Tag Archives: multiverse

Abstract cosmic scene with transparent spheres floating against a colorful galaxy backdrop.

Is the Universe Finite or Infinite?

The universe we can see and measure is about 13.8 billion years old. However, the universe is larger than 13.8 billion light years in diameter due to the expansion and subsequent inflation of space, in accordance with the Big Bang theory. In fact, our best current estimate, taking expansion and inflation of space into account, puts the edge of the observable universe at about 46–47 billion light-years away from Earth. This “edge” would represent our current cosmological horizon.

If you assume that the universe is infinite, then logically it would extend beyond the current cosmological horizon. Scientists have termed this infinite universe a “super-universe.” If the infinite universe theory is correct, our universe may be one universe out of uncountable billions in the super-universe. We cannot see the other universes because our current observation technology is unable to look through the cosmic microwave-background radiation, which originated when the matter in the universe was plasma (hot, ionized gas), and thus opaque. In theory, if we develop more advanced observation technology, such as a neutrino telescope (one capable of detecting neutrinos) or even a gravitational telescope (one capable of detecting the yet-undiscovered gravitation particle called a “graviton”), we would be able to look beyond the cosmic microwave-background radiation and see older events. We would have a new cosmological horizon, but we would never be able to examine the “edge” of an infinite universe. Why? It has no edge—and advances in cosmic observation technology will not matter. Even the hypothetical graviton (the theoretical particle of gravity), traveling at the speed of light, would never reach us from an infinitely distant universe.

Why is an infinite universe even plausible? We know from actual observations that the universe’s expansion is accelerating. The farther out our instruments allow us to observe, we can measure that the expansion is accelerating, and even exceeding the speed of light. The accelerating expansion is termed “inflation,” and was confirmed in the late 1990s. Until inflation’s confirmation, scientists believed that gravity would eventually slow the universe’s expansion, and even eventually cause the universe to contract in a “Big Crunch,” since gravity causes everything to pull on everything.

Long before we had any observable proof of the universe’s inflationary expansion, two scientists independently postulated its existence in 1979. Unfortunately, one scientist, Alexei Starobinsky of the L.D. Landau Institute of Theoretical Physics in Moscow, was unable to communicate his work to the worldwide scientific community due to the political policies of the former Soviet Union. Fortunately, the other scientist, Alan Guth, Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, developed an inflationary model independently, and communicated it worldwide. Guth’s model, however, was not able to reconcile itself with the isotropic, homogeneous universe we observe today. In other words, to the best of our current ability to measure it, the universe essentially looks the same in every direction. Andrei Linde, Russian-American theoretical physicist and Professor of Physics at Stanford University, solved Guth’s theoretical dilemma in 1986. Linde published an alternative model entitled “Eternally Existing Self-Reproducing Chaotic Inflationary Universe” (known as “Chaotic Inflation theory”). In Linde’s model, our universe is one of countless others. A prediction of the chaotic inflation theory is an infinite universe with bubble universes within it. Would they be the same as our universe? No one knows. Perhaps one or more universes would be different from ours. However, being infinite, an infinite number of universes would be identical to ours, even down to the last atom, obeying the same physical laws.

The concept of an infinite universe would also imply an infinite number of us (you, me, and everyone else) are out there somewhere beyond the cosmic horizon. Given an infinite number of us, we are living out every possible scenario. This is difficult to comprehend because infinite numbers cannot be comprehended. Here is a simple way to think about this. If you play poker, what are the odds that you will be dealt a royal flush (Ace, King, Queen, Jack, Ten, all in the same suit) in the first five cards? They are 2,598,960 to 1. That means you will get a royal flush about once every 2,598,960 hands of five-card poker (known as five-card stud poker). Even if you play every day, and for numerous hours a day, you may never get one. However, if you have forever, and continue playing, eventually you will get one, then another, and with infinite time, an uncountable number (an infinite number). Using this example, if there are an infinite number of us in the universe, then each of us in some part of the universe will experience a possible scenario. Since there are an infinite number of us, as a group we will experience every conceivable scenario. For example, in one of these possible scenarios, you would be the President of the United States.

I recognize the implications of an infinite universe are difficult to comprehend. A natural question to ask is, is it possible? The fact is, it’s theoretically possible, but there is no conclusive physical evidence. Recently, it’s been suggested that irregularities observed in the cosmic microwave background may be evidence of another universe bumping into ours. However, there is no scientific consensus regarding that hypothesis, so I am going to leave that discussion for a future post. Currently, it is scientifically valid to assert we do not know if the universe is finite or infinite.

M-theory

M-theory Explained

M-theory — Physicist Louis Del Monte discusses the discoveries leading to M-theory. Del Monte explains M-theory’s “membrane universes” (i.e. branes) and the 11-dimensions predicted by the theory. According to M-theory, a collision between branes gives birth to a new universe. In this context, according to M-theory, the Big Bang would be a result of a collision between branes.

Del Monte explains the two major criticisms M-theory’s opponents assert:

1. M-theory is not provable. Therefore, many in the scientific community do not consider it a valid theory of science.

2. M-theory does not explain the origin of the energy to create membrane universes, or to spawn new universes when branes collide.

In summary, opponents assert we are trying to explain a universe we can experience and measure with an M-theory universe that we cannot experience and measure.

Del Monte’s position: As a theory of the universe, especially in creating universes, M-theory is not provable with today’s technology. Until it is provable, we should view it as mathematical construct. It does not address the fundamental question: where did the energy originate to create the membranes? However, M-theory does offer some useful tools, via its prediction of an 11-dimension universe. This may provide clues in understanding other physical phenomena, such as virtual particles.

