
hot or cold spot in CMB.

GIANT VOIDS AS EVIDENCE OF OTHER UNIVERSES

Holman, Mersini-Haughton & Takahashi (2006).
Neighbouring universes affect each
other through entanglement. Predicts
giant voids in north and south.
Giant void discovered in north by
Rudnick et al. (2007). Very unlikely
in standard big bang (cf. Peiris).
Mersini-Haughton & Holman (2008)
Also predict inexplicable dark flow, later
detected by Kashlinsky et al.

Only current observational evidence for multiverse

HOW DO WE KNOW LEVEL III MULTIVERSES EXIST?

Quantum computers ?

HOW DO WE KNOW LEVEL IV MULTIVERSES EXIST?

Final Theory is typical of life-supporting ones ?

BEST EVIDENCE FOR MULTIVERSE IS FINE-TUNING

ANTHROPOCENTRIC VIEW
Man is central to the Universe
MECHANISTIC VIEW
Universe exists independent of our awareness of it.
Man and mind are irrelevant
ANTHROPIC VIEW
Some features of the Universe are explained
by requirement that life and mind should arise
EVOLVING COMPLEXITY VIEW
Big Bang should lead to increasing order
and complexity, culminating in mind

FINE-TUNING OF COUPLING CONSTANTS

Strong force

S ~ 10

Electric force

e ~ 10-2

Weak force

W ~ 10-10

G ~ 10-40

Gravitational force

Will the Final Theory of Everything explain these values?

Planets
Supernovae

------>

G ~ e20

------>

G ~ w4

These relationships required for life but unexplained by physics

Just Six Numbers (Martin Rees)

1. N = electrical force/gravitational force =1036
2. E = strength of nuclear binding = 0.007
3. = normalized amount of matter in universe = 0.3
4. = normalised cosmological constant = 0.7
5. Q = seeds for cosmic structures = 1/100,000
6. D = number of spatial dimensions = 3

10

1
S
0.1

0
0

0.1

10

Nspace

4
3
Ntime

2
1
0
0

Message 4
The multiverse naturally explains fine-tunings
required for development of complexity

Pyramid of Complexity

Wilczeks classifcation of fundamental paremeters

INTERPRETATIONS OF ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE

God created universe?

Most physicists dont favour this, which made AP unpopular

Consciousness creates the Universe

Depends on minority interpretation of quantum theory

Fine-tunings result from selection effect in multiverse?

Some physicists like this because it removes need

for God, others regard it as equally metaphysical.

Albert Einstein
What really interests me is whether God
had any choice in the creation of the world

I would like to state a theorem which at present cannot be

based upon anything more than upon a faith in the simplicity,
i.e., intelligibility, of nature: there are no arbitrary
constants ... that is to say, nature is so constituted that it is
possible logically to lay down such strongly determined laws
that within these laws only rationally completely determined
constants occur (not constants, therefore, whose numerical
value could be changed without destroying the theory).

GRAND UNIIFICATION

SCALE WORLDVIEW FORCE

COSMIC
EXPANSION
DARK
MATTER

WIMPS
ELECTROWEAK

BRIEF HISTORY OF PHYSICS

WEAK
STRONG

Heliocentric

Geocentric

ELECTRICITY

Galactocentric

GRAVITY

VACUUM
GRAND UNIIFICATION

10-30cm

BIG BANG

DARK ENERGY
Cosmocentric

SCALE WORLDVIEW FORCE

COSMIC
EXPANSION
DARK
MATTER

WIMPS
ELECTROWEAK

BRIEF HISTORY OF PHYSICS

WEAK
STRONG

Heliocentric

Geocentric

ELECTRICITY

Galactocentric

GRAVITY

M-THEORY

MULTIVERSE
10-30cm

VACUUM
GRAND UNIIFICATION

BIG BANG

DARK ENERGY
Cosmocentric

SCALE WORLDVIEW FORCE

COSMIC
EXPANSION
DARK
MATTER

WIMPS
ELECTROWEAK

our
universe

BRIEF HISTORY OF PHYSICS

WEAK
STRONG

Heliocentric

Geocentric

ELECTRICITY

Galactocentric

GRAVITY

Multiverse

Higher dimensions
V

The limit of science

or change in nature
of science?

M-theory

DOES BIG BANG NEED A CREATOR?

How did Universe originate?

It started as state of compressed matter 13 Gyr ago
But where did the matter come from?
From radiation and GUT processes at microsecond
But where did the radiation come from?
Generated from vacuum phase transition at 10-35sec
But where did space come from?
Ex nihilo as result of quantum gravity at 10-43sec
But where did laws of quantum gravity come from?
The laws are logical mathematical necessities

What are the limits of legitimate science?

Where does it hand over to philosophy and theology?

PARADIGM SHIFTS - CHANGING DIMENSIONALITY OF PHYSICS

NEWTONIAN PICTURE
Absolute space and time

3D

SPECIAL RELATIVITY
Space + time = spacetime

4D

GENERAL RELATIVITY
Gravity = curved spacetime

>4D

KALUZA-KLEIN PICTURE
Electromagnetism = 5th dimension

5D

Other forces = other dimensions

11D

M-THEORY

THE NATURE OF LEGITIMATE SCIENCE

Robert Trotta

What is the timescale of each of these steps?

One needs a degree of falsifiability but how much and how soon?

The multiverse is part of science if it is predicted

by a physical theory which is testable (M
-theory). But what if theory is itself untestable?

Conclusion
The nature of legitimate science changes
We usually mark advances in the history of science
by what we learn about nature, but at certain critical
moments the most important thing is what we discover
about science itself. These discoveries lead to changes
in how we score our work, in what we consider to be
an acceptable theory.
Steven Weinberg
I found a report of a discussion at a conference at Stanford,
at which Martin Rees said that he was sufficiently confident
about the multiverse to bet his dog's life on it, while Andrei
Linde said he would bet his own life. As for me, I have just
enough confidence about the multiverse to bet the lives of
both Andrei Linde and Martin Rees's dog.

Lesson 5: Dont necessarily reject theoretical prediction

because no observational support

Message 5
What we call the universe is always growing and
as it does so nature of legitimate science changes

Freivogel, Horowitz & Shenker (2007)

=0 bubble colliding with <0 bubble
Chang, Kleban & Levi (2008, 2009)
Generalize work of Freivogel et al. to non-zero and finds
can produce axis of evil. Benign collision if our less than
neighbour. Otherwise form wall between universes which
sweeps through at c. Can produce hot or cold spot in CMB
which can survival arbitrarily long.
Freivogel, Kleban, Nicolis & Sigurdson (2009)
Calculate probability distribution for bubble collisions and allow
for dynamics of domain walls that form between them. Now
predict isotropic distribution.
Dahlen (2009)
Extend Freivogel et al. to case with identical bubbles.

Black holes as a probe of higher dimensions

Increasing E --> evoln of dimensionality of early Universe

The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory

and the Illusion of Intelligent Design
Leonard Susskind
Why is a certain constant of nature one
number rather than another? Susskind
concludes that "somewhere in the
megaverse the constant equals this number,
somewhere else it is that number. We live in
one tiny pocket where the value of the
constant is consistent with our kind of life.
Thats it! Thats all. There is no other
answer to the question. The anthropic
principle is thus rendered respectable and
intelligent design is just an illusion

Observable universe is tiny part of physical reality

But is the unobervable universe part of science?

Martin Rees slippery slope

COSMIC UROBORUS

Is there room for God?

FOUR VIEWS

BONES OF CONTENTION
(Carr v Ellis, A & G, April 2008)
1. There are plausibly galaxies just beyond the visual horizon, where we
cannot see then, so we can extend this argument, step by step, to way beyond
the horizon and infer there are many different universes which we cannot see.
2. The existence of a multiverse is implied by inflation, which is verified by
the CMB anisotropy observations. In particular, known physics leads to
chaotic inflation and this implies a multiverse.
3. The existence of a multiverse is the only physical explanation for the fine
-tuning of parameters that leads to our existence.
4. The existence of a multiverse is implied by a probability argument: the
universe is no more special than it need be to create life. In particular the
small value of the cosmological constant shows that other universes exist.
5. Even if one does not accept inflation, multiverses are predicted by many
theories of particle physics.
6. The nature of science changes, so what is illegitimate science today may be
legitimate tomorrow.

Braneworlds