This subject is also fully discussed in Louis Del Monte’s new book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (available in paper back or as an eBook on Amazon http://amzn.to/Zo1TGn and Barnes & Noble http://bit.ly/RAv4FL).

For more information about Louis Del Monte, please follow Louis Del Monte on Twitter (https://twitter.com/delmontelouis), and view his Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/DelMonte.Louis

Multiverse

The Multiverse Doesn’t Solve The Major Cosmological Problems – Part 3


In part three, Physicist Louis Del Monte discusses the multiverse theories and points out three major problems all multiverse theories have in common, namely:

1.The multiverse theories do not explain the origin of the energy to create multiverses
2.There is no conclusive proof of a multiverse
3.Critics argue it is bad science

For more information and Del Monte’s book, “Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries,” check out http://louisdelmonte.com.

Multiverse

The Multiverse Doesn’t Solve The Major Cosmological Problems – Part 2


In part two, Physicist Louis Del Monte discusses the multiverse theories and points out three major problems all multiverse theories have in common, namely:

1.The multiverse theories do not explain the origin of the energy to create multiverses
2.There is no conclusive proof of a multiverse
3.Critics argue it is bad science

For more information and Del Monte’s book, “Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries,” check out http://louisdelmonte.com.

Multiverse

The Multiverse Doesn’t Solve The Major Cosmological Problems – Part 1


In this three-part series, Physicist Louis Del Monte discusses the multiverse theories and points out three major problems all multiverse theories have in common, namely:

1.The multiverse theories do not explain the origin of the energy to create multiverses
2.There is no conclusive proof of a multiverse
3.Critics argue it is bad science

For more information and Del Monte’s book, “Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries,” check out http://louisdelmonte.com.

Fine points (pt1) of Big Bang Duality theory

Part 2 – The Big Bang Duality Theory

In Part 2, of the fine points about Big Bang Duality theory, physicist Louis Del Monte continues to explain his Big Bang Duality theory, which implies a multiverse. The major strength of the Big Bang Duality theory is its basis, namely experimentally verified observations or extensions of experimentally verified observations. Del Monte points out that even the Big Bang Duality theory stills leaves profound mysteries to be solved. Del Monte explains this is what he terms the Del Monte Paradox: Each significant scientific discovery results in at least one profound scientific mystery. For more information and Del Monte’s book, “Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries,” check out http://louisdelmonte.com.

A vibrant spiral galaxy surrounded by numerous bright stars in deep space.

The Reality of Time

Philosophers have been pondering the nature of time for at least the last 2500 years. The key question boil down to: is time real or is it a mental construct?

We often equate time with change, such as sand flowing through an hourglass. However, imagine if there were no change. Would time still exist? To address this question, let us take an example from Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries (2012), by Louis A. Del Monte (available at Amazon.com). The example will be a thought experiment. We do not currently have technology that permits us to perform this example in a lab, but performing it in our minds will illustrate the point.

Consider an atom frozen at absolute zero. All motion in the atom would stop. I am aware that this thought experiment violates the laws of thermodynamics and quantum mechanics. However, please remember it is a thought experiment to illustrate point. The purpose of this thought experiment is to allow us, conceptually, to separate existence from change. From the standpoint of the atom, there is no change. All motion has stopped. Yet, the atom continues to exist.

This raises the question: what does it mean to exist? One possible scenario is to equate existence to movement in the fourth dimension. If the atom were to move in any of the typical three-dimensional spatial coordinates, the atom would have kinetic energy associated with that movement. Similarly, one could argue that an atom moving in the fourth dimension would also have kinetic energy.

In Einstein’s special theory of relativity, the typical three-dimensional spatial coordinates are what we experience in everyday life, namely height, width, and length. The fourth dimension is also a spatial coordinate, but is equal to ict, where i = , c is the speed of light in empty space, and t is time, representing the numerical order of physical events measured with clocks.

If we want to express movement in the fourth dimension, we would need to use the mathematical discipline of calculus. If we want to calculate the kinetic energy associated with that movement, we would use the relativistic equation for kinetic energy. These calculations have been performed and are documented in aforementioned book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries. For the sake of brevity, I will only present the result here. The kinetic energy associated with moving in the fourth dimension is:

KEX4 = -.3mc2

Where KEX4is the energy associated with an object’s movement in in the fourth dimension X4, m is the rest mass of an object, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum. I have termed this equation the Existence Equation Conjecture.

What does it mean? My interpretation is that existence requires negative energy. In fact, even for a small object like a cupcake, the negative energy would be enormous, typically about equal to an atomic bomb, only negative.

In my book, Unraveling the Universe’s Mysteries, I used the equation to explain the physics behind time dilation. I will just briefly describe here that I compare the kinetic energy required to extend the life of a muon (a negatively charged fundamental particle about 200 times heavier than an electron) to the energy required to satisfy the Existence Equation Conjecture for that extended life. Correlation of the experimental results of accelerating a muon (i.e. adding kinetic energy to the muon) to increase its existence (known as time dilation) are within 2% predicted by the Existence Equation Conjecture.

Many of you may wonder why I added the word “Conjecture.” I have only one solid data point and feel the scientific community should weigh in on the validity of the equation. Therefore, I consider it a conjecture at this point.

If the equation continues to hold up under scientific scrutiny, then we have a new insight into the nature of existence.

It is hard to believe or even imagine that the simple state of being (existence) requires negative energy. Welcome to the edge of science, where physics and metaphysics blur.